Narn I Chîn Húrin 1: Túrins Fostering

[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.

[Aiwendil]

Findegil wrote:

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.

I'm sorry that this didn't work! I actually do rather like the idea, and if this were a more 'fan-fictionalized' Silmarillion, I would be all for it's inclusion. Although I think personally I might like even better the interpretation that it was Andvír who was in Hurin's band.

But I think we agree in principle on how to treat this here - we don't add this story explicitly but we try to avoid any statement that excludes it as a possibility. This is still tricky.

The most obvious issue is Andróg's survival of the battle on Amon Rudh. Aran has argued against this:

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.

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.

I also do not agree with CT that the passage unambiguously refers to Andróg rather than Andvír. However, I do think that on balance it is more likely that Andróg is meant. For one thing, it would be rather strange for Andróg to have a grown son who is also a member of the outlaw band. This would make Andróg on the order of 40 years old or so, twice Turin's age, whereas I think his portrayal in the 'Narn' suggests someone much younger (and more or less of an age with Turin). Algund is said to be the oldest in the band, yet he fought at the Nirnaeth and was thus probably a young man in 473, just ten years or so earlier. Also, it seems a little strange that Andróg's (then presumably very young) son would go with him when he is chased out of Dor-lomin for the slaying of a woman. So all in all I lean toward the 'Andróg' interpretation.

But however we interpret it we can't escape the fact that the note poses some contradiction with the text of the 'Narn'. If it refers to Andróg then obviously the account of his death, and quite possibly certain details of the curse and his healing by Beleg, are contradicted. If it refers to Andvír then it contradicts the 'Narn', in which, though not explicitly stated, it is pretty clear that Andróg does not have a son who is also in the band. Also, it contradicts the account of the battle at which all but Mim, Beleg, and Turin were slain. So if we accept the statement in 'Aelfwine and Dirhaval', we must change the 'Narn' in some way.

So suppose we have Andróg survive the battle. The next question is: are we justified in moving his healing by Beleg to after the battle? I think a case could be made must do this if Andróg survives the battle. In the 'Narn' material it is suggested that when Andróg was wounded, it was only the power of Beleg's healing that averted Mim's curse. Therefore if Andróg survives the battle, one could infer that he must have been healed by Beleg then or else he would have died per Mim's curse. But it seems just about impossible that the healing would be repeated twice in the story. So we are left with the transferal of the episode to after the battle.

So I think we are actually on fairly safe ground with these two projected changes. Where things are more difficult, I think, is in Mim's death and Findegil's proposal that he is killed by Andróg with an arrow. The question here is first of all whether we should make Mim's death in our version ambiguous enough that it does not contradict this story and second, if we do, then how? We discussed the death of Mim at some length in working on the 'Ruin of Doriath'. To summarize the sources briefly, we have:

1. In TT, Hurin smites Mim for his 'evil words'.
2. In Q30, Hurin's men kill Mim 'though Hurin would have stayed them".
3. In the annalistic plot-synopsis for the 'Narn' (partially given in XI with 'Wanderings') there is a brief statement that 'Hurin comes to Nargothrond and slays Mim'.

We decided that 3 represents a reversion to the earlier story (the rejected alternative being to assume that what is really meant is 'Hurin and his men come to Nargothrond and slay Mim') and we formed the text for this section using TT as our basis. So, in light of 3, can we really justify not having Hurin kill Mim? And, perhaps more difficult still, if we do opt for this, how do we form a text that does not identify Mim's killer?

On another topic, Aran wrote:

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."

Good catch. There should be no Old English in our version!

[Aran e-Godhellim]

The only problem is that "Aelfwine and Dirhavel" most certainly precedes the text of the Narn, does it not? This would make the Narn text the final written version of Andróg's role on Amon Rudh, so should it not take precedence? As to the issue of time and age, I'll have to investigate that more deeply before commenting. Perhaps it might be best to drop the reference to Andvír altogether.

[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

[Aran e-Godhellim]

But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient.

He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents.

[Findegil]

But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn.

Respectfully
Findegil