Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering

[Aiwendil]

Aran - Interesting idea. However, I'm hesitant to do this because so much material is repeated in both A and B. Certainly, it's possible for there to be some redundancy between a 'Translator's Note' and a 'Preface', but I think that in this case it seems clear that Tolkien intended B to replace A rather than stand alongside it.

Can you explain your reservations about the name 'minlamad thent/estent'? I'm not aware of any problems with it, though I'm no Sindarin scholar.

On Andróg: Well, Findegil, I think you’ve come up with some very intriguing ideas here! Personally, I rather like the idea of Andróg as a member of Hurin’s band. Unfortunately (and I think you predicted I would say this), I fear it goes a bit too far and entails too much supposition to be justifiable within this project. Perhaps if I lay out the inferences and revisions inolved in your proposal I can better make my point:

1. We have to interpret “In this way also the matter of Mîm and his later dealings with Húrin were made clear” to assert that Andróg was a member of Hurin’s band at Nargothrond.

2. We change the ‘Narn’ so that Andróg does not die at Amon Rudh.

3. We move Beleg’s healing of Andróg from the place where it stands in the ‘Narn’ to after the battle.

4. We add to our ‘Ruin of Doriath’ text mention of Andróg being one of Hurin’s band.

5. We change the slayer of Mîm from Hurin to Andróg.

6. We assume (implicitly) that Andróg is killed by an arrow at some future point.

When I look at all that’s involved, it seems clear to me that this solution, as nice as it is, is too speculative for us. First of all, I don’t think that point 1 is at all clear-cut. It is certainly a very fascinating statement by Tolkien, and I’m grateful to you for pointing out it’s possible implications. But is Andróg as a member of Hurin’s band really the only way to read it? ‘In this way’ could, I think, be read as referring more generally to what was said before – i.e., that Dirhavel ‘gathered all the tidings and lore that he could of the House of Hador, whether among Men or Elves, remnants and fugitives of Dorlómin, of Nargothrond, or of Doriath.’ Or one could read it as implying that Andvír, rather than Andróg, was with Hurin.

Moreover, even if there were no ambiguity in point 1, the implementation of that change in points 2-6 might involve more speculation than we are allowed. In other words, even if we accept that Tolkien decided Andróg was one of Hurin’s followers, I think a good argument could be made that this falls under 2b in our principles:

. . . proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed.

Indeed, I’m still not completely convinced that even the statement that Andróg survived the battle doesn’t fall into that category.

You also make an interesting observation about the recurrence of the motif of the traitor to Turin being killed by an arrow. But, though I think this too is an astute observation, what then do we make of the alternative form of Andróg’s curse (‘May he lack a bow at need ere his end’)? Also, there is no suggestion anywhere that Andróg himself is the one who kills the Dwarf, even if we consider Andróg’s curse a ‘source text’ for the death of Mîm (which is a bit of a stretch).

So in the end, I think that while your idea itself is great, it is not suitable for our project. On the smaller matter of whether Andróg survives Amon Rudh at all, I think we are in safer territory. I am still not entirely convinced on this point, though. What bothers me is that when it was written, Mîm’s curse was clearly supposed to be fulfilled during the attack on Amon Rudh. Having Andróg survive that battle doesn’t contradict the letter of the curse, but it does retroactively change the import of the curse from what it was when that part of the narrative was written. That’s not necessarily sufficient reason to reject Andróg’s survival, but it at least ought to be considered.

If I had to make a decision, I suppose I would vote against the revision that incorporates Andróg into Hurin’s company but for the less drastic revision that has him survive Amon Rudh (in spite of my reservations).

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Aran - Interesting idea. However, I'm hesitant to do this because so much material is repeated in both A and B. Certainly, it's possible for there to be some redundancy between a 'Translator's Note' and a 'Preface', but I think that in this case it seems clear that Tolkien intended B to replace A rather than stand alongside it.

Can you explain your reservations about the name 'minlamad thent/estent'? I'm not aware of any problems with it, though I'm no Sindarin scholar.

You may be right on Tolkien's decision, I was just pointing out that it's not quite as clear cut as could be hoped, and it might be good to salvage most of A somehow for the sake of added detail.

As to "minlamad thent / estent," my primary problem is that it seems to have no sure translation in the later Sindarin. Also, I doubt the form would have been retained as such, especially as Tolkien himself did not use it in B. I will try and look into it more, and see if I can trace it's etymology to anything coherent. In any case, I'd say the surest thing is to simply avoid naming it outright.

On Andróg: Well, Findegil, I think you’ve come up with some very intriguing ideas here! Personally, I rather like the idea of Andróg as a member of Hurin’s band. Unfortunately (and I think you predicted I would say this), I fear it goes a bit too far and entails too much supposition to be justifiable within this project. Perhaps if I lay out the inferences and revisions inolved in your proposal I can better make my point:

1. We have to interpret “In this way also the matter of Mîm and his later dealings with Húrin were made clear” to assert that Andróg was a member of Hurin’s band at Nargothrond.

2. We change the ‘Narn’ so that Andróg does not die at Amon Rudh.

3. We move Beleg’s healing of Andróg from the place where it stands in the ‘Narn’ to after the battle.

4. We add to our ‘Ruin of Doriath’ text mention of Andróg being one of Hurin’s band.

5. We change the slayer of Mîm from Hurin to Andróg.

6. We assume (implicitly) that Andróg is killed by an arrow at some future point.

When I look at all that’s involved, it seems clear to me that this solution, as nice as it is, is too speculative for us. First of all, I don’t think that point 1 is at all clear-cut. It is certainly a very fascinating statement by Tolkien, and I’m grateful to you for pointing out it’s possible implications. But is Andróg as a member of Hurin’s band really the only way to read it? ‘In this way’ could, I think, be read as referring more generally to what was said before – i.e., that Dirhavel ‘gathered all the tidings and lore that he could of the House of Hador, whether among Men or Elves, remnants and fugitives of Dorlómin, of Nargothrond, or of Doriath.’ Or one could read it as implying that Andvír, rather than Andróg, was with Hurin.

Moreover, even if there were no ambiguity in point 1, the implementation of that change in points 2-6 might involve more speculation than we are allowed. In other words, even if we accept that Tolkien decided Andróg was one of Hurin’s followers, I think a good argument could be made that this falls under 2b in our principles:



Indeed, I’m still not completely convinced that even the statement that Andróg survived the battle doesn’t fall into that category.

You also make an interesting observation about the recurrence of the motif of the traitor to Turin being killed by an arrow. But, though I think this too is an astute observation, what then do we make of the alternative form of Andróg’s curse (‘May he lack a bow at need ere his end’)? Also, there is no suggestion anywhere that Andróg himself is the one who kills the Dwarf, even if we consider Andróg’s curse a ‘source text’ for the death of Mîm (which is a bit of a stretch).

So in the end, I think that while your idea itself is great, it is not suitable for our project. On the smaller matter of whether Andróg survives Amon Rudh at all, I think we are in safer territory. I am still not entirely convinced on this point, though. What bothers me is that when it was written, Mîm’s curse was clearly supposed to be fulfilled during the attack on Amon Rudh. Having Andróg survive that battle doesn’t contradict the letter of the curse, but it does retroactively change the import of the curse from what it was when that part of the narrative was written. That’s not necessarily sufficient reason to reject Andróg’s survival, but it at least ought to be considered.

If I had to make a decision, I suppose I would vote against the revision that incorporates Andróg into Hurin’s company but for the less drastic revision that has him survive Amon Rudh (in spite of my reservations).

I don't think having Andróg survive is a valid idea. Regarding the convoluted story of the "curse," Tolkien seems to have decided at the very least that Andróg was to die on Amon Rudh. I would agree with the suggestion of having Andvír be in Húrin's band.

If I may, I suggest that we use the alternate version of Andróg's curse, and note that Mîm "reached about for a weapon, but found none" when Húrin kills him, or something to that effect.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Upon further reviewing the linguistic situation of "Minlamad thent / estent," I have changed my mind. It appears to be a name made of both an acceptable form and an uncertain one. Here is my reasoning:

"Minlamad" seems to mean 'first [sound]-echoing,' refering to the alliterative form of the verse. I have come to believe, however, that "thent / estent" is not intended as a real title, but rather is the result of Professor Tolkien being unsure of which form he liked better; "thent" or "estent." Both seem to relate to "thenn," meaning 'short'. This likely refers to the fact that the alliterative verse is typically broken into two balanced, "short" lines. Due to other evidences, I would say that "thent" was probably the form finally chosen. As a final note, it might be appropriate to change "thent" to the plural form "thint."

This leaves us with "Minlamad thint" as the Elvish name of alliterative verse. (Or 'Minlamad thent' in unaltered form.)


What do you think?


EDIT: As an aside, if Aelfwine and all references to old England are to be removed, then the words "scop and walhstod" should be rendered in modern English: "poet and translator."

[Aiwendil]

Your translation of 'Minlamad thent/estent' agrees with that proposed by Patrick Wynne and Carl Hostetter in their essay 'Three Elvish Verse Modes'.

As I think more about it, it seems clearer to me that 'thent/estent' indicates two possible versions of the name ('minlamad thent' or 'minlamad estent'), as Aran argues, rather than the name being 'minlamad thent/estent'. Wynne and Hofstetter do argue that the latter is a possibility and that 'thent/estent' means something like 'short/short' (other possible verse modes, presumably, being 'short/long', 'long/long', etc.) But if this were the case, I can't understand why two different forms of the word for 'short' would be used. (Unless maybe the difference has to do with lenition? That whole phenomenon is rather obscure to me).

Findegil, I believe you earlier expressed the opinion that the name was intended to be 'minlamad thent/estent' and that these are not variants. Can you offer an argument for this?

[Aran e-Godhellim]

The change to "estent" cannot be due to Lenition, or any other mutation, as 'th' is a non-mutative consonant. I also doubt the alternate meanings ("very short" or "long"), as they do not match the known Elvish words for those two terms.

[Findegil]

Andróg: Aiwendil wrote:

Unfortunately (and I think you predicted I would say this), I fear it goes a bit too far and entails too much supposition to be justifiable within this project.

To be honest, when I first had the idea of Andróg being the one to fulfill his curse on Mîm (re-reading the Lay), I posted it to draw you back to the project. I hoped that this idea that I found at first reducules would up set you to an extend that would make not posting right away against it unbearable.
But then I found the passage in about clearing up of Húrins later dealings with Mîm and I got cought in my own net, so to speak. The idea routed it self in my brain and I am convinced that this is the interpretation of the situation for me hence forward.
But that does not mean that we have to adopt it and make it explicit in this project. It does mean that I will agree only with very much reluctance to any explicit statement that would make this story line impossible. Thus I can see good reason not to include a reference to Andróg as a member of Húrins band. But I see very good reason for Andrógs survival of the battle of Amon Ruð. The best evidence for it is found in the commentray to Ælfwine and Dírhaval (emphasies is mine):

Now the story of Turin and Beleg in Mim's hidden dwelling on Amon Rudh and the short-lived 'Land of Bow and Helm', Dor-Cuarthol, belongs (like all the rest of the huge extension of this part of the 'Turins Saga') to the period after the publication of The Lord of the Rings; and the mention in text A of the man Andvir, 'the son of that Androg who was in the outlaw-band of Turin, and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rudh' (see note 2) shows that this story was fully in being (so far as it ever went) when A was written - indeed it seems likely enough that A belongs to the time when my father was working on it.

For me that means, that the A text was later then most of the workings on that part of the story and would therefore have precidence.

If we can agree on this, as seems possible, then I still think that we have to transfer his healing by Beleg to the time after the battle. To have a repeated healing will not go in my oppionion.

Minlamad thent/estent: I can't contribute much to that discussion. To take it at one name and not fariants was not more then the expression in HoME 11. Aiwendil could you point me to were I would find the essay of Wynne and Hofstetter? I would like to read what they have to say before discussing that farther.

Ælfwine and Dírhavel A and B: Text B are not a forword by Tolkien but by Ælfwine. Since Ælfwine is out of our version A can not be used as it is. Anyway I cant see a proper place for an editorial forward other then the before the start of the text of 'Translations from the Elvish'. And such a forward is probably our responsibility.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aran e-Godhellim]

I have disagreed with Christopher Tolkien's reading of that passage ever since I set eyes on it. He seems to think that it is impossible the line refers to Andvír, but I think he is wrong. The line is slightly ambiguous, certainly, but it makes far more sense that it refers to Andvír, and despite his opinion the construction of the line does not make that impossible.

[gondowe]

In my old work in the Narn i had token the old lay to have a body for the pats of dor Cuarthol to the history of túrin in Nargothrond.
And this is what I want to do now, combine the text in TCoH (that is of the Silm77) of this part with this my old text, as prose of course. So we have the picture of Ivrin, and nargothrond and have a less schematical body of text in the Taur -nu fuin scenes with Beleg and Gwindor. I´m going to maintain the healing of the hurts of Beleg in Doriath ( not in bar-en-danwedh).
I did´nt take more material from other parts, I think the Narn is overall

As an appendix I have a chapter called The Wanderings of Hurin, edited with the end taken from the Tale of Turambar, mantaining the prophecy of Mormegil that stands well with the end of the QS and the second P of Mandos.


Greetings

[Aiwendil]

I still lean toward leaving out the parts of the lay that would be used merely for 'expansion' of finalized portions of the Narn. I agree with Aran:

Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized.

If Tolkien omitted from the Narn a detail found in the alliterative Lay, I think there's at least a reasonable case to be made that he did so because that detail had been rejected. In contrast to the more common situation where we have an older 'full version' and a briefer, more compressed later version, here we have a late full version. So I think the usual argument that details found in the older text were not rejected but merely suppressed holds less weight.

[Findegil]

I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn:

NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told.

NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which again what we have in the Lay elobarted.

NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’
One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added.

Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me.

Respectfully
Findegil