The History of Middle Earth: Volume 7 - The Treason of Isengard
Page 21
'Yet it is even as Glorfindel says: the way of flight is now the more perilous. But on the other road, with speed and care travellers might go far unperceived. I do not say that there is great hope in this course; but there is in other courses less hope, and no lasting good.'
'I do not understand all this,' said Boromir. 'Though Saruman is a traitor, did he not have some glimpse of wisdom? Why should not the Elves and their friends use the Great Ring to defeat the Enemy? And I say that all men will not turn to him. The Men of Minas Tirith are valiant and they will never submit.'
'Never is a long word, Boromir,' replied Elrond.
From this point the conclusion of the chapter remains little changed from the second version, whose pages my father retained here, which is to say that it is little changed from the original text, VI.403 ff. Gloin's reply to Boromir's question about the Rings of the Dwarves now however takes this form (and appears thus in the typescript):
'I do not know,' answered Gloin. 'It was said in secret that Thror, father of Thrain, father of Thorin who fell in battle, possessed one that had descended from his sires. Some said it was the last. But where it now is no dwarf knows. We think maybe it was taken from him, ere Gandalf found him in the: dungeons of the Necromancer long ago, or maybe it was lost in the mines of Moria. We guess that it was partly in hope to find the ring of Thrain that Balin went to Moria. For the messages of Sauron aroused old memories. But it is long since we heard any news: it is unlikely that he found any Ring.'
'It is indeed unlikely,' said Gandalf. 'Those who say that the last ring was taken from Thror by the Necromancer speak truly.'
This passage was the product of emendation on the manuscript of the second version at different times, and in the result a strange confusion was produced.
In the earliest sketch for 'The Council of Elrond' (VI.398) Gloin said: 'Thrain of old had one that descended from his sires. We do not now know where it is. We think it was taken from him, ere you found him in the dungeons long ago (or maybe it was lost in Moria).' The same is said in the first full form of the chapter (VI.403), where however Gloin's words begin: 'It was said in secret that Thrain (father of Thror father of Thorin who fell in battle) possessed one that had descended from his sires.' This was a contradiction of the text of The Hobbit, where Thror was the father of Thrain, not his son; but it was repeated in the second version of 'The Council of Elrond' (p. 136 note 5). On this question see the Note at the end of this chapter, pp. 159 - 60. In the present text the genealogy is corrected (Thror - Thrain - Thorin), but it now becomes Thror who was found in the dungeons of the Necromancer, and Gandalf says that the ring was taken there from Thror; whereas in The Hobbit it was explicit that Thror was killed by a goblin in Moria, and his son Thrain was captured by the Necroman- cer. On the other hand Gloin says here that the Dwarves believe that it was partly in hope to find the ring of Thrain that Balin went to Moria.(22)
In the original version of the chapter Elrond had said (VI.404) that 'The Three Rings remain still', and he continued:
'They have conferred great power on the Elves, but they have never yet availed them in their strife with Sauron. For they came from Sauron himself, and can give no skill or knowledge that he did not already possess at their making. And to each race the rings of the Lord bring such powers as each desires and is capable of wielding. The Elves desired not strength of domination or riches, but subtlety of craft and lore, and knowledge of the secrets of the world's being. These things they have gained, yet with sorrow. But they will turn to evil if Sauron regains the Ruling Ring; for then all that the Elves have devised or learned with the power of the rings will become his, as was his purpose.'
This was largely retained in the second version (p. 112), with the difference that Elrond now declared that the Three Rings had been taken over the Sea. In the fifth version he says:
'The Three Rings remain. But of them I am not permitted to speak. Certainly they cannot be used by us. From them the Elvenkings have derived much power, but they have not been used for war, either good or evil. For the Elves desire not strength, or domination, or hoarded wealth, but subtlety of craft and lore...'
and continues as in the second version. Thus, while in the second version the original words 'For they came from Sauron himself' were removed but 'they can give no skill or knowledge that he did not himself already possess at their making' were retained, in this text the latter words are also lost. Yet Certainly they cannot be used by us in the new version seems to me to imply that they were made by Sauron; and the argument that I suggested (p. 112) in connection with the second version, that when Boromir says that they were made by Sauron he is not contradicted, holds here with equal force.
There were no further changes of any moment (23) from the original text of the chapter (VI.405 - 7, scarcely altered in the second version); but the chapter now ends at virtually the same point as in FR ('A nice pickle we have landed ourselves in, Mr. Frodo! '), continuing only with the brief further passage that goes back to the original version (VI.407):
'When must I start, Master Elrond?' asked Frodo.
'First you shall rest and recover full strength,' answeredElrond, guessing his mind. 'Rivendell is a fair place, and we will not send you away until you know it better. And meanwhile we will make plans for your guidance, and do what we can to mislead the Enemy and discover what he is about.'
NOTES.
1. Cf. VI.429 (the original text of 'The Ring Goes South'), where Gandalf said that the Mines of Moria 'were made by the Dwarves of Durin's clan many hundreds of years ago, when elves dwelt in Hollin'.
2. The first occurrence of the name Erebor, which in the narrative of LR is not found before Book V, Chapter IX of The Return of the King.
3. In the original edition of The Hobbit the goblin who slew Thror in Moria was not named, as he is not in the present passage ('he was slain by an Orc'). In the third edition of 1966 the name Azog was introduced (from LR) in Chapter I as that of the slayer of Thror, and a footnote was added in Chapter XVII stating that Bolg, leader of the Goblins in the Battle of Five Armies, was the son of Azog.
4. The new passage was written in ink over pencil, but the underlying text, which has been deciphered by Taum Santoski, was little changed. The name Anduin was not present, though Ond was already Ondor (see notes 6 and 7); and the translated name of Elendil's city Tarkilmar was both Westermanton and Aldemanton (Alde probably signifying 'old', sc. 'the "town" of the ancient Men (of the West)').
5. This is the first occurrence of the name Anduin, as originally written, in the narrative texts of LR - as they are here presented, but it is not in the over-written pencilled text of the passage (note 4).
6. This is the first occurrence of Ondor for Ond, and is so written in both pencilled text and ink overlay (note 4).
7. It is curious that here, in a passage of new manuscript, and again a few lines below, the form should have been first written Ond, whereas on p. 144 it is Ondor (note 6).
8. The verse remains in the latest form that has been given (p. 78).
9. Aragorn had said in the fourth version (p. 128) that he had been in Minas Tirith, but the word 'unknown' here is possibly the first hint of the story of Aragorn's service in Minas Tirith under the name Thorongil (LR Appendix A (I, IV, The Stewards), Appendix B (years 2957 - 80)).
10. Fornobel is the name on the First Map (Map II, pp. 304 - 5).
11. Written above 'we' and probably at once, but struck out: 'Saruman our chief'.
12. It is not clear why Galdor/Legolas should have contributed to the story of Gollum at this point, but cf. 'Ancient History' (VI.320), where Gandalf says 'it was friends of mine who actually tracked him down, with the help of the Wood-elves'.
13. Various minor changes (mostly expansions) were made to the manuscript in Saruman's speech, and since these appear in the typescript (p. 141) I have included them in the text. - In speaking of 'more time' Saruman was referring to possession of the Ring. In a later change to the typescript he adds after
'more time': 'longer [> lasting] life'.
14. Afterwards Halbarad became the name of the Ranger who bore Aragorn's standard and died in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
15. That Gandalf should have taken only ten days from Weathertop to Rivendell does not agree with the dating. He left Weathertop early on 4 October, and if he reached Rivendell three days before Frodo he arrived on the 17th, i.e. just under a fortnight from Weathertop, not ten days. This is in fact what he says in the same passage in FR (p. 278): 'It took me nearly fourteen days from Weathertop ... I came to Rivendell only three days before the Ring.' But this does not agree with LR Appendix B (nor with the Time-scheme D on p. 14), where he arrived on the 18th, only two days before Frodo.
16. Struck out here: 'Sauron it would seem has gained an ally already faithless to himself; yet I do not doubt that he knows it and laughs'. This is very similar to the sentence doubtfully given to Gandalf on p. 151.
17. In a rejected draft of this passage Elrond goes on: 'There are others elsewhere, wherever the men of Numenor sought dark knowledge under the shadow of death in Middle-earth, and they are akin to the' [Ringwraiths]. Cf. VI.118 - 20, 401.
18. See p. 125. The reading given is the product of much changing on the manuscript. At first my father wrote: Yare's for the Elves, Erion is for Gnomes, Forn for the dwarves; and names of Bombadil among Men, all struck out, were Oreald, Orold (Old English: 'very old'), and Frumbarn (Old English: 'first-born'). In FR (p. 278) Bombadil was called Orald 'by Northern Men'.
19. This passage in which Gandalf contrasts his nature with Bombadil's entered in the second version, p. 111, replacing the earlier story that Gandalf had visited him as a matter of course. Much further back, however, in an isolated draft for a passage in Gandalf's conversation with Bingo at Rivendell on his first waking (VI.213 - 14), he spoke of Bombadil in a way not unlike his words here (though his conclusion then was entirely different):
We have never had much to do with one another up till now. I don't think he quite approves of me somehow. He belongs to a much older generation, and my ways are not his. He keeps himself to himself and does not believe in travel. But I fancy somehow that we shall all need his help in the end - and that he may have to take an interest in things outside his own country.
20. Gandalf's account of Bombadil's power and its limitations goes back almost word for word to the original text of 'The Council of Elrond', VI.402.
21. This speech was first given to Erestor, as in the original version (VI.402). When my father gave it to Glorfindel instead, he followed it at first with the remainder of Erestor's original speech, in which he defined the opposing perils, and ended 'Who can read this riddle for us?' This speech was struck out as soon as written, and in its place Erestor was given the speech that follows in the text ('There is great peril in either course...'), in which he argues that the Ring must be sent to the Grey Havens and thence over the Sea.
22. The following seems a plausible explanation of this strange situation. My father added Gloin's surmise that Balin had hoped to find the ring of Thrain in Moria to the existing (second) version while the statement 'It was said in secret that Thrain, father of Thror, father of Thorin who fell in battle, possessed one' still stood. Subsequently he added in Gandalf's assurance that the last ring had indeed been taken from the captive dwarf in the dungeons of the Necromancer. Now since according to the story in The Hobbit it was the son (Thorin's father) whom Gandalf found in the dungeon, and the son had received the map of the Lonely Mountain from his father (Thorin's grandfather), he made it Thror who was captured by the Necromancer - for the erroneous genealogy Thrain - Thror - Thorin was still present. Finally he realised the error in relation to The Hobbit, and roughly changed Gloin's opening words to 'It was said in secret that Thror, father of Thrain... possessed one', without observing the effect on the rest of the passage; and in this form it was handed over to the typist.
In Gloin's story at the beginning of the chapter, p. 142, the correct genealogy is present.
23. A correction to the manuscript which is also found in the typescript as typed altered Elrond's reply to Boromir's question 'What then would happen, if the Ruling Ring were destroyed?' Instead of 'The Elves would not lose what they have already won; but the Three Rings would lose all power thereafter' his answer becomes: 'The Elves would not lose that knowledge which they have already won; but the Three Rings would lose all power thereafter, and many fair things would fade.'
Note on Thror and Thrain.
There is no question that the genealogy as first devised in The Hobbit was Thorin Oakenshield - Thrain - Thror (always without accents). At one point, however, Thror and Thrain were reversed in my father's typescript, and this survived into the first proof. Taum Santoski and John Rateliff have minutely examined the proofs and shown conclu- sively that instead of correcting this one error my father decided to extend Thorin - Thror - Thrain right through the book; but that having done so he then changed all the occurrences back to Thorin - Thrain - Thror. It is hard to believe that this extraordinary concern was unconnected with the words on 'Thror's Map' in The Hobbit: 'Here of old was Thrain King under the Mountain'; but the solution of this conundrum, if it can be found, belongs with the textual history of The Hobbit, and I shall not pursue it further. I mention it, of course, because in early manuscripts of The Lord of the Rings the genealogy reverts to Thorin - Thror - Thrain despite the publication of Thorin - Thrain - Thror in The Hobbit. The only solution I can propose for this is that having, for whatever reason, hesitated so long between the alternatives, when my father was drafting 'The Council of Elrond' ] Thorin - Thror - Thrain seemed as 'right' as Thorin - Thrain - Thror, and he did not check it with The Hobbit.
Years later, my father remarked in the prefatory note that appeared in the second (1951) edition:
A final note may be added, on a point raised by several students of the lore of the period. On Thror's Map is written Here of old was Thrain King under the Mountain; yet Thrain was the son of Thror, the last King under the Mountain before the coming of the dragon. The Map, however, is not in error. Names are often repeated in dynasties, and the genealogies show that a distant ancestor of Thror was referred to, Thrain I, a fugitive from Moria, who first discovered the Lonely Mountain, Erebor, and ruled there for a while, before his people moved on to the remoter mountains of the North.
In the third edition of 1966 the opening of Thorin's story in Chapter I was changed to introduce Thrain I into the text. Until then it had read:
'Long ago in my grandfather's time some dwarves were driven out of the far North, and came with all their wealth and their tools to this Mountain on the map. There they mined and they tunnelled and they made huge halls and great workshops...'
The present text of The Hobbit reads here:
'Long ago in my grandfather Thror's time our family was driven out of the far North, and came back with all their wealth and their tools to this Mountain on the map. It had been discovered by my far ancestor, Thrain the Old, but now they mined and they tunnelled and they made huger halls and greater workshops...'
At the same time, in the next sentence, 'my grandfather was King under the Mountain' was changed to 'my grandfather was King under the Mountain again.'
The history of Thrain the First, fugitive from Moria, first King under the Mountain, and discoverer of the Arkenstone, was given in The Lord of the Rings, Appendix A (III), Durin's Folk; and doubtless the prefatory note in the 1951 edition and the passage in Appendix A were closely related. But this was the product of development in the history of the Dwarves that came in with The Lord of the Rings (and indeed the need to explain the words on the map 'Here of old was Thrain King under the Mountain' evidently played a part in that development). When The Hobbit was first published it was Thrain son of Thror - the only Thrain at that time conceived of - who discovered the Arkenstone.
VIII. THE RING GOES SOUTH.
The intractable problems that had beset The Lord of the Rings thus far were now at last r
esolved. The identity of Trotter had been decisively established, and with the work done in successive versions of 'The Council of Elrond' his place and significance in the history of Middle-earth was already made firm - meagre though that history still was by comparison with the great structure that would afterwards be raised on these foundations. The hobbits were equally secure in number and in name, and the only Bolger who ever roved far afield would rove no more. Bombadil is to play no further part in the history of the Ring. Most intractable of all, the question of what had happened to Gandalf was now conclusively answered; and with that answer had arisen (as it would turn out) a new focal point in the history of the War of the Ring: the Treason of Isengard.
There still remained of older narrative writing the journey of the Company of the Ring from Rivendell to the Red Pass beneath Caradras, and the passage of the Mines of Moria as far as Balin's tomb. One major question remained, however, and a final decision must imperatively be made: who were the members of the Company to be?