Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
08-11-2022, 04:33 AM | #1 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 359
|
Quote:
"The remaining two Silmarils are regained from the Iron Crown — only to be lost. The last two sons of Fëanor, compelled by their oath, steal them, and are destroyed by them, casting themselves into the sea, and the pits of the earth. The ship of Earendil adorned with the last Silmaril is set in heaven as the brightest star. So ends The Silmarillion and the tales of the First Age." and compared with Concerning the Hoard: "The other two Silmarils were also taken by the Valar from the crown of Morgoth. But the last surviving sons of Feänor (Maedros and Maglor), in a despairing attempt to carry out the Oath, stole them again. But they were tormented by them, and at last they perished each with a jewel: one in a fiery cleft in the earth, and one in the sea. So the three Silmarils were lost for ever “until the remaking of the world”: in air, earth, and sea. Thus ended the First Age." Edit: Going through Letter 131 similar comparisons in verbiage can be drawn, e.g.: "The chief of the stories of the Silmarillion, and the one most fully treated is the Story of Beren and Lúthien the Elfmaiden." Letter 131 "The most important “tale” in this [[† network?]] of legend is that of Beren and Lúthien, but as that is sketched in the Lord of the Rings it is not told here." Concerning... et.al.
__________________
Tar-Elenion Last edited by Tar Elenion; 08-11-2022 at 04:49 AM. |
|
08-11-2022, 07:04 AM | #2 |
Spirit of Mist
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tol Eressea
Posts: 3,329
|
I agree with Findegal that having Hurin transport to Doriath only the Nauglamir (with the corresponding following events that the Dwarven smiths slew Thingol in his treasury, and, later, the Dwarves assault Doriath presumably after the Girdle falls) is the smoothest narrative presenting the fewest problems. What, in our view, works best does not equate to what JRRT would have written and therein lies the dilemma.
Whether The Hoard or any other note or fragment was Tolkien's final conception is and will likely always be a matter for debate. The quirks and different versions of the tales presented in The Hoard are worthy of discussion, analysis and debate. But I am now of the school holding that unless the mythical "final draft" or "final outline" by Tolkien emerges, there is no certain resolution. Latest in time is, to me, not enough. This does not mean that we should not ponder what that missing or nonexistent final draft might or might not include and discuss why.
__________________
Beleriand, Beleriand, the borders of the Elven-land. |
08-11-2022, 08:12 AM | #3 | |
Overshadowed Eagle
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: The north-west of the Old World, east of the Sea
Posts: 3,803
|
Quote:
... but it is still confusing to me that so many Downers are trying to work "Text X" and Finrod's Nauglamir into the 'final' conception. Christopher Tolkien literally wrote a multi-page essay apologising for using that version of the story. It wasn't until 2017 that he ever mentioned that there was any JRRT source for it. Yes, it's possible to construct a scenario whereby it has priority over "Concerning", or the two stories should be merged, or whatnot, but every single relevant JRRT text we have access to, across more than 40 years, confirms that the Nauglamir was made for Thingol. There is no source even hinting at an earlier origin until 2017. (The published Silmarillion introduction of the necklace is derived from the BoLT description, for instance - the 'flax' sentence is very distinctive.) Honestly, given the apology note, the most likely scenario is that 2017 CT mis-remembered, and Finrod's Nauglamir was invented for the published Silm. Failing that, I think my theory of it being a brief note in the pre-"Wanderings" material holds up. I've not seen any evidence of a substantial, definitive "Text X" which should displace "Concerning". There are certainly parts of "Concerning" that need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Thingol dying on a hunt is common to every full version of the tale, so it's plausible that Tolkien simply forgot to mention that Thingol was killed prior to the Girdle falling, and had to tack it onto the end of the sentence. The loss of the "Tale of Years" story whereby the battle with the dwarves is shifted to Celegorm & Curufin (in this and another letter) seems likely to be him forgetting the proposed change entirely, or simply wanting his letters to align with his manuscripts rather than his jottings. But in the absence of any other evidence, and with CT's note in HoME XI to go by, I can't believe that Finrod's Nauglamir was ever more than a passing notion. (As to the outlaws attacking Thingol and being killed... it kind of fits with the whole Narn, to my view. Asg(r)on is a sympathetic character who helps Turin and joins the lawful Lord of his house; he's only an 'outlaw' from the occupiers. But every single sympathetic character who attaches themselves to Hurin or his children winds up destroyed by the end of the story, so why would Asg(r)on be any different?) hS
__________________
Have you burned the ships that could bear you back again? ~Finrod: The Rock Opera |
|
08-11-2022, 09:44 AM | #4 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 245
|
Quote:
Greetings |
|
08-11-2022, 09:59 AM | #5 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 359
|
What does the Spanish translation make it say?
__________________
Tar-Elenion |
08-11-2022, 11:13 AM | #6 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 245
|
The same. But in the understanding is ambiguous. Could mean only the jewels were cast. and is a passage that can be easyly overread.
|
|
|