![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
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:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
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?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
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?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
My bad, I didn't notice the story was already included. In the current draft, it reads thus:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 247
![]() |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |