Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithadan
I agree with Findegal that having Hurin transport to Doriath only the Nauglamir (with the corresponding following events that the Dwarven smiths slew Thingol in his treasury, and, later, the Dwarves assault Doriath presumably after the Girdle falls) is the smoothest narrative presenting the fewest problems. What, in our view, works best does not equate to what JRRT would have written and therein lies the dilemma.
Whether The Hoard or any other note or fragment was Tolkien's final conception is and will likely always be a matter for debate. The quirks and different versions of the tales presented in The Hoard are worthy of discussion, analysis and debate. But I am now of the school holding that unless the mythical "final draft" or "final outline" by Tolkien emerges, there is no certain resolution. Latest in time is, to me, not enough. This does not mean that we should not ponder what that missing or nonexistent final draft might or might not include and discuss why.
|
Since we are, thankfully, not Christopher Tolkien trying to publish a version of the Silmarillion faithful to his father's "true" vision, there's a lot less pressure on us to figure out exactly what is going on in these various texts...
... but it is still confusing to me that so many Downers are trying to work "Text X" and Finrod's Nauglamir into the 'final' conception.
Christopher Tolkien literally wrote a multi-page essay apologising for using that version of the story. It wasn't until 2017 that he ever mentioned that there was
any JRRT source for it. Yes, it's possible to construct a scenario whereby it has priority over "Concerning", or the two stories should be merged, or whatnot, but every single relevant JRRT text we have access to, across more than 40 years, confirms that the Nauglamir was made for Thingol. There is no source even
hinting at an earlier origin until 2017. (The published Silmarillion introduction of the necklace is derived from the BoLT description, for instance - the 'flax' sentence is very distinctive.)
Honestly, given the apology note, the most
likely scenario is that 2017 CT mis-remembered, and Finrod's Nauglamir was invented for the published Silm. Failing that, I think my theory of it being a brief note in the pre-"Wanderings" material holds up. I've not seen any evidence of a substantial, definitive "Text X" which should displace "Concerning".
There are certainly parts of "Concerning" that need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Thingol dying on a hunt is common to every full version of the tale, so it's plausible that Tolkien simply forgot to mention that Thingol was killed prior to the Girdle falling, and had to tack it onto the end of the sentence. The loss of the "Tale of Years" story whereby the battle with the dwarves is shifted to Celegorm & Curufin (in this and another letter) seems likely to be him forgetting the proposed change entirely, or simply wanting his letters to align with his manuscripts rather than his jottings. But in the absence of any other evidence, and with CT's note in HoME XI to go by, I can't believe that Finrod's Nauglamir was ever more than a passing notion.
(As to the outlaws attacking Thingol and being killed... it kind of fits with the whole Narn, to my view. Asg(r)on is a sympathetic character who helps Turin and joins the lawful Lord of his house; he's only an 'outlaw' from the occupiers. But every single sympathetic character who attaches themselves to Hurin or his children winds up destroyed by the end of the story, so why would Asg(r)on be any different?)
hS