Nóm
10-14-2003, 01:33 PM
From Last Writings in HoME XII:
Glorfindel II
As for the former: he [Glorfindel] was slain in the Fall of Gondolin at the end of the First Age, and if a chieftain of that city must have been a Noldo, one of the Elf-lords in the host of King Turukano (Turgon); at any rate when The Fall of Gondolin was written he was certainly thought to be so.
It seems here that 'Turgon' is correct.
Little later in the essay:
...it can assumed that, thought he [Glorfindel] left Valinor in the host of Turgn, and so incurred the ban, he did so reluctantly because of kinship with Turgon and allegiance to him, and had no part in the kinslaying of Alqualonde. (note 9)
Seems here Turgon is really ment too, but a look at note 9 confuses things:
Author's note
Though he [Glorfindel] is not yet named in the unrevised part of The Silmarillion treating of this matter, it is recorded that many of the Noldor of Turgon's following were in fact grieved by the decision of their king, and dreaded that evil would soon result from it. In the Third Host, that of Finarfin, so many were of this mind that when Finarfin heard the final doom of Mandos and repented, the greater part of that host returned to Valinor. Yet Finrod son of Finarfin, noblest of all the Noldor in the tales of Beleriand, also went away, for Turgon had been elected supreme lord of the Noldorin hosts.
This sounds like Fingolfin (but there is one small detail which I question). This is what CT says about it:
But this note carries an extreme departure from tradition, in the entire omission of Fingolfin. This has in fact been encountered before, in my father's very late work - of this same period - on the story of Maeglin, where relationships are distorted on account of a defective geneaology making Turgon the son of Finwe; but here, in a central story of The Silmarillion, Turgon is called 'king', and 'supreme lord of the Noldor hosts', and Fingolfin disappears. Of course it is not to be thought that my father actually intended such a catastrophic disruption of the narrative structure as this would bring about; and it is reassuring to see that in a reference elsewhere in these papers Fingolfin reappears.
Now I do not doubt 'Turgon' should have been 'Fingolfin' in the author's note, but when did he write this note? As he was writing the Glorfindel essay? Was Turgon and Fingolfin confused in the essay too?
The question here, I think, is this: To what degree does the statement (in full context of course) that '...and if a chieftain of that city must have been a Noldo, one of the Elf-lords in the host of King Turukano...' imply that 'Turgon' was intented?
That he says 'chieftain of that city' and not 'chieftain of the Noldor' for example, sort of makes me think that Turgon here is correct, but Fingolfin here would not be incorrect would it?
What was in the defective genealogy? Just Sindarin names? It probably doesn't matter much either way... he could have saw 'Turgon' and wrote 'Turukano' I guess...
I find it hard to understand how he could work off a defective genealogy and not catch the error. But originally Turgon was the son of Finwe in his mind, and for most readers he was not. At least it doesn't say 'Turando'. ;)
The small detail that I question is only this: 'it is recorded that many of the Noldor of Turgon's following were in fact grieved by the decision of their king, and dreaded that evil would soon result from it.' which goes against the idea that Fingolfin's people would not forsake him if he would go with them into exile... which was one of his reasons for going along. That doesn't cause me to think 'Turgon' was ment here... just a side noe.
Also, in the Glorfindel essay, between the two parts which I quoted above, is this:
... and Turgon was one of the most determined and unrepentant supporters of Feanor's rebellion.
Which doesn't sound right given him speaking with his father against Feanor in Tirion, and CT does comment on this pointing that fact out, but mentioning the statement that Fingon and Turgon were 'bold and fiery of heart and loath to abandon any task to which they had put their hands until the bitter end, if bitter it must be.' which appears directly after it is said that all of Fingfolfin's host went forward on the march after the Prophecy of the North. CT merely points this out. For me personally, this is not enough to make that statement that 'Turgon was one of the most determined and unrepentant supporters...' seem correct. I guess it is just a matter of opinion, but Turgon had lost his wife and nearly his child, and was no friend of the sons of Feanor in Beleriand. But it could be that he did not repent of following, after all he was Turgon.
However, if 'Turgon' should have been 'Fingolfin' in the essay, this would equally fit/not fit... I think. I wonder what others think.
But will anyone reply?
Beleg and Inderjit aren't here. :(
Glorfindel II
As for the former: he [Glorfindel] was slain in the Fall of Gondolin at the end of the First Age, and if a chieftain of that city must have been a Noldo, one of the Elf-lords in the host of King Turukano (Turgon); at any rate when The Fall of Gondolin was written he was certainly thought to be so.
It seems here that 'Turgon' is correct.
Little later in the essay:
...it can assumed that, thought he [Glorfindel] left Valinor in the host of Turgn, and so incurred the ban, he did so reluctantly because of kinship with Turgon and allegiance to him, and had no part in the kinslaying of Alqualonde. (note 9)
Seems here Turgon is really ment too, but a look at note 9 confuses things:
Author's note
Though he [Glorfindel] is not yet named in the unrevised part of The Silmarillion treating of this matter, it is recorded that many of the Noldor of Turgon's following were in fact grieved by the decision of their king, and dreaded that evil would soon result from it. In the Third Host, that of Finarfin, so many were of this mind that when Finarfin heard the final doom of Mandos and repented, the greater part of that host returned to Valinor. Yet Finrod son of Finarfin, noblest of all the Noldor in the tales of Beleriand, also went away, for Turgon had been elected supreme lord of the Noldorin hosts.
This sounds like Fingolfin (but there is one small detail which I question). This is what CT says about it:
But this note carries an extreme departure from tradition, in the entire omission of Fingolfin. This has in fact been encountered before, in my father's very late work - of this same period - on the story of Maeglin, where relationships are distorted on account of a defective geneaology making Turgon the son of Finwe; but here, in a central story of The Silmarillion, Turgon is called 'king', and 'supreme lord of the Noldor hosts', and Fingolfin disappears. Of course it is not to be thought that my father actually intended such a catastrophic disruption of the narrative structure as this would bring about; and it is reassuring to see that in a reference elsewhere in these papers Fingolfin reappears.
Now I do not doubt 'Turgon' should have been 'Fingolfin' in the author's note, but when did he write this note? As he was writing the Glorfindel essay? Was Turgon and Fingolfin confused in the essay too?
The question here, I think, is this: To what degree does the statement (in full context of course) that '...and if a chieftain of that city must have been a Noldo, one of the Elf-lords in the host of King Turukano...' imply that 'Turgon' was intented?
That he says 'chieftain of that city' and not 'chieftain of the Noldor' for example, sort of makes me think that Turgon here is correct, but Fingolfin here would not be incorrect would it?
What was in the defective genealogy? Just Sindarin names? It probably doesn't matter much either way... he could have saw 'Turgon' and wrote 'Turukano' I guess...
I find it hard to understand how he could work off a defective genealogy and not catch the error. But originally Turgon was the son of Finwe in his mind, and for most readers he was not. At least it doesn't say 'Turando'. ;)
The small detail that I question is only this: 'it is recorded that many of the Noldor of Turgon's following were in fact grieved by the decision of their king, and dreaded that evil would soon result from it.' which goes against the idea that Fingolfin's people would not forsake him if he would go with them into exile... which was one of his reasons for going along. That doesn't cause me to think 'Turgon' was ment here... just a side noe.
Also, in the Glorfindel essay, between the two parts which I quoted above, is this:
... and Turgon was one of the most determined and unrepentant supporters of Feanor's rebellion.
Which doesn't sound right given him speaking with his father against Feanor in Tirion, and CT does comment on this pointing that fact out, but mentioning the statement that Fingon and Turgon were 'bold and fiery of heart and loath to abandon any task to which they had put their hands until the bitter end, if bitter it must be.' which appears directly after it is said that all of Fingfolfin's host went forward on the march after the Prophecy of the North. CT merely points this out. For me personally, this is not enough to make that statement that 'Turgon was one of the most determined and unrepentant supporters...' seem correct. I guess it is just a matter of opinion, but Turgon had lost his wife and nearly his child, and was no friend of the sons of Feanor in Beleriand. But it could be that he did not repent of following, after all he was Turgon.
However, if 'Turgon' should have been 'Fingolfin' in the essay, this would equally fit/not fit... I think. I wonder what others think.
But will anyone reply?
Beleg and Inderjit aren't here. :(