Ruin of Doriath - Final Part

[ArcusCalion]

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:

A later version of the story concerning the Nauglamír told that it had been made by craftsmen of the Dwarves long before for Felagund, and that it was the sole treasure that Húrin brought from Nargothrond and gave to Thingol. The task that Thingol then set the Dwarves was to remake the Nauglamír and in it to set the Silmaril that was in his possession. This is the form of the story in the published Silmarillion.

I am unsure if there was proof of there being an extant story of this nature before this, but if there was and it was discussed then I apologize for bringing this up again.

[Aiwendil]

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".

Originally Posted by Christopher Tolkien

For the story of the Nauglamîr and the destruction of Doriath, the fall of Gondolin, the attack on the Havens, we must return through more than a quarter of a century to the Quenta Noldorinwa (Q), or beyond.

This would seem to state that no version of that story later than Q exists.

Some interesting remarks of my father's concerning The Wanderings of Húrin are found on the back of one of the slips on which Professor Clyde Kilby wrote comments and criticisms of the work:

"The criticisms seem to me largely mistaken - no doubt because this is a fragment of a great saga, e.g. Thingol and Melian are mentioned as objects of Morgoth's malice, because Húrin's next exploit will be to bring ruin to Doriath. The outlaws are not a 'device', but already accounted for - and play a part in the story of Túrin when he came to Dor Lómin. Húrin does pick them up again and they are the nucleus of the force with which he goes to Nargothrond and slays Mîm and seizes the gold of the dragon.

As for 'too little action,' 'too much speech', I have re-read this quite impersonally after many years when I had practically forgotten it - the speeches are bitter and pungent and in themselves exciting. I thought the whole business from the entry of Húrin not only moving but very exciting."

The reference to Thingol and Melian arose from Professor Kilby's taking exception to their only being mentioned in one place (p. 259). The response that his remarks (written, I believe, in 1966) elicited is particularly interesting in that they show that the story of Húrin's seizing the treasure of Nargothrond was still fully in being, although my father never even approached it again. Very striking is his phrase, 'Húrin's next exploit will be to bring ruin to Doriath'.

This indicates that, at least as of 1966, Tolkien intended Hurin to be accompanied by a band of men on the journey to Nargothrond and, since he "seizes the gold of the dragon", it would certainly seem that at this point it is the full hoard, not just the Nauglamir, that is brought to Doriath.

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.

[ArcusCalion]

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?

[Aiwendil]

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?

[ArcusCalion]

My bad, I didn't notice the story was already included. In the current draft, it reads thus:

Many things were told of that most glorious thing. Not only was it wrought with the greatest skill and subtlety in the world but it had an enchanted power, and there was no throat so great or so slender whereon it sat not with grace and loveliness. Albeit a weight beyond belief of gold was used in the making, lightly it hung upon its wearer as a strand of flax; and all such as clasped it about their necks seemed, as it hung upon their breasts, to be of goodly countenance, and women seemed most fair. Gems uncounted were there in that carcanet of gold, yet only as a setting that did prepare for its great central glory, and led the eye thereto, for amidmost hung like a little lamp of limpid fire the Silmaril of Fëanor, jewel of the Valar. Yet alas, even had that gold of Nargothrond held no evil spell still had that carcanet been a thing of little luck, for the Dwarves were full of bitterness, and all its links were twined with baleful thoughts.
Now however did they bear it before the king in its new-gleaming splendour; and then was the joy of Thingol king of the woodland Elves come to its crowning, and he cast the Nauglamír about his throat, and straightway the curse of Mîm fell upon him. ...

Should we include something along the lines of 'It was called the Nauglamír, the Necklace of the Dwarves.' just so we formally name the necklace. As it is, it seems a little awkward to me.

[gondowe]

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

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by ArcusCalion

Should we include something along the lines of 'It was called the Nauglamír, the Necklace of the Dwarves.' just so we formally name the necklace. As it is, it seems a little awkward to me.

Oh, I see - we somehow never name the necklace when it first appears. I would have no real objection to adding something like what you suggest. Though if it is not named when first made in the LT text, perhaps we should leave it that way.

Originally Posted by gondowe

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.

Yes, but I think the two main issues are:

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.