[Aiwendil]

My goodness, I disappear for a bit, and a late Tolkien text with major implications appears. I’m sorry I wasn’t around last August when these discussions of “Concerning The Hoard” were initially happening.

Some general remarks first about my impression of the text. First of all, I would rest easier if we had firmer evidence for the date. It’s said to be from “circa 1964”, and I accept that this is the case, but since that makes it probably the latest text concerning the Ruin of Doriath, it would be better if we could be sure about it.

It’s clearly intended as a quick and ready guide to the events for the recipient of the letter, and taking this together with Tolkien’s tendency for “slips of the pen” in later years, I think we should not be overly eager to take every word here as gospel, particularly on subjects not immediately connected with the letter’s main topic, i.e., Glaurung’s hoard and the Ruin of Doriath. On the other hand, this is also not just a quick note that he sent off; concerning its central subject, it’s pretty clear that it really does express his intentions for the story at the time.

As I see it, the most important deviation of “Concerning ‘The Hoard’” from the story as we previously projected it is the explanation for how the Dwarves went to war with Thingol despite the protection of the Girdle of Melian. Here, two alternatives are offered: either the Girdle had already been robbed of its power by the evil deeds within, or else Melian, out of grief and horror at those deeds, removed the Girdle herself. This is in contrast to a note given in HoMe XI, found among notes on the Narn i Chin Hurin and apparently dating from about the same time as them, proposing that Thingol must be “lured outside or induced to go to war” beyond the Girdle’s border and killed; then Melian departs and the Girdle is removed with her departure.

Now, we don’t know the date of that latter note. It would seem most likely, based on what CT tells us in HoMe XI, that it dates from a time during which Tolkien was working on Turin’s story, which would put it somewhere in the ’50s. Given the lack of a date for that note, and the lack of a precise date for “Concerning ‘The Hoard’”, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that the note in XI is actually the latter of the two. But certainly the evidence favors the opposite conclusion, that “Concerning ‘The Hoard’” postdates the “lured or induced to go to war” note.

I must say that, personally, I find the “Concerning ‘The Hoard’” version weaker. It’s unclear why evil deeds done within Doriath would weaken Melian’s magic, and even less clear why Melian would forsake Thingol and leave him to his death rather than doing her best to counsel wisdom, as she typically does. Whereas it’s easy for me to imagine an overly confident Thingol leaving the protection of his realm. But that’s just my personal feeling, which can play no role in our decisions. Since the version where Melian intentionally removes the Girdle is difficult to fathom, though, I think we are left with the idea that the Girdle was robbed of its power by the evil deeds within Doriath as the best, latest version of this part of the story.

I see there’s also been more discussion concerning the note in the Beren & Luthien volume referring to a text in which the Nauglamir was made for Finrod (“Text X” as Findegil calls it). My feeling about this previously was that we cannot take this version of the story into our text, and “Concerning ‘The Hoard’” only strengthens that opinion. To be perfectly honest, and to put it bluntly, I’m not completely convinced that “Text X” exists. If it does, it is remarkable that there is no mention of it in HoMe XI, where CT offers a kind of apologia for his version of The Ruin of Doriath. It seems just possible that in preparing Of Beren and Luthien, the 92 year-old Christopher Tolkien misremembered the idea of an earlier provenance for the Nauglamir as one that derived from his father’s notes. I’m not saying this is the case; I’m saying it’s possible.

But let’s assume Text X exists. Apparently, it was not one that CT deemed significant enough to include or even to mention in HoMe. Nor do we have any inkling of a date for it. What we do have now, sitting before us with a date less than ten years before Tolkien’s death, is a text that says:

The smiths came and laboured long, and among other marvellous works they made the renowned “Necklace of the Dwarves”, of silver, upon which was set in the middle the peerless Silmaril that Beren and Lúthien had won from the Iron Crown of the Dark Lord.

As far as I’m concerned, a text that we possess and know to date from a late period trumps a text of which all that we possess is a vague allusion and no date.

With these things in mind, let me give my thoughts on Findegil’s post from nearly a year ago now.

Originally Posted by ”Findegil”

RD-SL-03.5: This is not new but an undecided issue: Was the Nauglamír made for Finrod Fealgund and brought to Menegroth by Húrin as a special item of the hoard and there the Dwarves ‘only’ put it together with the Silmaril or was it made by the Dwarves in Menegroth for Thingol specially as a framework for his Silamril? For me the text of Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does play down the significance of the Silmaril in favor of the dragon-sickness and / or the curse of Mîm. The making of the “Neckless of the Dwarves” is only mentioned in passing, it is neither the object for which Thingol call upon the Dwarves nor in anyway the reason for the strife between Thingol and Dwarves. As we do not know if Text X was earlier or later than Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ we might follow a kind of ‘line of development’:
- In Q30 the Nauglamír is Thingol’s special desire and reason to summon the Dwarves.
- In Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ the Nauglamír is a by product of Thingols disere to have the unwroght metal of the Hoard used for works of Art.
- In Text X the Nauglamír is pre-existing and the Dwarves only but together ‘greatest of the works of Elves and Dwarves’.
That is why I have assume in my text the Nauglamír was pre-existing. But I am still hesitating about it and in the discussion in the books forum the majority seems to lean in the oposit direction or the Nauglamír made for Thingol.

I’m already a little bit lost here, for I cannot find RD-SL-03.5 in the list the RD-SL-## storyline items.

In any case, I have already given my opinion on this. I do not think we can elevate our hypothetical Text X to the status of the latest and most authoritative statement on the matter, for a host of reasons. We must go with the Nauglamir being made for Thingol.

RD-SL-05: Do we use the quarrels on the road at all? I am open both ways here and included it with the necessary changes as an explanation why some (small) part of the hoard was lost on the road. But I am open to skip it completely.

It seems to me that the quarrels on the road were invented solely to get rid of Turin’s band of followers in Q30. Since the outlaws are no longer meant to die in this way, I don’t see any reason for the half measure of still including the cause of their death. I think the quarrels on the road must go.

RD-SL-07: In generall there is no change necessary here, but the new source gives some details of the conversation that should be used. Most important may be the fact that Thingol does not send Húrin away.
RD-SL-08: The fight between the Outlaws and the Tahnes of Thingol is now back.

Agreed on both of these.

RD-SL-09 & RD-SL-10: The Outlaws are all killed, so there is no question of them taking any part of the Hoard from Menegroth. (I am sad for the Asgon part of the Outlaws – but well over all this is a tragedy, so some victims are to be expected.)

I agree that it’s a shame that Asgon dies here, but so it goes. At least in our text there is no explicit mention of Asgon after they leave Brethil; if the reader prefers to imagine that Asgon left the band before they took the treasure, he or she is free to do so.

RD-SL-12: Now we have the exact conditions of the angament: one tithe of the unwrought metals. This makes the statement about the Nauglamír a double edged sword: ‘Albeit a weight beyond belief of gold was used in the making, lightly it hung upon its wearer as a strand of flax …’ At first sight it is ony a praise for the handiwork of the Dwarven smiths, but in view of the ‘contract’ and the strife that developed around it, the Dwarves could have overstated the amount and if not straightforward steeling the overstated gold they could at least countup the promissed tithe.

But this must now be changed, surely - for “Concerning ‘The Hoard’” says that the Nauglamir was made of silver. I think we can simply change it to ‘Albeit a weight beyond belief of silver was used in the making’.

RD-SL-13: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ is very compressed, but it does not seem to be Thingol demanding the Nauglamír. I would rather have the Dwarves asking for the bone of working with these two most beautyfull artfacts and Thingol agree to it with some reluctance.

It does seem that CTH is completely neutral on the question of whose idea it was to make the Nauglamir, though it does say that the Dwarves sent their best smiths “to work at Thingol’s orders”. In any case, I don’t see any reason that this text would make us reconsider the choice we made before, of removing the element of the Dwarves waiting until they had shown Thingol there other works and then specifically asking to make a necklace for the Silmaril.

RD-SL-14 - RD-SL-16: In this part I think we should take Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ as our basic text and see what can be added from the other sources. (We might start with that process even earlier.)

Agreed.

RD-SL-17: Now there is not only no battel, but the Dwarves leave Menegroth without payment by their owne choice – some stubbornness is clearly involved here: If we do not get what is our due, we will rather take nothing and come back in force to take the full payment.
RD-SL-18: As the material in UT very late I think the exclusion of the Dwarves from Belegost is still valid.
RD-SL-19: Mîm’s death reappears as an argument in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’, so it should be included.
RD-SL-20: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does assist the view that no treachers Elves from Doriath were involved in the planning or actual attack. (Phu, we are lucky not to re-open that discussion!)

Agreed on all of these points.

RD-SL-21: Thingol is now neither ‘lured outside’ nor ‘induced to go to war beyond his borders’. Instead, the Girdle is simply ineffective due to the bead behavier of the Elves within or removed deliberately! by Melian. This leaves me with a lot of questions, but for our editing I would say we should take up that blank statement and leave it ambiguous which of the two things happen really (making both options opinions of the middle-earth reporters of this tale.) Anyhow we have to deal with Melian. She is not metioned again in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’, so she does not bring the news to Ossiriand, since that done by fugitives. I would even re-establish her talk to Naugladur in Menegroth and the unablility of the Dwarves to molest her in any way.

I suppose we really have no justification to decide one way or the other - the Girdle being robbed of its power due to the evil deeds within or Melian deliberately removing it. As I’ve said, I find the latter possibility faintly ridiculous. But that’s as may be. However, I’m not sure why anything in CTH would urge the reinstatement of Melian’s talk with Naugladur and the inability of the Dwarves to carry her off.

RD-SL-22: The only detail given in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ about Thingols death is that it is mentioned last even after the violation of his halls. If we don’t want the Dwarves to execute him after they made him a prisoner, I think Thingol has to be outside Menegroth, when it is attacked. And the way to archive that in the narrative is the celebrational hunt. Thus the details of Thingols death can stay.

I very much disagree with this. The fact that Thingol’s death is mentioned after the sack of Menegroth does not imply that one happened after the other, and certainly not that they were separated by a significant interval of time. Indeed, the way it is phrased suggests to me that the violation of his halls and the killing of Thingol occurred together. And something as major as Thingol being away on a hunt at the time of the sack, and being killed later in a separate battle, is not something that seems likely to be left out of this account, compressed though it is. Note also that if we assume the king was killed later, outside Menegroth, then we must interpret CTH as jumping backward in time in the following paragraph to talk about the plundering of the hoard from Menegroth.

So, I’m afraid I’m firmly of the opinion that the hunt must go, and that Thingol was killed at Menegroth.

RD-SL-22.5: The discussion of the honesty of the Dwarves and going against that by taking the Nauglamír with the Silmaril has of course to be included.

Agreed.

RD-SL-27: The discussion about the ford of the battle and over which river it leads is now settled, but in contrary to our former decision: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does tell us that its one of “Seven Rivers of Ossir”. And the Hoard is cast into that river and no other and that river is then re-named signifying “Golden-ded”. So the conclusion from that text is that the battle at the ford was at the Ascar not at the Duin Daer / Gelion. Which must mean we have Athrod Daer, the Great Ford, leading the Dwarve road over Duin Daer / Gelion into Talath Rhúnen above the confluence of Duin Daer and Ascar and a second ford nearer to the Erd Luin leading the road over Ascar into Ossiriand (probably it would only change the side of Ascar on which the road was build, since I beleife strongly that road followed that River into the mountains leading to the pass.) Farther question her: Do we name that second Ford Sarn Athrod, the Stony Ford? The name clearly fits the description of the place of that battle that we still use in our version and is free to be used since the ford over Duin Daer is now named differently. So I would use it.

I think I agree with this line of thinking, and I am fine with using “Sarn Athrad” for the ford over the Ascar.

On the point that Gondowe brought up regarding RD-EX-54, I do think, looking at it now, that we cannot make the bald statement that the Dwarves drew more nigh in friendship to the followers of Morgoth. This isn’t related to CTH, but it’s something that should’ve been caught before. It’s a very pre-The Hobbit conception of Dwarves. I think we need to delete this statement.

Well, those are my thoughts. Hopefully Findegil, Gondowe, and others still check in here from time to time and I’m not talking to a void.