Silmarillion - Chapter 22 - Of the Ruin of Doriath

[King Naugladur]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Yes, I agree that the passage from The Hobbit probably refers to this incident, and that it doesn't quite match the version in the published Silmarillion. It is more in line not only with the Lost Tales version of events but also with S, Q, the annals, etc. - in short, with all accounts written by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Yes, what a pity that JRRT did not revise "The Tale of the Nauglafring" and the account in the published "Silmarillion" did, as a result, contain much Gay Kay. Thus, we don't really know if the murder of Thingol inside his halls was an idea of JRRT, CT or Gay Kay.
King Naugladur.

[Faramir Jones]

Thanks for your comment, Aiwendil. When I first read the 1977 Silmarillion, I made a connection between the killing of Thingol by the Dwarves of Nogrod and that reference in The Hobbit, so thought that including the latter in this thread would add to the debate.

King Naugladur, I was very interested in your last comment:

The dwarves did not delve Nargothrond for Finord Felagund. Before the Noldor came from over the Sea, the Petty-Dwarves had settled there and called the place Nulukkizdin. They were driven away by the Elves, who did not understand that the Petty-Dwarves were fellow incarnates. Thus, Mim is right in saying that the hoard belongs to him, since he is the last of the original owners of Nargothrond. Also, since Finrod was dead and the realm of Nargothrond was no more after Glaurung sacked it, the treasure did not belong to nobody, but to the one who established claim over it and he was Mim. Hurin slew the Dwarf and then took the Nauglamir (in older versions, Mim cursed the treasure before dying). Not even the Silmaril did not belong to Thingol. Since it was crafted by Feanor and Feanor was dead, it belonged to his sons.

In answer to it, while Mîm had an arguable claim to ownership of the halls of Nargothrond, he had none on the hoard it contained, which consisted of treasure Finrod brought out of Valinor, or manufactured for him for which he paid, such as the Nauglamír. It was inherited by his brother Orodreth on his death, and when the latter and his daughter Finduilas died, any claim of inheritance would go to other relatives, including Thingol. Húrin did not keep the Nauglamír for himself, but gave it to Thingol, who had an arguable claim to it.

Regarding the Silmaril, I agree that it belonged to the sons of Fëanor, and also agree with Melian's suggestion to her husband to return it to them. I also understand his refusal to do so, not just on the grounds of the sacrifices his daughter and son-in-law made to obtain it, but his refusal to give anything to the sons of Fëanor, who massacred his relatives and stole their property, and two of whom kidnapped his daughter. Such considerations, understandably and sadly, took precedence over realpolitik.

[King Naugladur]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

Thanks for your comment, Aiwendil. When I first read the 1977 Silmarillion, I made a connection between the killing of Thingol by the Dwarves of Nogrod and that reference in The Hobbit, so thought that including the latter in this thread would add to the debate.

King Naugladur, I was very interested in your last comment:

The dwarves did not delve Nargothrond for Finord Felagund. Before the Noldor came from over the Sea, the Petty-Dwarves had settled there and called the place Nulukkizdin. They were driven away by the Elves, who did not understand that the Petty-Dwarves were fellow incarnates. Thus, Mim is right in saying that the hoard belongs to him, since he is the last of the original owners of Nargothrond. Also, since Finrod was dead and the realm of Nargothrond was no more after Glaurung sacked it, the treasure did not belong to nobody, but to the one who established claim over it and he was Mim. Hurin slew the Dwarf and then took the Nauglamir (in older versions, Mim cursed the treasure before dying). Not even the Silmaril did not belong to Thingol. Since it was crafted by Feanor and Feanor was dead, it belonged to his sons.

In answer to it, while Mîm had an arguable claim to ownership of the halls of Nargothrond, he had none on the hoard it contained, which consisted of treasure Finrod brought out of Valinor, or manufactured for him for which he paid, such as the Nauglamír. It was inherited by his brother Orodreth on his death, and when the latter and his daughter Finduilas died, any claim of inheritance would go to other relatives, including Thingol. Húrin did not keep the Nauglamír for himself, but gave it to Thingol, who had an arguable claim to it.

Regarding the Silmaril, I agree that it belonged to the sons of Fëanor, and also agree with Melian's suggestion to her husband to return it to them. I also understand his refusal to do so, not just on the grounds of the sacrifices his daughter and son-in-law made to obtain it, but his refusal to give anything to the sons of Fëanor, who massacred his relatives and stole their property, and two of whom kidnapped his daughter. Such considerations, understandably and sadly, took precedence over realpolitik.

Hello Faramir Jones,

Mim had inheritance claim to the caverns of Narog where Nulukkizdin and later Nargothrond lay. But, Turin had promised Mim a "danwedh" (ransom) in case he stumbled upon treasure and he took the hoard of Nargothrond as his promised reward. Moreover, one could argue that Mim's inheritance covered everything found inside the halls of Nargothrond, including the treasure. And, since Mim had no close kin, as the Petty-Dwarves were wiped out, the treasure had to go to members of the race he belonged to. What do you think?

As for the Silmaril, Thingol was not involved in the dispute between Feanor and the Teleri of Aman. Moreover, he had already issued his countermeasure, having banned Quenya within his realm. The Silmaril did not belong to him and he had to give it.

PS. Do you know how can I put accents over the letters (such as the umlaut over "e" in the name of Feanor, etc.)?
King Naugladur.

[Faramir Jones]

King Naugladur, dealing first with what you had to say about Nargothrond and the Nauglamír:

Mim had inheritance claim to the caverns of Narog where Nulukkizdin and later Nargothrond lay. But, Turin had promised Mim a "danwedh" (ransom) in case he stumbled upon treasure and he took the hoard of Nargothrond as his promised reward. Moreover, one could argue that Mim's inheritance covered everything found inside the halls of Nargothrond, including the treasure. And, since Mim had no close kin, as the Petty-Dwarves were wiped out, the treasure had to go to members of the race he belonged to. What do you think?

We appear to agree that Mîm had at least an arguable claim regarding Nargothrond. But that would not necessarily include a claim on any of the hoard. There is a distinction in law between 'real property', i.e. immovable property, such as land and any improvements made to it, and 'personal property', i.e. movable property, that can be moved from one place to another. Nargothrond is real or immovable property, while the hoard is personal or movable property. Having an arguable claim on the first does not mean the dwarf has one on the second.

I don't see the issue of Túrin's promise of compensation to Mîm for killing one of his sons as relevant here. You can't give away what isn't yours; and I have read nothing that indicated Túrin had any claim of ownership to any of the hoard. Again, the hoard belonged to Finrod, and on his death would arguably go to his surviving relatives, including Thingol. At least Húrin gave part of the hoard to someone with an arguable claim to it, instead of keeping it for himself.

Looking at what you said second, about the Silmaril:

As for the Silmaril, Thingol was not involved in the dispute between Feanor and the Teleri of Aman. Moreover, he had already issued his countermeasure, having banned Quenya within his realm. The Silmaril did not belong to him and he had to give it.

How could Thingol not be involved in a dispute where the people of his brother Olwë were massacred and their property stolen? I again agree that he still should have returned the Silmaril to the sons of Fëanor, as it was rightfully theirs, and would negate some of the effects of the Oath.

In answer to what you asked here:

PS. Do you know how can I put accents over the letters (such as the umlaut over "e" in the name of Feanor, etc.)?

I tend to open another web page and copy and paste the relevant names into the message box.

[King Naugladur]

[QUOTE=Faramir Jones;697043
We appear to agree that Mîm had at least an arguable claim regarding Nargothrond. But that would not necessarily include a claim on any of the hoard. There is a distinction in law between 'real property', i.e. immovable property, such as land and any improvements made to it, and 'personal property', i.e. movable property, that can be moved from one place to another. Nargothrond is real or immovable property, while the hoard is personal or movable property. Having an arguable claim on the first does not mean the dwarf has one on the second.

I don't see the issue of Túrin's promise of compensation to Mîm for killing one of his sons as relevant here. You can't give away what isn't yours; and I have read nothing that indicated Túrin had [I]any[/I] claim of ownership to any of the hoard. Again, the hoard belonged to Finrod, and on his death would arguably go to his surviving relatives, including Thingol. At least Húrin gave part of the hoard to someone with an arguable claim to it, instead of keeping it for himself.

Looking at what you said second, about the Silmaril:


How could Thingol not be involved in a dispute where the people of his brother Olwë were massacred and their property stolen? I again agree that he still should have returned the Silmaril to the sons of Fëanor, as it was rightfully theirs, and would negate some of the effects of the Oath. [QUOTE]

Dearest Faramir Jones,

In fact, Mim was owed two compensations. One for lost profits, because when the Petty-Dwarves were ousted from Nargothrond, the profits they would have made if they delved the mines were denied to them and Turin's ransom for the killing of his son by Androg. The first compensation owed to Mim can justify his taking over the hoard, while the second can be used in order to say that Hurin's slaying of Mim was an unjust act. But, since Mim was slain, his inheritance should go to his people.

As for the Kinslaying, Thingol could demand a monetary or other compensation, but he should give the Silmaril to the rightful owners. I wonder, if Thingol demanded the Sons of Feanor pay an amount of coin to him in order to give them the Silmaril, what would their reaction be?

Waiting for your response,

King Naugladur.

[Faramir Jones]

King Naugladur, you first said that Mîm was owed two compensations:

In fact, Mim was owed two compensations. One for lost profits, because when the Petty-Dwarves were ousted from Nargothrond, the profits they would have made if they delved the mines were denied to them and Turin's ransom for the killing of his son by Androg. The first compensation owed to Mim can justify his taking over the hoard, while the second can be used in order to say that Hurin's slaying of Mim was an unjust act. But, since Mim was slain, his inheritance should go to his people.

I didn't read anywhere that the Petty-dwarves were in Nargothrond when Finrod came there; so they can't have been 'ousted' by him. Would the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains, whom he asked to carry out building there, have done anything in a place from which their own kin were evicted? I don't think they would. My own view is that when Finrod came to Nargothrond, there were no Petty-dwarves there, they having already moved, died off, or both.

I still don't see how Túrin has anything to do with Finrod's hoard. Túrin's offer of compensation to Mîm was based on the event that he came into any wealth. But you can't promise to pay from what isn't yours. Túrin didn't even claim any rights over the hoard.

How is the killing of Mîm by Húrin unjust, as he had betrayed Túrin to Morgoth?

You then said this:

As for the Kinslaying, Thingol could demand a monetary or other compensation, but he should give the Silmaril to the rightful owners. I wonder, if Thingol demanded the Sons of Feanor pay an amount of coin to him in order to give them the Silmaril, what would their reaction be?

I'm not clear about what you suggested here. Is it that Thingol should have demanded monetary compensation from the sons of Fëanor in return for the Silmaril, due to the Kinslaying?

[King Naugladur]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

King Naugladur, you first said that Mîm was owed two compensations:

In fact, Mim was owed two compensations. One for lost profits, because when the Petty-Dwarves were ousted from Nargothrond, the profits they would have made if they delved the mines were denied to them and Turin's ransom for the killing of his son by Androg. The first compensation owed to Mim can justify his taking over the hoard, while the second can be used in order to say that Hurin's slaying of Mim was an unjust act. But, since Mim was slain, his inheritance should go to his people.

I didn't read anywhere that the Petty-dwarves were in Nargothrond when Finrod came there; so they can't have been 'ousted' by him. Would the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains, whom he asked to carry out building there, have done anything in a place from which their own kin were evicted? I don't think they would. My own view is that when Finrod came to Nargothrond, there were no Petty-dwarves there, they having already moved, died off, or both.

I still don't see how Túrin has anything to do with Finrod's hoard. Túrin's offer of compensation to Mîm was based on the event that he came into any wealth. But you can't promise to pay from what isn't yours. Túrin didn't even claim any rights over the hoard.

How is the killing of Mîm by Húrin unjust, as he had betrayed Túrin to Morgoth?

You then said this:

As for the Kinslaying, Thingol could demand a monetary or other compensation, but he should give the Silmaril to the rightful owners. I wonder, if Thingol demanded the Sons of Feanor pay an amount of coin to him in order to give them the Silmaril, what would their reaction be?

I'm not clear about what you suggested here. Is it that Thingol should have demanded monetary compensation from the sons of Fëanor in return for the Silmaril, due to the Kinslaying?

Dearest Faramir Jones,

In 'The Children of Hurin", it is said that the Petty-Dwarves hated the Exiles, for the Noldor had stolen their lands. We also know that the Elves did not understand that the Petty-Dwarves were incarnates and hunted them down for sport. Furthermore, we know that, while the other Dwarves resented the wrongs done to their kin, they were eager to work with the Elves, because both sides had gains from the cooperation.
While Turin had no rights on Finrod's hoard, Hurin ought to respect Turin's promise of paying a ransom to the Dwarf and not slay him. Moreover, Mim's betrayal was done in order for the Petty-Dwarf race to live a little longer, since the Orcs had Mim's surviving son as a hostage. Finally, Mim betrayed the Outlaws, but demanded Turin not to be harmed.
Coming to Thingol, what I suggested is that Thingol demands a compensation for the Kinslaying in every sort he wants and later, after the Sons of Feanor demanded the Silmaril, they enter negotiations concerning its surrender by Thingol to its rightful owners.

Waiting for your response,

King Naugladur.