"Concerning... 'The Hoard'" revealed

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, I think that is correct on all fronts. Certainly I have run into some JRRT notes written out of his head, which differ wildly from everything else he wrote on the same topic!

CT was indeed aware of the "round-world" conversion which his father had conceived, but it was for him dispositive (and I think rightly) that none of it had attained narrative form. He regarded his role as editing (or "selecting and arranging") what his father had actually written, not what he may have intended to write but never got around to.

That of course left the fall of Doriath in an anomalous place, since the most recent account of it was wholly inconsistent with later material and something had to be done. I don't think that the solution CT and Guy Kay came up with was a bad one at all- although evidently CT felt guilty about it.

[Formendacil]

Thanks for pointing us toward the text: it's fascinating to me how Tolkien's late retelling of one of his most curiosity-provoking tales still reads to my own faulty memory as strikingly similar to the Lost Tales version while being completely set in the much later Silm. The character of Thingol, in particular, seems much meaner and "fallen" here than in CT's retelling (where Thingol still bears fault, but the emphasis is laid on his lordliness). This version, however, is a bit more "Tinwëlint" and goes to show, at the very least, the potency of dragon-curse on the treasure.

[Findegil]

I agree fully to Formemdacil, that the most fascinating aspect of the text is how Tolkien is able even in such a short summary to draw a clear picture of the potentcy of the dragon sikness and / or the curse of Mîm. First we Thingol dealing with Húrin more lordly then in anyother version, but when he is in possesion of the hoard, the dragon-curse imidiatly works drastically on him as shown when dealing with the outlaws and even more drastically when dealing with the dwarves.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Clearly, CRRT did not have access to this letter (or overlooked it) when preparing The Silmarillion for publication.

My understanding is that the only copy of the letter is the one that was sent - it looks like it wasn't even known to exist until 1984, when it was first put up for auction. Christopher may well never have read it!

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I don't think that the solution CT and Guy Kay came up with was a bad one at all- although evidently CT felt guilty about it.

Absolutely, especially since Christopher didn't have access to this letter. Something needed to be done about the breach in the Girdle, and JRRT had left no indication of what. I do think he would probably have adopted the letter's version if he had had access to it, though: the "we don't know" concept fits very nicely in my view.

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Here, perhaps the discussions of the timing of Thingol's death, when the Dwarves were passing through Doriath's borders, Hurin's attitude towards Thingol and what happened to his band of bandits (for lack of a better term) were not necessarily a "final conception" but rather his best recollection of what he had written before (maybe combined with some real time revision).

This is definitely a good point, and links to Form and Findegil's comments about the differences in Thingol. Comparing the three stories, I think JRRT was actually largely ignoring the 1930 Silmarillion in this 1960s note: there are a bunch of new ideas in the Quenta which go completely unmentioned:

• The 'folk of Mim' appear to be occupying Nargothrond, and are killed in the battle.
• The idea of Hurin's outlaws dying along the road, and Hurin sending to Thingol for help carrying the treasure.
• The first battle with the dwarves in Menegroth, where many of them are slain. In the Quenta this was the origin of the Mound of Avarice, which in BoLT was raised over the slain outlaws.
• Melian leaving Doriath to seek aid from Beren and Luthien. In BoLT this was actually Huan's role, while The Hoard attributes it to elves fleeing the battle.

There don't appear to be any specifically Quenta elements which carry across to The Hoard, though there are things from BoLT which are dropped in all later versions (notably the elvish traitor who brings the dwarves to Thingol). It's possible Tolkien didn't have the Quenya with him when writing it, but was going on his memory of it, coloured by BoLT. But there are also a lot of new elements that exist only in "Concerning The Hoard":

• Thingol locks the treasure in a deep chamber.
• The whole concept of dwarvish honesty. In BoLT, the dwarves demand massive rewards after the fact, and Thingol punishes them for it. In the Quenta, they try to take all the treasure and there is a battle. In The Hoard, they were promised a specific amount, never demanded more than that, and (other than the Silmaril) took only that much after their victory.
• The Nauglamir being made of silver. In BoLT it was made of gold.
• Thingol's specific desire for silver thrones. BoLT has the dwarves make him whatever they want; the Quenta doesn't specify.
• The weakening/opening of the Girdle to allow the dwarves inside. Previously they were led in by traitor elves.
• The apparent death of Thingol in Menegroth itself. Both previous versions have him out hunting, and the sack of Menegroth after his death; The Hoard says "his halls were violated and he himself slain".

I don't think we can write all that off as mis-remembering or off-the-cuff elaborations. The 'dwarvish honesty' was clearly constructed to reconcile the older stories with The Hobbit, and Tolkien goes into a lot of detail over it. The silver thrones, too, are a highly specific element which can't have just come out of nowhere. The whole focus on silver (rather than the gold which is the emphasis in BoLT) also sounds like a reaction to The Hobbit, where it is said of Thranduil that "If the elf-king had
a weakness it was for treasure, especially for silver and white gems". I think either Tolkien had a copy of The Hobbit in front of him when he wrote the letter - or the mention of silver in The Hobbit indicates that he had already decided when he wrote it that Thingol had a thing for silver, and thus his spiritual successor had as well. In either case, it looks like a lot of thought went into "Concerning... 'The Hoard'".

Does Thingol, in the 1964 version of his last acts, come across as noble? Not particularly! But he's not worse than Turgon, who still spends the published Silm sulking in his tower while Morgoth's armies burn it down; and he's definitely doing better than Hurin, who seems to get more destructive each time Tolkien comes back to him.

Thingol's death was a confluence of every curse at play in Beleriand at the time: lust for the Silmaril, dragon-gold, a dwarvish curse, and Morgoth's power over Hurin and his children. I don't think it's out of line with the later Silmarillion for all of that to send him into the state shown in "Concerning... 'The Hoard'", even to the point that Melian herself might be moved to reject him and withdraw her protection.

(Not that Mr. 'I won't kill you, now go invade Angband while I lock my daughter in a tree' was the most noble elf around to start with...!)

hS

[gondowe]

This is extraordinary. Things are finally coming to light. And this was capital, in my opinion.
But there is something that makes me doubt about the date of the manuscript, and it is the mention it makes of The Sons of the Valar for the Last Battle, in 1964????
It is assumed that circa 1958-60 the idea of the Children of the Valar was abandoned, if I am not mistaken.
There is a first mention of The Hoard in 1961 in a letter to Pauline Baynes.

Could it be that this manuscript is assumed erroneously to be from 1964, as it is attached to the letter, although Tolkien expressly says in it that he attached the said "screed" that "I wrote in answer to your remarks about the poem called The Hoard"?

What do you think?

Greetings

[Formendacil]

I would fear to put all my stock in "the Sons of the Valar" as a definitive piece of evidence by itself, since it's easy enough to imagine "the Sons of the Valar" as a poetic description of the Host of the Valar rather than a definitive statement of paternity--but, that said, if it turned out that this had, in fact, been sent at an earlier date, that would line up. But the fact that this accompanies a dated letter--it is not dated itself--does seem the heaviest bit of evidence to my mind. Perhaps a Tolkien handwriting expert could weigh in? I am sure there are a few of those by now.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by gondowe

Could it be that this manuscript is assumed erroneously to be from 1964, as it is attached to the letter, although Tolkien expressly says in it that he attached the said "screed" that "I wrote in answer to your remarks about the poem called The Hoard"?

It is possible, but not by much. "Concerning" makes direct mention of the Preface to Adventures of Tom Bombadil, which was published in 1962. The very earliest theoretical point "Concerning" could have been written is to send to the publishers along with the Preface, to randomly explain one of the 16 poems in depth (and then not sent, of course). It seems more likely it was written in direct response to a query - as Tolkien says, that he wrote it in answer to Mrs. Elgar's questions.

Some of the discussion over in the New Silmarillion thread has got me thinking about the timeline of the Nauglamir texts. Does this look right?

- 1917-20: "The Tale of the Nauglafring", Book of Lost Tales
- 1926: "Sketch of the Mythology 14"
- ca. 1930: "Quenta Noldorinwa 14" (the 1930s Silmarillion)
- ca. 1951: "Grey Annals 501", given in preface to "Wanderings of Hurin". Cuts off with Hurin seeking Nargothrond and the hoard.
- 'somewhat later': "Narn i Chin Hurin synopsis", also in "Wanderings" preface. Ends with the killing of Mim, and Hurin and the outlaws taking the treasure to Doriath.
- late 1950s: "Kilby slip", mentioned in note 56 to "Wanderings". Slaying of Mim and mention of the ruin of Doriath.
- 1962-4: "Concerning The Hoard"
- 2017: footnote to "Beren and Luthien", in which Christopher Tolkien asserts that there is "a later version" (than the 1930s Quenta) of the story in which the Nauglamir was made for Finrod, and was brought alone to Doriath by Hurin, matching the published Silm.

I think the text referred to in the B&L note (the New Silm folks call it "Text X") most likely predates the Narn synopsis in the mid-1950s. "Text X" has to be a modification of the 1930 Quenta version, in which Hurin's outlaws die off on the road and Hurin has to get Thingol's help to carry the gold - in "Text X", this help is eliminated by having Hurin only bring one thing (or possibly only take one thing all the way, having to abandon the rest of the treasure).

But the Narn synopsis and "Concerning" both revert to the older story of the outlaws going all the way to Doriath. The Narn synopsis isn't 100% explicit on this - it says the outlaws take the treasure to Doriath, but only names Hurin as being admitted - but "Concerning" is. I don't find it plausible that Tolkien would have removed the outlaws, added them back, and then removed them again!

I think the "Kilby slip" stands as an explanation for this: in it, Tolkien notes at some length that the outlaws are significant characters: they are Asg(r)on and his men, who help Turin escape Dor-lomin in the UT version of the Narn, and accompany Hurin during "Wanderings". In BoLT, the 'outlaws' were "wild elves"; it was these characters that Tolkien tried to remove, with the Sketch (which doesn't mention outlaws at all), the Quenta (which kills them along the way), and Text X (which reduces the treasure to a single necklace). But when he expanded the end of the Narn, Tolkien realised that he could restore the outlaws by connecting them to another set who already existed; and there's no evidence he ever walked that decision back again.

hS

[gondowe]

Yes. I think you are correct in the chronology that you expose, I would add the little that The Tale of Years tells us.

And it's very possible that you are right in what you say about Text X.

I just want to give the benefit of the doubt and a little respect for CT's work. In the absence of evidence on the dating of the damned Text X. After all, it is possible to combine both concepts with little narrative change, using the phrasing of the SIl77 and BoLT/C..TH texts.

In any case, I prefer to see what several people think about it.

And sooner or later, I don't know how but, I suppose the text X will come to light.

Greetings