Michael Martinez
2004-06-23 18:06:07 UTC
How many Thrains did Tolkien put into the first edition of THE HOBBIT?
Were there originally two Dwarves named Thrain in the original
HOBBIT, or just one? One of the key points of the "there was only one
Thrain" argument comes at the end of this passage in THE TREASON OF
ISENGARD in the chapter "The Council of Elrond (2)" where Christopher
Tolkien writes:
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 conclusively 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 unnconnected 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 the 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 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 mentioned 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 UNDRE 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 the 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.
Christopher Tolkien wrote this long passage because, in the text he
had just presented, Gloin referred to Thrain as the father of Thror.
Earlier in the drafts Gloin had gotten the family tree "right"
according to what was established in THE HOBBIT, but then he began to
stumble (that is, Tolkien got confused). The first occurrence of the
error is found in THE RETURN OF THE SHADOW, and Christopher apparently
felt it only merited a brief mention without explanation in the index
entries for "Thrain" and "Thror". He must have concluded that the
continued errors in the texts used in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD demanded
some explanation.
The last sentence ("When THE HOBBIT was first published it was Thrain
son of Thror - the only Thrain at that time conceived - who discovered
the Arkenstone") has been assigned disproportionate importance and
some people feel they need look no further than this to determine the
correctness of the "One Thrain" argument.
However, when he wrote that passage, Christopher Tolkien did not take
into consideration several important points (in fact, he excused
himself from a full examination of the matter -- see below). And I
think it is fair to suggest that Christopher was probably strongly
influenced by his own childhood memories of the story in its
prepublication state (in which there was indisputably only one
Thrain). But Christopher was also looking back at the matter through
the lenses of two additional editions. When his father wrote the
prefatory note cited above, he only had to look back through the lens
of one additional edition. His view was not clouded by the textual
changes which would not be made for another 15 years.
The "One Thrain" argument also rests in part upon another statement in
the above passage, near the beginning, where Christopher writes:
...It is hard to believe that this extraordinary concern was
unnconnected 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....
He concludes with "the solution of this conundrum...belongs with the
textual history of THE HOBBIT, and I shall not pursue it further".
The "One Thrain" argument ignores this admission of incompleteness,
and that is the primary flaw in the "One Thrain" argument. To see why
this is a flaw, we must examine the textual history Christopher did
not engage in while he was working on THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
Considerable information on various texts has come to light since THE
TREASON OF ISENGARD was published. It is now possible for us to
examine the textual history for ourselves.
Douglas Anderson provides a summary of the HOBBIT text history in the
second edition of THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT. Following Christopher's
convention of identifying texts with letters, he names six HOBBIT
manuscripts according to "stages of completion":
Stage A: A six-page handwritten manuscript of Chapter 1 (the
opening pages are missing). This is the earliest
surviving manuscript, in which the dragon is named
Pryftan, and the head dwarf Gandalf, and the wizard
Bladorthin.
NOTE: The first version of Thror's map, which does not include any
reference to "Thrain King under the Mountain" was drawn on a page of
the A manuscript. This is, so far as has been ascertained in any
resources published to date, the ONLY version of the map which does
not mention Thrain. This stage was probably written in 1930-31.
Stage B: A mixed typescript and handwritten manuscript.
The first twelve pages are typed (on Tolkien's Hammond
typewriter), and the remainder of the pages are
handwritten and numbered consecutively from 13 to
167. This stage of composition constitutes Chapters
1 through 12 of the published book, and Chapter 14....
NOTE: Chapter 12 is "Inside Information", in which the Arkenstone (of
Thrain) is first mentioned.
Stage C: A typescript done on the Hammond typewrite
(with the songs in italics), with the pages numbered
from 1 to 132, covering the same material as in
stage B....
NOTE: Everything after Stage C was composed in preparation for
publication.
Stage D: A handwritten manuscript, with pages numbered
from 1 to 45, covering Chapters 13 and 15-19.
Stage E: The typescript from Stage C was reworked, with
the new insert of Chapter 13 paginated 127-134, and
the typescript of the former Chapter 13, now Chapter
14, renumbered by hand 135-40. The new chapters from
stage D are now typed and hand-numbered from 141-68.
Stage F: A second full typescript, first intended as
a printer's typescript, was made at this point, but
it seems not to have been used, as it has a
significant number of typographical mistakes.
After this came the first set of page proofs,
followed by the revised page proofs.
Anderson reconstructs the chronology like this: The story was brought
to Stage C by the late spring or early summer of 1936, at which time
Susan Dagnall visited Oxford and acquired the story from Tolkien.
From August, after she suggested he finish the story and submit it to
George Allen & Unwin, to the beginning of October, Tolkien worked on
the Stage E typescript. Sometime in November, 10-year-old Rayner
Unwin was asked to review the book. Five maps and an uncertain number
of illustrations were submitted with the book to Allen & Unwin.
Anderson suggests the maps included with the submitted manuscript were
"apparently early versions of Thror's Map...and the Wilderland
Map...and maps of the land between the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood,
of the land east of Mirkwood to the east of the River Running, and of
Long Lake (combined with a view of the Lonely Mountain).
Rayner Unwin recommended the book be published and suggested that
illustrations would not be necessary, only maps. Wayne Hammond and
Christina Scull reviewed the history of the maps in J.R.R. TOLKIEN:
ARTIST & ILLUSTRATOR:
Rayner Unwin, who was later to guide THE LORD OF THE RINGS into
print, at age ten (in 1936) reviewed the typescript of THE
HOBBIT for his father, publisher Stanley Unwin of the firm
George Allen & Unwin. 'This book, with the help of maps, does
not need any illustrations it is good,' he wrote in breathless,
boyish style, and at first Tolkien and his publisher seem to
have agreed with him. THE HOBBIT was to have no illustrations
PER SE, but would have five maps which, with one exception,
would trace Bilbo's journey across the wild lands east of his
home to the Lonely Mountain, the lair of Smaug the dragon
upom whom the dwarves seek revenge. To judge by extant
sketches and correspondence, these five were THROR'S MAP;
WILDERLAND; and maps of the land between the Misty Mountains
and Mirkwood, of the land east of Mirkwood to just east of the
River Running, and of the Long Lake, the last combined with a
vew of the Lonely Mountain. This would have been their
logical order, following the course of the story, and they
would have made a neat cartographic parallel to the text.
But in the event, their number was reduced to only two.
Tolkien drew at least three of the maps he submitted to Allen
& Unwin in multiple colours, chiefly coloured pencil. The
publisher's production staff objected to this technique, as
it would have required printing the maps as separate plates
in colour halftone, an expensive process. They suggested
instead that THROR'S MAP and WILDERLAND be printed as endpages,
in any two colours Tolkien liked, and that the remaining maps
be printed in only one colour (black), with the text. But first
Tolkien would have to redraw the maps to suit reproduction by
line-block, and to letter them better. This meant, he was told
in the Mirkwood map [i.e. WILDERLAND (84)] showing the Misty
Mountains and the Grey Mountains only by hatching in one
colour, the higher ranges being indicated by closer hatching.
The rivers may then be shown by parallel lines. Possbly it
will be best to indicate Mirkwood in the same colour as the
Mountains, leaving the second colour for all the paths and all
the lettering. All that is needed with the lettering is that
you should do it a little more neatly. This is indeed the only
alteration needed in Thror's Map [85]...."
Further on:
Tolkien tried to do as he was asked, as well as he could, or
as well as he felt he could. Two additional schematic
drawings of the Lonely Mountain, which Tolkien made over
in heavy line, are extant, but neither was used. Within a
month he replied to Allen & Unwin that he had redrawn 'the
chart [i.e. THROR'S MAP] which has to be tipped in (to
Chapter 1), and the general map [WILDERLAND]. I can only
hope -- as I have small skill, and no experience of preparing
such things for reproduction -- that they may possibly serve.
The other maps I have decided are not wanted....
NOTE: The mentioned plate reproduction of Thror's Map (number 85)
contains the following words under the Mountain: "here of old was the
land of Thrain King under the Mountain". This means that Tolkien
submitted a second version of Thror's map, mentioning Thrain as "King
under the Mountain" to the publisher with the original manuscript.
This second version was drawn vertically, and in the lower-left
corner, Tolkien wrote the legend: "Thror's Map. Copied by Bilbo
Baggins. For moon-runes hold up to a light."
George Allen & Unwin accepted THE HOBBIT for publication by December
1936. According to Christopher's explanation of the first
Thror-Thrain mixup, the manuscript submitted to Allen & Unwin
inadvertently switched from Thorin-Thrain-Thror to Thorin-Thror-Thrain
somewhere in the story, and then continued that mistake throughout the
rest of the text. This mistake was carried through to the first proof
of the book (that is, whomever typeset the book repeated the mistake,
knowing no better), which was sent to Tolkien between December 4, 1936
and March 15, 1937.
Allen & Unwin commissioned ten black-and-white illustrations for the
first impression (printing), which Anderson suggests were made between
Christmas 1936 and January 1937. Tolkien sent four drawings ("The
Elvenking's Gate", "Lake Town", "The Front Gate", and "Mirkwood") to
Allen & Unwin on January 4. He also sent the redrawn "Thror's Map"
and "Wilderland Map" (confirmed by Letter 9, cited in the last
paragraph of the Hammond/Scull excerpt above). On January 17, Tolkien
sent six illustrations: "The Hill: Hobbiton-across-the Water", "The
Trolls", "The Mountain-path", "the Misty Mountains Looking West",
"Beorn's Hall", and "The Hall at Bag-End".
The redrawn, third version of "Thror's Map" included the words: "Here
of old was Thrain King under the Mountain" (this is the standard
Thror's Map). This map was simply titled, "Thror's Map" in the
left-hand margin.
Tolkien received the first proofs of the text on February 20 and
February 24, 1937. Anderson says "[Tolkien's] corrections were
considered somewhat heavy, and even though he had carefully calculated
the length of the replacement passages, it was necessary to reset
several sections."
According to the preface for Letter 12, Tolkien returned the corrected
proofs for THE HOBBIT to Allen & Unwin in mid-March, 1937.
Anderson says he "received the revised proofs in early April and
returned them on April 13".
After agreeing in May to allow the American publisher, Houghton
Mifflin Company, to commission colored illustrations with an American
artist, Allen & Unwin persuaded Tolkien to provide the illustrations
himself.
The first Allen & Unwin printing was produced in June 1937, but
release was delayed.
Tolkien drew the first four color illustrations, which were also
included in the second printing of the first Allen & Unwin edition, in
July 1937: "Rivendell", "Bilbo Woke Up with the Early Sun in His
Eyes", "Bilbo Comes to the Huts of the Raft-elves", and "Conversation
with Smaug". He finished a color version of "The Hill:
Hobbiton-across-the Water" by mid-August.
"Conversation with Smaug" includes a detailed rune inscription on a
golden jar which has been translated as: "gold the [? portion obscured
by ladder] Thrain / accursed be the thief."
The first Allen & Unwin printing contained the following passage in
Chapter 1, "An Unexpected Party":
On the table in the light of a big lamp with a red
shade he spread a piece of parchment rather like a map.
"This was made by your grandfather, Thorin," he said
in answer to the Dwarves' excited questions. "It is
a plan of the Mountain."
The text was altered in 1966 to read: "This was made by Thror, your
grandfather, Thorin".
The second Allen & Unwin printing was produced in early December 1937.
The first Houghton Mifflin edition was published in 1938, by which
time Allen & Unwin had asked Tolkien to begin writing a sequel to THE
HOBBIT.
Nearly having finished his work on the primary narrative for THE LORD
OF THE RINGS by September 1947, Tolkien sent a letter to Sir Stanley
Unwin (no. 111) which included "Rayner's comments [on THE LORD OF THE
RINGS]; also some notes on THE HOBBIT; and (for the possible amusement
of yourself and Rayner) a specimen of re-writing of Chapter V of that
work, which would simplify, though not necessarily improve, my present
task." Chapter 5 is "Riddles in the Dark", where Bilbo meets Gollum.
By 1949, according to Christopher Tolkien in THE PEOPLES OF
MIDDLE-EARTH, J.R.R. TOLKIEN had begun working on the appendices for
THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Christopher dates a crucial text, T 4 (version
four of "The Tale of Years" in Appendix B) to the period around August
1949:
On page 177 of THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, Christopher writes:
I think it extremely probable that this text T 4 ...
belongs in time with the texts F 2 and D 2 of the
Appendices on Languages and on Calendars, and with the
third text of THE HEIRS OF ELENDIL, given in the next
chapter. But external evidence of date seems to be
entirely lacking.
On page 119 of THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, Christopher writes:
The earliest text of what became Appendix D to THE LORD OF
THE RINGS is a brief, rough manuscript without title, which
I will call D 1. In style and appearance it suggests
association with the first of the two closely related
manuscripts of the Appendix on Languages, F 1 (see p. 28),
and that this is the case is shown by a reference in the
text to 'the note on Languages p. 11'. This in fact
refers to the second version, F 2, which was thus already
in existence (see p. 136, note 2). D 1 was followed,
clearly at no long interval, by a fair copy, D 2, exactly
parallel to the manuscripts F 1 and F 2 of the Appendix
on Languages; and thus the order of composition was F 1,
F 2; D 1, D 2. I have no doubt at all that all four texts
belong to the same time, which was certainly before the
summer of 1950 (see p. 28 and note 1), and probably earlier:
in fact, an envelope associated with D 1 is postmarked
August 1949.
The T 4 text includes an entry for the year 2590 which reads:
2590 Thror the Dwarf (of Durin's race) founds the realm
of Erebor (the Lonely Mountain), and becomes 'King under
the Mountain'. He lives in friendship with the Men of
Dale, who are nearly akin to the Rohirrim.
Christopher appends a note to this entry which reads:
'Thror ... founds the realm of Erebor': the history of
Thror's ancestors had not yet emerged.
At the end of the chapter on this text, Christopher writes in "Notes
on changes made to the manuscript T 4 of the Tale of Years", section
(v), "The Dwarves":
The entry for 2590 recording the founding of the realm
of Erebor was changed to read: 'In the far North dragons
multiply again. Thror...comes south and re-establishes
the realm of Erebor ...' At the same time, at the end
of the entry, this addition was made: 'He was the great-
great-great-grandson of Thrain I Nain's son' (which does
not agree with the genealogical table in Appenix A, RK
p. 361: see pp. 276-7).
Why did Tolkien change this entry and add an extensive family tree?
Because...
In July 1950, Allen & Unwin unexpectedly sent Tolkien proofs for the
second edition of THE HOBBIT (which incorporated the 1947 suggested
changes without Tolkien's advance knowledge). On August 1, 1950,
Tolkien returned the corrected proofs for the second Allen & Unwin
edition of THE HOBBIT with Letter 128:
THE HOBBIT: I return the proofs herewith. They did not require
much correction, but did need some consideration. The thing took
me much by surprise. It is now a long while since I sent in the
proposed alteration of Chapter V, and tentatively suggested the
slight remodelling of the original HOBBIT. I was then still
engaged in trying to fit on the sequel, which would have been
a simpler task with the alteration, besides saving most of a
chapter in that over-long work. However, I never heard any more
about it at all; and I assumed that alteration of the original
book was ruled out. The sequel now dpeends on the earlier version;
and if the revision is really published, there must follow some
considerable rewriting of the sequel.
I must say that I could wish I had had some hint that (in any
circumstances) this change might be made, before it burst upon
me in page-proof. However, I have now made up my mind to accept
the change and its consequences. The thing is now old enough
for me to take a fairly impartial view, and it seems to me that
the revised version is in itself better, in motive and
narrative -- and certainly would make the sequel (if ever
published) mich more natural.
I did not mean the suggested revision to be printed off; but it
seems to have come out pretty well in the wash.
Clearly, Tolkien noticed a problem regarding the history of Erebor.
Christopher provides us with detailed information about what his
father did in response to the problem.
In the chapter "The Making of Appendix A", in the section devoted to
"(IV) DURIN'S FOLK", Christopher writes:
My father's original text of what would become the section
DURIN'S FOLK in Appendix A is extant: a brief, clear
manuscript written on scrap paper entitled OF DURIN'S LINE,
accompanied by a genealogy forming a part of the text.
It was corrected in a few points, and one substantial
passage was added; these changes were made, I think, at
or soon after the writing of the manuscript. I give
this text in full, with the changes shown where they
are of any significance.
The cited text starts out with a long paragraph summarizing the
history of Durin's Folk from his awakening to the coming of the
Balrog. In the original text (as indicated by Christopher's lack of
editorial insertion), the paragraph concludes with:
...For the most part they passed into the North; but
Thrain Nain's son, the king by inheritance, came to
Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, nigh to the eastern eaves
of Mirkwood, and established his realm for a while.
The next paragraph begins:
But Gloin his grandson [> Thorin his son] removed
and abandoned Erebor, and passed into the far North
where the most of his kin now dwelt. But it came
to pass that dragons arose and multiplied in the
North, and made war upon the Dwarves, and
plundered their works and wealth; and many of the
Dwarves fled again southward and eastward. Then
Thror Dain's son, the great-great-grandson of
Thrain, returned to Erebor and became King-under-
the-Mountain, and prospered exceedingly, having
the friendship of all that dwelt near, whether
Elves or Men or the birds and beasts of the land.
The next paragraph tells the story of Smaug, with a substantial change
indicated that does not impact the stated genealogy of Thror. After
the citation, Christopher writes:
In this text and its accompanying genealogical table
(which I have here redrawn) it is seen that an
important advance had been made from the text T 4
of the Tale of Years, where it was told under
the year 2590 that Thror 'founded the realm of
Erebor' (p. 236): as I said in a note on that entry,
'the history of Thror's ancestors had not yet
emerged'. Here that history is present, but not
yet precisely in the final form; for the names of
'the kings of Durin's folk' in the genealogical
table here run Thorin I: Gloin : Dain I, whereas
in that in Appendix A they are Thorin I: Gloin :
Oin : Nain II : Dain I; thus in the present text
Thror is called 'the great-great-grandson of
Thrain [I]'. While the history was at this stage
the corrections and additions were made to T 4:
see p. 252, THE DWARVES.
That last reference is to the section I cited a portion of above.
Finally, the 1951 (second) edition of THE HOBBIT included the
following note, which Tolkien sent to Allen & Unwin with Letter 130 on
10 September 1950. Here is the full text of Letters 129 and 130:
129 FROM A LETTER TO SIR STANLEY UNWIN 10 September 1950
[Allen & Unwin asked Tolkien to supply a 'precise wording'
for a note in the new edition of THE HOBBIT which would
explain the changes in the new text.]
Wll, there is is: the alteration is now made, and cannot,
I suppose, be unmade. Such people as I have consulted
think that the alteration is in itself an improvement
(apart from the question of a sequel). That is something.
But when I tried to consider 'a precise wording' for a
note on the revision in an English edition, I did not
find the matter as simple as I had thought.
I have now on my hands two printed versions of a crucial
incident. Either the first must be regarded as washed
out, a mere miswriting that ought never to have seen
the light; or the story as a whole must take into
account the existence of the two versions and use it.
The former was my original simpleminded intention,
though it is a bit awkward (since the Hobbit is fairly
widely known in its older form) if the literary
pretence of historicity and dependence on record is
to be maintained. The second can be done
convincingly (I think), but not briefly explained in
a note.
In the former case, or in doubt, the only thing to do,
I fancy, is just to say nothing. I am in doubt, so
I propose at the moment just to say nothing; though I
do not like it. There is, in any case, I take it,
no question of inserting a note into the American
reprint. And you will no doubt warn me in good time
when an English one becomes necessary.
In the meanwhile I send you a specimen of the kind
of thing that I should want to insert in an altered
reprint -- if I decide to recognise two versions
of the Ring-finding as part of the authentic
tradition. This is not intended as copy; but if you
would return it, with any comment you like, it would
be helpful.
130 FROM A LETTER TO SIR STANLEY UNWIN 14 September 1950
[Further consideration led Tolkien to decide that an
explanatory note would definitely be needed in the
new edition.]
I have decided to accept the existence of both versions
of Chapter Five, so far as the sequel goes -- though I
have no time at the moment to rewrite that at the
required points. I enclose, therefore, a copy of the
briefest form of the prefatory note: which is intended
as copy, if you should think it well to use it in the
reprint.
The second paragraph of Tolkien's prefatory note dealt with the
apparent discrepancy between Thror's Map and the genealogy of Thorin's
family (as provided in the narrative of THE HOBBIT -- THE ANNOTATED
HOBBIT indicates that no changes were made to the narrative to address
the family history):
A final note may be added, on a point raised by several
students of the lroe of the period. On Thror's Map is
written HERE OF OLD WAS THRAIN KING UNDER THE MOUNATIN;
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.
These are the facts of the textual history of THE HOBBIT and the
appendices in THE LORD OF THE RINGS with respect to the genealogy of
Thror's family. We can immediately raise several significant points:
1) Both versions of Thror's Map submitted to Allen & Unwin were
clearly labelled "Thror's Map", and both clearly included words naming
Thrain as "King under the Mountain". The narrative stipulates that
the map was drawn by Thorin's grandfather (without naming him).
2) When THE HOBBIT was originally submitted to Allen & Unwin, it
contained the Thror-Thrain mixup, but the first map submitted to them
nonetheless properly identified Thror as the maker of the map and
still named Thrain as the old "King under the Mountain".
3) The second map also correctly identified Thror as its maker and
still included the mention of Thrain as the old "King under the
Mountain", even though Tolkien had gone back and corrected the proofs
to reassert the Thorin-Thrain-Thror relationship.
So, considering that the nomenclature employed was not altered at any
time, the maps cannot be said to be "in error" with respect to the
INTENDED storyline. That is, clearly, Tolkien intended Thror to be
the cartographer. And in the original storyline, Thror was also
Thorin's grandfather. So, Tolkien clearly intended Thorin's
grandfather Thror to have drawn the map which referred to old King
Thrain.
But if the ORIGINAL (pre-submission) story only included one Thrain,
then why did Tolkien include the previously non-existent Thrain the
Old, "King under the Mountain", on the new maps?
Let's go back to Christopher's summation of the TWO Thror-Thrain
mixups:
...It is hard to believe that this extraordinary concern was
unnconnected with the words on 'Thror's map' in THE HOBBIT:
'Here of old was THRAIN King under the Mountain'; ... I
mention it, of course, because in the 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
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.
The first mixup entered into the story when Tolkien was preparing the
manuscript for submission. The second mixup occurred more than two
years later when Tolkien was writing "The Council of Elrond".
The nomenclature on Thror's Map does not appear to be due to the first
mixup because the map is consistent with the narrative (that is, the
narrative asserts that Thorin's grandfather made the map AND that
Thror was Thorin's grandfather both before and after the mixup).
Neither of the maps allow us to infer that "here of old was Thror King
under the Mountain".
Furthermore, after recounting the history of his people in "An
Unexpected Party", Thorin says:
"I have often wondered about my father's and my
grandfather's escape. I see now they must have
had a private Side-door which only they knew about.
But apparently they made a map, and I should like
to know how Gandalf got hold of it, and why it
did not come down to me, the rightful heir."
When did they make the map? The narrative doesn't say. But the map
includes the words, "The desolation of Smaug" beneath the Mountain (on
the second map -- the first map says "Here is the desolation of Smaug"
above the Mountain). Hence, the map had to be made after Thror and
Thrain escaped the sack of Erebor.
Further on, Gandalf tells Thorin that "your grandfather...gave the map
to his son for safety before he went to the mines of Moria." So, the
grandfather who made the map retained possession of it until he gave
it to Thorin's father. There is no indication that the father altered
the map in any way. Nor is there any indication that the father
helped to make the map (other than Thorin's own words, which may be
figurative).
Now we could assume that Tolkien drew the second version of Thror's
Map (the first one submitted to Allen & Unwin) after typing THE HOBBIT
for submission. At that point in time, most of the manuscript
referred to Thorin's father as Thror. But this assumption forces us
to ask why Tolkien did not redraw the map to reflect the reversal of
names in the proofs? Furthermore, why would Tolkien not correct the
narrative to say that the map was drawn by Thorin's father (or kept by
him or given by him to the grandfather) so that the names of the maker
(Thror) and the king (Thrain) agreed with the narrative?
To assume that the second map was made in accordance with the
erroneous genealogy forces us to assume that Tolkien did not bother to
check his details against the narrative. Worse, we must also assume
that, when Tolkien corrected the name mixup, he decided not to correct
the map to agree with the corrected proofs.
On the other hand, when Tolkien drew a third map in December, he would
have repeated the mistake (if we assume that the second map was
erroneous). We can argue that Tolkien did not have the submitted
typescript to refer to, but he DID have the earlier versions of the
story to work from. So, why would he mistakenly include Thrain of Old
on the third map? Based on the earlier versions of the story, Thrain
could not have been King under the Mountain.
So, either way, assuming that the maps' nomenclature was established
in error (either in accordance with the first Thror-Train mixup or in
accordance with the earlier versions of the story), the maps would be
contradicting the narrative. If, while correcting the name mixup,
Tolkien altered the narrative to show that it was Thror (now Thorin's
grandfather again) who made the map, then why not stipulate somewhere
that a previous Thrain had been King under the Mountain?
In short, any assumption that Tolkien's error extended beyond the mere
confusion of the names of Thror and Thrain in the primary narrative
requires that we assume he made further errors while trying to resolve
the first error. On the other hand, if the text didn't rule out an
earlier Thrain, then the map would clearly be in agreement with the
narrative even if it did not elaborate on that earlier Thrain's
history.
And then there is the matter of Thrain's name on the jar in the color
illustration "Conversation with Smaug". Why was Thrain's name used
and not Thror's? By July 1937, when Tolkien drew the illustration, he
had already corrected the Thror-Thrain mixup AND he had already drawn
two maps which named Thrain as a King under the Mountain (and both
maps were attributed to Thror, not to Thrain).
We could assume that Tolkien did not have the maps or the proofs or
the manuscript (the book was printed in June but he did not receive
his own copy until August), and that he simply FORGOT who had been
King under the Mountain -- but after his extensive revision of the
text, correcting the name switch only a few months previously, that
seems rather a stretch. Especially when Tolkien could have checked
the earlier manuscripts to see who had been King under the Mountain.
We could also assume that, for a reason he never disclosed in any
writing published so far, a considerable portion of Erebor's treasure
belonged to Thrain (the Arkenstone of Thrain, Thrain's cursed jar,
Thrain's goat-collar, etc.). But why should items in the hoard be
named for Thrain and not for Thror?
Thror gets a map, Thrain gets an Arkenstone and gold jar. That seems
rather an odd exchange for father and son, when it is the father who
is the King.
On the other hand, if we accept the evidence at face value, that
Tolkien intended a reference to another King under the Mountain in
both the map and the illustration, then all we have to do is determine
if the narrative disallows a previous Thrain.
So, let's return to 1950, when Tolkien received the unexpected proofs
for the second Allen & Unwin edition of THE HOBBIT. He had already
included some Dwarf history in his "Tale of Years", but he had
apparently not yet written "Durin's Folk" for Appendix A. We can
infer that the sequence went something like this:
Tale of Years Text T 4 (1949)
Proofs of Hobbit from Allen & Unwin (July 1950)
Tolkien returns Proofs (August 1950)
Around this time, he appears to have altered the Tale of Years entry
and begun the composition of "Durin's Folk", which from its first
inception mentioned the earlier Thrain (calling him Thrain I).
Tolkien subsequently wrote the prefatory note, which stipulated that
the Thrain on the map was Thrain I, not Thorin's father Thrain.
Tolkien did not need to make any changes to THE HOBBIT in order to
make the narrative consistent with the map or the prefatory note. The
note itself was written primarily to satisfy Tolkien's concerns about
the significant changes in Chapter 5, "Riddles in the Dark". But he
obviously felt it was important enough to mention the distinction
between the Thrain on the map and Thorin's father Thrain.
Why?
Not because he had created a second Thrain for THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
Clearly, he created THAT Thrain after he reviewed THE HOBBIT for the
second edition. He had composed a history for the Dwarves which did
not encompass the two Thrains. He had been forced to revise that
history to accomodate what had been established by THE HOBBIT, both in
the two maps and in the colored illustration, "Conversation with
Smaug". If it was really obvious that there was only one Thrain, then
why revise the history of Durin's Folk? Why add the prefatory note
"adding" a Thrain and thus "covering up" the supposed error?
Is the published narrative of the first edition of THE HOBBIT
inconsistent with the history as stipulated in THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
For example, what does THE HOBBIT say about the history of Erebor?
Well, Thorin's account read thus:
"O very well," said Thorin. "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 -- and in addition I
believe they found a good deal of gold and a great many
jewels too. Anyway they grew immensely rich and famous,
and my grandfather was King under the Mountain, and treated
with great reverence by the mortal men, who lived to the
South, and were gradually spreading up the Running River
as far as the valley overshadowed by the Mountain. They
built the merry town of Dale there in those days. Kings
used to send for our smiths, and reward even the least
skillful most richly. Fathers would beg us to take their
sons as apprentices, and pay us handsomely, especially in
food-supplies, which we never bothered to grow or find for
ourselves. Altogether those were good days for us, and
the poorest of us had money to spend and to lend, and
leisure to make beautiful things just for the fun of it,
not to speak of the most marvellous and magical toys, the
like of which is not to be found in the world now-a-days.
So my grandfather's halls became full of wonderful jewels
and carvings and cups, and the toyshops of Dale were a
sight to behold...."
(From "An Unexpected Party")
Thorin's history makes it pretty clear that a lot of things happened
in his grandfather's time. But he doesn't say that the dwarves
DISCOVERED the Mountain in his grandfather's time. Nor does he say
the grandfather was the first (or only) King under the Mountain. In
fact, he doesn't even say that Thror FOUNDED the Kingdom under the
Mountain, or that Thror actually came south with the other Dwarves
Thorin refers to.
The reader can just as easily infer than an existing Dwarf community
was enlarged as that a new one was established. This passage is
therefore not entirely consistent with the history provided in
"Durin's Folk", but it doesn't contradict that history, either.
Tolkien did not revise this passage to explicitly refer to any
previous Thrain until the copyright conflict with Ace Books forced him
to revise THE HOBBIT in 1966. Then he changed the passage to read:
"O very well," said Thorin. "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
my grandfather was King under the Mountain again...."
This alteration didn't simply add Thrain the Old to the narrative. It
also explicitly included Thror and his family with the Dwarves who
came down from the north. The narrative now became fully consistent
with the details provided in "Durin's Folk", where the family was said
to have abandoned Erebor after Thrain I died.
There were other changes which Tolkien introduced to the narrative in
1966 to make it more consistent with "Durin's Folk". For example, in
the original narrative, Gandalf told Thorin:
"I did not 'get hold of it,' I was given it," said
the wizard. "Your grandfather was killed, you
remember, in the Mines of Moria by a goblin."
Tolkien revised this in 1966 to conclude with: "Your grandfather Thror
was killed, you remember, in the Mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin."
Changing "a goblin" to "Azog the Goblin" brought the text into full
agreement with "Durin's Folk", but it was not previously contradicting
the account in "Durin's Folk".
Tolkien could have made these changes in 1950, but he chose not to.
We don't know why. We simply know that he did not introduce these
explicit references to the "Durin's Folk" history into the narrative
at that time.
There is nothing in the first edition narrative which explicitly
contradicts the "Durin's Folk" account, not even the references to the
Arkenstone of Thrain. The published story doesn't actually say who
found it (or for whom it was named). Now, since there was only one
Thrain in the origainl, pre-submission story, it follows that the
Arkenstone was named for Thorin's father Thrain. Even so, that
doesn't mean it was Thrain who found it.
Since the original, pre-submission manscript was only completed
through what became Chapter 14 ("Fire and Water"), it would -- at most
-- have only had one passage which mentioned the Arkenstone: the
section in "Inside Information" where the Dwarves talk about the
treasure of Erebor:
"...But the fairest of all was the great white gem, which
the dwarves had found beneath the roots of the Mountain,
the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of Thrain."
Tolkien never altered this text. Simply naming the Arkenstone for a
Thrain was consistent with the account provided in THE LORD OF THE
RINGS. In the revised ANNOTATED HOBBIT, Douglas Anderson briefly
addresses the rightful naming of the Arkenstone at the beginning of "A
Thief in the Night" in a comment on the opening paragraphs:
Now the days passed slowly and wearily. Many of the
Dwarves spent their time piling and ordering the
treasure; and now Thorin spoke of the Arkenstone
of Thrain, and bade them eagerly to look for it in
every corner.
"For the Arkenstone of my father," he said, "is worth
more than a river of gold in itself, and to me it
is beyond price. That stone of all the treasure I
name unto myself, and I will be avenged on anyone
who finds it and withholds it."
Anderson concludes his commentary by saying:
...On page 287 of THE HOBBIT, the Arkenstone is referred
to as "the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of
Thrain." Here, Thorin speaks of "the Arkenstone of my
father," and on page 334 Thorin says "that stone was
my father's." Surely in naming the stone "the Arkenstone
of Thrain," Tolkien would have meant the Thrain who
discovered it. Originally, the discoverer was Thorin's
father, but when Tolkien came to expand the Dwarvish
ancestry he seems to have missed the significance here
of Thorin describing the stone as being his father's.
By rights, at the time of the coming of the dragon,
the stone belonged not to Thrain but to Thror, Thrain's
father, then the King under the Mountain.
If, when he first published THE HOBBIT, Tolkien had intended the
Arkenstone to be named for Thorin's immediate father, he should have
(according to Christopher's anecdote regarding the name mixup) changed
"Arkenstone of Thrain" to "Arkenstone of Thror". Anderson does not
refer to the name mixup, much less indicate that it affected the
naming of the Arkenstone. I have sought clarification on the point
but have not yet received a reply.
Anderson referred to a second passage, in "The Clouds Burst", where
the Arkenstone is again mentioned:
"Is there then nothing for which you would yield any
of your gold?"
"Nothing that you or your friends have to offer."
"What of the Arkenstone of Thrain?" said he, and
at the same moment the old man opened the casket and
held aloft the jewel. The light leaped from his
hand, bright and white in the morning.
Then Thorin was stricken dump with amazement and
confusion. No one spoke for a long while.
Thorin at length broke the silence, and his voice was
thick with wrath. "That stone was my father's, and is
mine," he said. "Why should I purchase my own?" But
wonder overcame him and he added: "But how came you by
the heirloom of my house -- if there is need to ask
such a question of thieves?"
Now, "heirloom of my house" is a curious expression for someone to use
of an artifact which his father has supposedly found. The expression
implies that the Arkenstone has been in Thorin's family for more than
a generation. The whole passage is rendered ambiguous with respect to
whom the artifact is named for. Does it HAVE to be Thorin's immediate
father? No. Now, Christopher asserts (in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD)
that it was originally Thorin's father Thrain who found the stone.
But though that would have been the case for the pre-publication
story, it does not follow that it had to remain so when Tolkien added
new material to THE HOBBIT as he prepared it for submission to Allen &
Unwin.
Neither of these passages was altered by J.R.R. Tolkien. Nor did he
mention the Arkenstone in his original draft of "Durin's Folk", and
the one reference to it in THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH does not
suggest the Arkenstone was involved in the name mixup. At the very
least, Tolkien found nothing to contradict the idea that the
Arkenstone was named for Thrain the Old (Thrain I) when he reviewed
the second edition proofs for THE HOBBIT and the drafts for "The Tale
of Years" and "Durin's Folk" in 1950.
Concerning "Durin's Folk", while it is true, as Christopher said in
his note for the 2590 Tale of Years entry, that "the history of
Thror's ancestors had not yet emerged", THE HOBBIT nonetheless always
referred to Thorin's family prior to his grandfather:
"Stand by the grey stone where the thrush knocks," said
Elrond, "and the setting sun with the last light of
Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole."
"Durin, Durin!" said Thorin. "He was the father of the
fathers of one of the two races of dwarves, the Longbeards,
and my grandfather's ancestor..."
(From "A Short Rest")
Durin is placed at the remotest beginning of Dwarf history, and
therefore the reader understands that Thror himself was forebears
going all the way back to Durin. The only change Tolkien made to this
passage for the second edition was to replace the word "where" in
"where the thrush knocks" with "when". "the two races of dwarves" was
only replaced by "the eldest race of Dwarves" in 1966, clearly an
oversight when Tolkien reviewed the text of THE HOBBIT in 1950.
It should be noted that, while working on Appendix A, Tolkien wrote
the following passage:
To [their children] they are devoted, often rather
fiercely: that is, they may treat them with apparent
harshness (especially in the desire to ensure that
they shall grow up tough, hardy, unyielding), but
they defend them with all their power, and resent
injuries to them even more than to themselves. The
same is true of the attitude of children to parents.
For an injury to a father a Dwarf may spend a life-
time in achieving revenge. Since the 'kings' or
heads of lines are regarded as 'parents' of the
whole group, it will be understood how it was that
the whole of Durin's Race gathered and marshalled
itself to avenge Thror.
Tolkien thus clearly envisioned the Dwarves looking upon each king as
a "father", and his use of the word "father" (and the similar words
"sire" and "longfather") throughout the books is relatively broad. A
father could be a figurative leader (as when Ghan-Buri-Ghan called
Theoden "father of horse-men"), or a remote ancestor (as in Durin
being the father of the fathers of the Longbeards), or one of many
ancestors (as when Faramir speaks of Gondor's "longfathers of old" at
Aragorn's coronation). Aragorn calls Isildur and Anarion his "sires
of old" when he passes between the Argonath. Aragorn's use of the
plural is necessitated because he is speaking of two ancestors.
Individually, he would have referred to Isildur as "my sire of old" or
Anarion as "my sire of old", but he would have been using the word
"sire" figuratively, not literally, since his literal sire was
Arathorn II.
Tolkien is not obligated to avoid such ambiguous usage for Thorin,
when he claims the Arkenstone "was my father's". If Douglas Anderson
is correct in arguing that Thorin's father Thrain should not have been
the rightful owner of the Arkenstone, then it follows that either
J.R.R. Tolkien failed to correct several occurences of "the Arkenstone
of Thrain" -- AS WELL AS at least two passages where Thorin associated
"my father" with the Arkenstone -- or else Tolkien intended to leave
those passages unaltered THROUGH TWO REVISIONS of the text because he
felt they referred to a remote ancestor of Thorin's named Thrain,
Thrain the Old (Thrain I).
In fact, if Thorin's statements were so obviously incorrect, then why
did Tolkien not change them in 1966, when he removed the second
paragraph of the prefatory note and inserted a reference to Thrain I
in "An Unexpected Party"? No revisions were made to either "Inside
Information" or "A Thief in the Night" in either the second or third
editions of THE HOBBIT. One change was introduced to "The Gathering
of the Clouds" in 1937 and several more were made in 1966 -- none of
them concerned with Thorin's ancestry or the Arkenstone. A single
foot-note was added to "The Clouds Burst" in 1966. All in all, after
reviewing the texts twice, Tolkien elected not to change a thing
regarding Thorin's statements about the Arkenstone.
Clearly, Tolkien didn't feel they HAD to refer only to Thrain II,
Thorin's father. In Tolkien's view, these passages obviously agreed
with both the 1950 prefatory note and the 1966 revision to Thorin's
history in "An Unexpected Party", and therefore he also deemed them to
be in agreement with his revised history of Durin's Folk as published
in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. That history was only revised after Tolkien
received the proofs for the second edition of THE HOBBIT.
Clearly, he had realized he had introduced a second Thrain into the
Hobbit story in 1936, an ambiguous ancestor of Thorin's who was not
his father, and Tolkien had to adjust THE LORD OF THE RINGS to
accomodate that fact.
Were there originally two Dwarves named Thrain in the original
HOBBIT, or just one? One of the key points of the "there was only one
Thrain" argument comes at the end of this passage in THE TREASON OF
ISENGARD in the chapter "The Council of Elrond (2)" where Christopher
Tolkien writes:
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 conclusively 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 unnconnected 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 the 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 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 mentioned 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 UNDRE 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 the 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.
Christopher Tolkien wrote this long passage because, in the text he
had just presented, Gloin referred to Thrain as the father of Thror.
Earlier in the drafts Gloin had gotten the family tree "right"
according to what was established in THE HOBBIT, but then he began to
stumble (that is, Tolkien got confused). The first occurrence of the
error is found in THE RETURN OF THE SHADOW, and Christopher apparently
felt it only merited a brief mention without explanation in the index
entries for "Thrain" and "Thror". He must have concluded that the
continued errors in the texts used in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD demanded
some explanation.
The last sentence ("When THE HOBBIT was first published it was Thrain
son of Thror - the only Thrain at that time conceived - who discovered
the Arkenstone") has been assigned disproportionate importance and
some people feel they need look no further than this to determine the
correctness of the "One Thrain" argument.
However, when he wrote that passage, Christopher Tolkien did not take
into consideration several important points (in fact, he excused
himself from a full examination of the matter -- see below). And I
think it is fair to suggest that Christopher was probably strongly
influenced by his own childhood memories of the story in its
prepublication state (in which there was indisputably only one
Thrain). But Christopher was also looking back at the matter through
the lenses of two additional editions. When his father wrote the
prefatory note cited above, he only had to look back through the lens
of one additional edition. His view was not clouded by the textual
changes which would not be made for another 15 years.
The "One Thrain" argument also rests in part upon another statement in
the above passage, near the beginning, where Christopher writes:
...It is hard to believe that this extraordinary concern was
unnconnected 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....
He concludes with "the solution of this conundrum...belongs with the
textual history of THE HOBBIT, and I shall not pursue it further".
The "One Thrain" argument ignores this admission of incompleteness,
and that is the primary flaw in the "One Thrain" argument. To see why
this is a flaw, we must examine the textual history Christopher did
not engage in while he was working on THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH.
Considerable information on various texts has come to light since THE
TREASON OF ISENGARD was published. It is now possible for us to
examine the textual history for ourselves.
Douglas Anderson provides a summary of the HOBBIT text history in the
second edition of THE ANNOTATED HOBBIT. Following Christopher's
convention of identifying texts with letters, he names six HOBBIT
manuscripts according to "stages of completion":
Stage A: A six-page handwritten manuscript of Chapter 1 (the
opening pages are missing). This is the earliest
surviving manuscript, in which the dragon is named
Pryftan, and the head dwarf Gandalf, and the wizard
Bladorthin.
NOTE: The first version of Thror's map, which does not include any
reference to "Thrain King under the Mountain" was drawn on a page of
the A manuscript. This is, so far as has been ascertained in any
resources published to date, the ONLY version of the map which does
not mention Thrain. This stage was probably written in 1930-31.
Stage B: A mixed typescript and handwritten manuscript.
The first twelve pages are typed (on Tolkien's Hammond
typewriter), and the remainder of the pages are
handwritten and numbered consecutively from 13 to
167. This stage of composition constitutes Chapters
1 through 12 of the published book, and Chapter 14....
NOTE: Chapter 12 is "Inside Information", in which the Arkenstone (of
Thrain) is first mentioned.
Stage C: A typescript done on the Hammond typewrite
(with the songs in italics), with the pages numbered
from 1 to 132, covering the same material as in
stage B....
NOTE: Everything after Stage C was composed in preparation for
publication.
Stage D: A handwritten manuscript, with pages numbered
from 1 to 45, covering Chapters 13 and 15-19.
Stage E: The typescript from Stage C was reworked, with
the new insert of Chapter 13 paginated 127-134, and
the typescript of the former Chapter 13, now Chapter
14, renumbered by hand 135-40. The new chapters from
stage D are now typed and hand-numbered from 141-68.
Stage F: A second full typescript, first intended as
a printer's typescript, was made at this point, but
it seems not to have been used, as it has a
significant number of typographical mistakes.
After this came the first set of page proofs,
followed by the revised page proofs.
Anderson reconstructs the chronology like this: The story was brought
to Stage C by the late spring or early summer of 1936, at which time
Susan Dagnall visited Oxford and acquired the story from Tolkien.
From August, after she suggested he finish the story and submit it to
George Allen & Unwin, to the beginning of October, Tolkien worked on
the Stage E typescript. Sometime in November, 10-year-old Rayner
Unwin was asked to review the book. Five maps and an uncertain number
of illustrations were submitted with the book to Allen & Unwin.
Anderson suggests the maps included with the submitted manuscript were
"apparently early versions of Thror's Map...and the Wilderland
Map...and maps of the land between the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood,
of the land east of Mirkwood to the east of the River Running, and of
Long Lake (combined with a view of the Lonely Mountain).
Rayner Unwin recommended the book be published and suggested that
illustrations would not be necessary, only maps. Wayne Hammond and
Christina Scull reviewed the history of the maps in J.R.R. TOLKIEN:
ARTIST & ILLUSTRATOR:
Rayner Unwin, who was later to guide THE LORD OF THE RINGS into
print, at age ten (in 1936) reviewed the typescript of THE
HOBBIT for his father, publisher Stanley Unwin of the firm
George Allen & Unwin. 'This book, with the help of maps, does
not need any illustrations it is good,' he wrote in breathless,
boyish style, and at first Tolkien and his publisher seem to
have agreed with him. THE HOBBIT was to have no illustrations
PER SE, but would have five maps which, with one exception,
would trace Bilbo's journey across the wild lands east of his
home to the Lonely Mountain, the lair of Smaug the dragon
upom whom the dwarves seek revenge. To judge by extant
sketches and correspondence, these five were THROR'S MAP;
WILDERLAND; and maps of the land between the Misty Mountains
and Mirkwood, of the land east of Mirkwood to just east of the
River Running, and of the Long Lake, the last combined with a
vew of the Lonely Mountain. This would have been their
logical order, following the course of the story, and they
would have made a neat cartographic parallel to the text.
But in the event, their number was reduced to only two.
Tolkien drew at least three of the maps he submitted to Allen
& Unwin in multiple colours, chiefly coloured pencil. The
publisher's production staff objected to this technique, as
it would have required printing the maps as separate plates
in colour halftone, an expensive process. They suggested
instead that THROR'S MAP and WILDERLAND be printed as endpages,
in any two colours Tolkien liked, and that the remaining maps
be printed in only one colour (black), with the text. But first
Tolkien would have to redraw the maps to suit reproduction by
line-block, and to letter them better. This meant, he was told
in the Mirkwood map [i.e. WILDERLAND (84)] showing the Misty
Mountains and the Grey Mountains only by hatching in one
colour, the higher ranges being indicated by closer hatching.
The rivers may then be shown by parallel lines. Possbly it
will be best to indicate Mirkwood in the same colour as the
Mountains, leaving the second colour for all the paths and all
the lettering. All that is needed with the lettering is that
you should do it a little more neatly. This is indeed the only
alteration needed in Thror's Map [85]...."
Further on:
Tolkien tried to do as he was asked, as well as he could, or
as well as he felt he could. Two additional schematic
drawings of the Lonely Mountain, which Tolkien made over
in heavy line, are extant, but neither was used. Within a
month he replied to Allen & Unwin that he had redrawn 'the
chart [i.e. THROR'S MAP] which has to be tipped in (to
Chapter 1), and the general map [WILDERLAND]. I can only
hope -- as I have small skill, and no experience of preparing
such things for reproduction -- that they may possibly serve.
The other maps I have decided are not wanted....
NOTE: The mentioned plate reproduction of Thror's Map (number 85)
contains the following words under the Mountain: "here of old was the
land of Thrain King under the Mountain". This means that Tolkien
submitted a second version of Thror's map, mentioning Thrain as "King
under the Mountain" to the publisher with the original manuscript.
This second version was drawn vertically, and in the lower-left
corner, Tolkien wrote the legend: "Thror's Map. Copied by Bilbo
Baggins. For moon-runes hold up to a light."
George Allen & Unwin accepted THE HOBBIT for publication by December
1936. According to Christopher's explanation of the first
Thror-Thrain mixup, the manuscript submitted to Allen & Unwin
inadvertently switched from Thorin-Thrain-Thror to Thorin-Thror-Thrain
somewhere in the story, and then continued that mistake throughout the
rest of the text. This mistake was carried through to the first proof
of the book (that is, whomever typeset the book repeated the mistake,
knowing no better), which was sent to Tolkien between December 4, 1936
and March 15, 1937.
Allen & Unwin commissioned ten black-and-white illustrations for the
first impression (printing), which Anderson suggests were made between
Christmas 1936 and January 1937. Tolkien sent four drawings ("The
Elvenking's Gate", "Lake Town", "The Front Gate", and "Mirkwood") to
Allen & Unwin on January 4. He also sent the redrawn "Thror's Map"
and "Wilderland Map" (confirmed by Letter 9, cited in the last
paragraph of the Hammond/Scull excerpt above). On January 17, Tolkien
sent six illustrations: "The Hill: Hobbiton-across-the Water", "The
Trolls", "The Mountain-path", "the Misty Mountains Looking West",
"Beorn's Hall", and "The Hall at Bag-End".
The redrawn, third version of "Thror's Map" included the words: "Here
of old was Thrain King under the Mountain" (this is the standard
Thror's Map). This map was simply titled, "Thror's Map" in the
left-hand margin.
Tolkien received the first proofs of the text on February 20 and
February 24, 1937. Anderson says "[Tolkien's] corrections were
considered somewhat heavy, and even though he had carefully calculated
the length of the replacement passages, it was necessary to reset
several sections."
According to the preface for Letter 12, Tolkien returned the corrected
proofs for THE HOBBIT to Allen & Unwin in mid-March, 1937.
Anderson says he "received the revised proofs in early April and
returned them on April 13".
After agreeing in May to allow the American publisher, Houghton
Mifflin Company, to commission colored illustrations with an American
artist, Allen & Unwin persuaded Tolkien to provide the illustrations
himself.
The first Allen & Unwin printing was produced in June 1937, but
release was delayed.
Tolkien drew the first four color illustrations, which were also
included in the second printing of the first Allen & Unwin edition, in
July 1937: "Rivendell", "Bilbo Woke Up with the Early Sun in His
Eyes", "Bilbo Comes to the Huts of the Raft-elves", and "Conversation
with Smaug". He finished a color version of "The Hill:
Hobbiton-across-the Water" by mid-August.
"Conversation with Smaug" includes a detailed rune inscription on a
golden jar which has been translated as: "gold the [? portion obscured
by ladder] Thrain / accursed be the thief."
The first Allen & Unwin printing contained the following passage in
Chapter 1, "An Unexpected Party":
On the table in the light of a big lamp with a red
shade he spread a piece of parchment rather like a map.
"This was made by your grandfather, Thorin," he said
in answer to the Dwarves' excited questions. "It is
a plan of the Mountain."
The text was altered in 1966 to read: "This was made by Thror, your
grandfather, Thorin".
The second Allen & Unwin printing was produced in early December 1937.
The first Houghton Mifflin edition was published in 1938, by which
time Allen & Unwin had asked Tolkien to begin writing a sequel to THE
HOBBIT.
Nearly having finished his work on the primary narrative for THE LORD
OF THE RINGS by September 1947, Tolkien sent a letter to Sir Stanley
Unwin (no. 111) which included "Rayner's comments [on THE LORD OF THE
RINGS]; also some notes on THE HOBBIT; and (for the possible amusement
of yourself and Rayner) a specimen of re-writing of Chapter V of that
work, which would simplify, though not necessarily improve, my present
task." Chapter 5 is "Riddles in the Dark", where Bilbo meets Gollum.
By 1949, according to Christopher Tolkien in THE PEOPLES OF
MIDDLE-EARTH, J.R.R. TOLKIEN had begun working on the appendices for
THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Christopher dates a crucial text, T 4 (version
four of "The Tale of Years" in Appendix B) to the period around August
1949:
On page 177 of THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, Christopher writes:
I think it extremely probable that this text T 4 ...
belongs in time with the texts F 2 and D 2 of the
Appendices on Languages and on Calendars, and with the
third text of THE HEIRS OF ELENDIL, given in the next
chapter. But external evidence of date seems to be
entirely lacking.
On page 119 of THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, Christopher writes:
The earliest text of what became Appendix D to THE LORD OF
THE RINGS is a brief, rough manuscript without title, which
I will call D 1. In style and appearance it suggests
association with the first of the two closely related
manuscripts of the Appendix on Languages, F 1 (see p. 28),
and that this is the case is shown by a reference in the
text to 'the note on Languages p. 11'. This in fact
refers to the second version, F 2, which was thus already
in existence (see p. 136, note 2). D 1 was followed,
clearly at no long interval, by a fair copy, D 2, exactly
parallel to the manuscripts F 1 and F 2 of the Appendix
on Languages; and thus the order of composition was F 1,
F 2; D 1, D 2. I have no doubt at all that all four texts
belong to the same time, which was certainly before the
summer of 1950 (see p. 28 and note 1), and probably earlier:
in fact, an envelope associated with D 1 is postmarked
August 1949.
The T 4 text includes an entry for the year 2590 which reads:
2590 Thror the Dwarf (of Durin's race) founds the realm
of Erebor (the Lonely Mountain), and becomes 'King under
the Mountain'. He lives in friendship with the Men of
Dale, who are nearly akin to the Rohirrim.
Christopher appends a note to this entry which reads:
'Thror ... founds the realm of Erebor': the history of
Thror's ancestors had not yet emerged.
At the end of the chapter on this text, Christopher writes in "Notes
on changes made to the manuscript T 4 of the Tale of Years", section
(v), "The Dwarves":
The entry for 2590 recording the founding of the realm
of Erebor was changed to read: 'In the far North dragons
multiply again. Thror...comes south and re-establishes
the realm of Erebor ...' At the same time, at the end
of the entry, this addition was made: 'He was the great-
great-great-grandson of Thrain I Nain's son' (which does
not agree with the genealogical table in Appenix A, RK
p. 361: see pp. 276-7).
Why did Tolkien change this entry and add an extensive family tree?
Because...
In July 1950, Allen & Unwin unexpectedly sent Tolkien proofs for the
second edition of THE HOBBIT (which incorporated the 1947 suggested
changes without Tolkien's advance knowledge). On August 1, 1950,
Tolkien returned the corrected proofs for the second Allen & Unwin
edition of THE HOBBIT with Letter 128:
THE HOBBIT: I return the proofs herewith. They did not require
much correction, but did need some consideration. The thing took
me much by surprise. It is now a long while since I sent in the
proposed alteration of Chapter V, and tentatively suggested the
slight remodelling of the original HOBBIT. I was then still
engaged in trying to fit on the sequel, which would have been
a simpler task with the alteration, besides saving most of a
chapter in that over-long work. However, I never heard any more
about it at all; and I assumed that alteration of the original
book was ruled out. The sequel now dpeends on the earlier version;
and if the revision is really published, there must follow some
considerable rewriting of the sequel.
I must say that I could wish I had had some hint that (in any
circumstances) this change might be made, before it burst upon
me in page-proof. However, I have now made up my mind to accept
the change and its consequences. The thing is now old enough
for me to take a fairly impartial view, and it seems to me that
the revised version is in itself better, in motive and
narrative -- and certainly would make the sequel (if ever
published) mich more natural.
I did not mean the suggested revision to be printed off; but it
seems to have come out pretty well in the wash.
Clearly, Tolkien noticed a problem regarding the history of Erebor.
Christopher provides us with detailed information about what his
father did in response to the problem.
In the chapter "The Making of Appendix A", in the section devoted to
"(IV) DURIN'S FOLK", Christopher writes:
My father's original text of what would become the section
DURIN'S FOLK in Appendix A is extant: a brief, clear
manuscript written on scrap paper entitled OF DURIN'S LINE,
accompanied by a genealogy forming a part of the text.
It was corrected in a few points, and one substantial
passage was added; these changes were made, I think, at
or soon after the writing of the manuscript. I give
this text in full, with the changes shown where they
are of any significance.
The cited text starts out with a long paragraph summarizing the
history of Durin's Folk from his awakening to the coming of the
Balrog. In the original text (as indicated by Christopher's lack of
editorial insertion), the paragraph concludes with:
...For the most part they passed into the North; but
Thrain Nain's son, the king by inheritance, came to
Erebor, the Lonely Mountain, nigh to the eastern eaves
of Mirkwood, and established his realm for a while.
The next paragraph begins:
But Gloin his grandson [> Thorin his son] removed
and abandoned Erebor, and passed into the far North
where the most of his kin now dwelt. But it came
to pass that dragons arose and multiplied in the
North, and made war upon the Dwarves, and
plundered their works and wealth; and many of the
Dwarves fled again southward and eastward. Then
Thror Dain's son, the great-great-grandson of
Thrain, returned to Erebor and became King-under-
the-Mountain, and prospered exceedingly, having
the friendship of all that dwelt near, whether
Elves or Men or the birds and beasts of the land.
The next paragraph tells the story of Smaug, with a substantial change
indicated that does not impact the stated genealogy of Thror. After
the citation, Christopher writes:
In this text and its accompanying genealogical table
(which I have here redrawn) it is seen that an
important advance had been made from the text T 4
of the Tale of Years, where it was told under
the year 2590 that Thror 'founded the realm of
Erebor' (p. 236): as I said in a note on that entry,
'the history of Thror's ancestors had not yet
emerged'. Here that history is present, but not
yet precisely in the final form; for the names of
'the kings of Durin's folk' in the genealogical
table here run Thorin I: Gloin : Dain I, whereas
in that in Appendix A they are Thorin I: Gloin :
Oin : Nain II : Dain I; thus in the present text
Thror is called 'the great-great-grandson of
Thrain [I]'. While the history was at this stage
the corrections and additions were made to T 4:
see p. 252, THE DWARVES.
That last reference is to the section I cited a portion of above.
Finally, the 1951 (second) edition of THE HOBBIT included the
following note, which Tolkien sent to Allen & Unwin with Letter 130 on
10 September 1950. Here is the full text of Letters 129 and 130:
129 FROM A LETTER TO SIR STANLEY UNWIN 10 September 1950
[Allen & Unwin asked Tolkien to supply a 'precise wording'
for a note in the new edition of THE HOBBIT which would
explain the changes in the new text.]
Wll, there is is: the alteration is now made, and cannot,
I suppose, be unmade. Such people as I have consulted
think that the alteration is in itself an improvement
(apart from the question of a sequel). That is something.
But when I tried to consider 'a precise wording' for a
note on the revision in an English edition, I did not
find the matter as simple as I had thought.
I have now on my hands two printed versions of a crucial
incident. Either the first must be regarded as washed
out, a mere miswriting that ought never to have seen
the light; or the story as a whole must take into
account the existence of the two versions and use it.
The former was my original simpleminded intention,
though it is a bit awkward (since the Hobbit is fairly
widely known in its older form) if the literary
pretence of historicity and dependence on record is
to be maintained. The second can be done
convincingly (I think), but not briefly explained in
a note.
In the former case, or in doubt, the only thing to do,
I fancy, is just to say nothing. I am in doubt, so
I propose at the moment just to say nothing; though I
do not like it. There is, in any case, I take it,
no question of inserting a note into the American
reprint. And you will no doubt warn me in good time
when an English one becomes necessary.
In the meanwhile I send you a specimen of the kind
of thing that I should want to insert in an altered
reprint -- if I decide to recognise two versions
of the Ring-finding as part of the authentic
tradition. This is not intended as copy; but if you
would return it, with any comment you like, it would
be helpful.
130 FROM A LETTER TO SIR STANLEY UNWIN 14 September 1950
[Further consideration led Tolkien to decide that an
explanatory note would definitely be needed in the
new edition.]
I have decided to accept the existence of both versions
of Chapter Five, so far as the sequel goes -- though I
have no time at the moment to rewrite that at the
required points. I enclose, therefore, a copy of the
briefest form of the prefatory note: which is intended
as copy, if you should think it well to use it in the
reprint.
The second paragraph of Tolkien's prefatory note dealt with the
apparent discrepancy between Thror's Map and the genealogy of Thorin's
family (as provided in the narrative of THE HOBBIT -- THE ANNOTATED
HOBBIT indicates that no changes were made to the narrative to address
the family history):
A final note may be added, on a point raised by several
students of the lroe of the period. On Thror's Map is
written HERE OF OLD WAS THRAIN KING UNDER THE MOUNATIN;
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.
These are the facts of the textual history of THE HOBBIT and the
appendices in THE LORD OF THE RINGS with respect to the genealogy of
Thror's family. We can immediately raise several significant points:
1) Both versions of Thror's Map submitted to Allen & Unwin were
clearly labelled "Thror's Map", and both clearly included words naming
Thrain as "King under the Mountain". The narrative stipulates that
the map was drawn by Thorin's grandfather (without naming him).
2) When THE HOBBIT was originally submitted to Allen & Unwin, it
contained the Thror-Thrain mixup, but the first map submitted to them
nonetheless properly identified Thror as the maker of the map and
still named Thrain as the old "King under the Mountain".
3) The second map also correctly identified Thror as its maker and
still included the mention of Thrain as the old "King under the
Mountain", even though Tolkien had gone back and corrected the proofs
to reassert the Thorin-Thrain-Thror relationship.
So, considering that the nomenclature employed was not altered at any
time, the maps cannot be said to be "in error" with respect to the
INTENDED storyline. That is, clearly, Tolkien intended Thror to be
the cartographer. And in the original storyline, Thror was also
Thorin's grandfather. So, Tolkien clearly intended Thorin's
grandfather Thror to have drawn the map which referred to old King
Thrain.
But if the ORIGINAL (pre-submission) story only included one Thrain,
then why did Tolkien include the previously non-existent Thrain the
Old, "King under the Mountain", on the new maps?
Let's go back to Christopher's summation of the TWO Thror-Thrain
mixups:
...It is hard to believe that this extraordinary concern was
unnconnected with the words on 'Thror's map' in THE HOBBIT:
'Here of old was THRAIN King under the Mountain'; ... I
mention it, of course, because in the 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
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.
The first mixup entered into the story when Tolkien was preparing the
manuscript for submission. The second mixup occurred more than two
years later when Tolkien was writing "The Council of Elrond".
The nomenclature on Thror's Map does not appear to be due to the first
mixup because the map is consistent with the narrative (that is, the
narrative asserts that Thorin's grandfather made the map AND that
Thror was Thorin's grandfather both before and after the mixup).
Neither of the maps allow us to infer that "here of old was Thror King
under the Mountain".
Furthermore, after recounting the history of his people in "An
Unexpected Party", Thorin says:
"I have often wondered about my father's and my
grandfather's escape. I see now they must have
had a private Side-door which only they knew about.
But apparently they made a map, and I should like
to know how Gandalf got hold of it, and why it
did not come down to me, the rightful heir."
When did they make the map? The narrative doesn't say. But the map
includes the words, "The desolation of Smaug" beneath the Mountain (on
the second map -- the first map says "Here is the desolation of Smaug"
above the Mountain). Hence, the map had to be made after Thror and
Thrain escaped the sack of Erebor.
Further on, Gandalf tells Thorin that "your grandfather...gave the map
to his son for safety before he went to the mines of Moria." So, the
grandfather who made the map retained possession of it until he gave
it to Thorin's father. There is no indication that the father altered
the map in any way. Nor is there any indication that the father
helped to make the map (other than Thorin's own words, which may be
figurative).
Now we could assume that Tolkien drew the second version of Thror's
Map (the first one submitted to Allen & Unwin) after typing THE HOBBIT
for submission. At that point in time, most of the manuscript
referred to Thorin's father as Thror. But this assumption forces us
to ask why Tolkien did not redraw the map to reflect the reversal of
names in the proofs? Furthermore, why would Tolkien not correct the
narrative to say that the map was drawn by Thorin's father (or kept by
him or given by him to the grandfather) so that the names of the maker
(Thror) and the king (Thrain) agreed with the narrative?
To assume that the second map was made in accordance with the
erroneous genealogy forces us to assume that Tolkien did not bother to
check his details against the narrative. Worse, we must also assume
that, when Tolkien corrected the name mixup, he decided not to correct
the map to agree with the corrected proofs.
On the other hand, when Tolkien drew a third map in December, he would
have repeated the mistake (if we assume that the second map was
erroneous). We can argue that Tolkien did not have the submitted
typescript to refer to, but he DID have the earlier versions of the
story to work from. So, why would he mistakenly include Thrain of Old
on the third map? Based on the earlier versions of the story, Thrain
could not have been King under the Mountain.
So, either way, assuming that the maps' nomenclature was established
in error (either in accordance with the first Thror-Train mixup or in
accordance with the earlier versions of the story), the maps would be
contradicting the narrative. If, while correcting the name mixup,
Tolkien altered the narrative to show that it was Thror (now Thorin's
grandfather again) who made the map, then why not stipulate somewhere
that a previous Thrain had been King under the Mountain?
In short, any assumption that Tolkien's error extended beyond the mere
confusion of the names of Thror and Thrain in the primary narrative
requires that we assume he made further errors while trying to resolve
the first error. On the other hand, if the text didn't rule out an
earlier Thrain, then the map would clearly be in agreement with the
narrative even if it did not elaborate on that earlier Thrain's
history.
And then there is the matter of Thrain's name on the jar in the color
illustration "Conversation with Smaug". Why was Thrain's name used
and not Thror's? By July 1937, when Tolkien drew the illustration, he
had already corrected the Thror-Thrain mixup AND he had already drawn
two maps which named Thrain as a King under the Mountain (and both
maps were attributed to Thror, not to Thrain).
We could assume that Tolkien did not have the maps or the proofs or
the manuscript (the book was printed in June but he did not receive
his own copy until August), and that he simply FORGOT who had been
King under the Mountain -- but after his extensive revision of the
text, correcting the name switch only a few months previously, that
seems rather a stretch. Especially when Tolkien could have checked
the earlier manuscripts to see who had been King under the Mountain.
We could also assume that, for a reason he never disclosed in any
writing published so far, a considerable portion of Erebor's treasure
belonged to Thrain (the Arkenstone of Thrain, Thrain's cursed jar,
Thrain's goat-collar, etc.). But why should items in the hoard be
named for Thrain and not for Thror?
Thror gets a map, Thrain gets an Arkenstone and gold jar. That seems
rather an odd exchange for father and son, when it is the father who
is the King.
On the other hand, if we accept the evidence at face value, that
Tolkien intended a reference to another King under the Mountain in
both the map and the illustration, then all we have to do is determine
if the narrative disallows a previous Thrain.
So, let's return to 1950, when Tolkien received the unexpected proofs
for the second Allen & Unwin edition of THE HOBBIT. He had already
included some Dwarf history in his "Tale of Years", but he had
apparently not yet written "Durin's Folk" for Appendix A. We can
infer that the sequence went something like this:
Tale of Years Text T 4 (1949)
Proofs of Hobbit from Allen & Unwin (July 1950)
Tolkien returns Proofs (August 1950)
Around this time, he appears to have altered the Tale of Years entry
and begun the composition of "Durin's Folk", which from its first
inception mentioned the earlier Thrain (calling him Thrain I).
Tolkien subsequently wrote the prefatory note, which stipulated that
the Thrain on the map was Thrain I, not Thorin's father Thrain.
Tolkien did not need to make any changes to THE HOBBIT in order to
make the narrative consistent with the map or the prefatory note. The
note itself was written primarily to satisfy Tolkien's concerns about
the significant changes in Chapter 5, "Riddles in the Dark". But he
obviously felt it was important enough to mention the distinction
between the Thrain on the map and Thorin's father Thrain.
Why?
Not because he had created a second Thrain for THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
Clearly, he created THAT Thrain after he reviewed THE HOBBIT for the
second edition. He had composed a history for the Dwarves which did
not encompass the two Thrains. He had been forced to revise that
history to accomodate what had been established by THE HOBBIT, both in
the two maps and in the colored illustration, "Conversation with
Smaug". If it was really obvious that there was only one Thrain, then
why revise the history of Durin's Folk? Why add the prefatory note
"adding" a Thrain and thus "covering up" the supposed error?
Is the published narrative of the first edition of THE HOBBIT
inconsistent with the history as stipulated in THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
For example, what does THE HOBBIT say about the history of Erebor?
Well, Thorin's account read thus:
"O very well," said Thorin. "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 -- and in addition I
believe they found a good deal of gold and a great many
jewels too. Anyway they grew immensely rich and famous,
and my grandfather was King under the Mountain, and treated
with great reverence by the mortal men, who lived to the
South, and were gradually spreading up the Running River
as far as the valley overshadowed by the Mountain. They
built the merry town of Dale there in those days. Kings
used to send for our smiths, and reward even the least
skillful most richly. Fathers would beg us to take their
sons as apprentices, and pay us handsomely, especially in
food-supplies, which we never bothered to grow or find for
ourselves. Altogether those were good days for us, and
the poorest of us had money to spend and to lend, and
leisure to make beautiful things just for the fun of it,
not to speak of the most marvellous and magical toys, the
like of which is not to be found in the world now-a-days.
So my grandfather's halls became full of wonderful jewels
and carvings and cups, and the toyshops of Dale were a
sight to behold...."
(From "An Unexpected Party")
Thorin's history makes it pretty clear that a lot of things happened
in his grandfather's time. But he doesn't say that the dwarves
DISCOVERED the Mountain in his grandfather's time. Nor does he say
the grandfather was the first (or only) King under the Mountain. In
fact, he doesn't even say that Thror FOUNDED the Kingdom under the
Mountain, or that Thror actually came south with the other Dwarves
Thorin refers to.
The reader can just as easily infer than an existing Dwarf community
was enlarged as that a new one was established. This passage is
therefore not entirely consistent with the history provided in
"Durin's Folk", but it doesn't contradict that history, either.
Tolkien did not revise this passage to explicitly refer to any
previous Thrain until the copyright conflict with Ace Books forced him
to revise THE HOBBIT in 1966. Then he changed the passage to read:
"O very well," said Thorin. "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
my grandfather was King under the Mountain again...."
This alteration didn't simply add Thrain the Old to the narrative. It
also explicitly included Thror and his family with the Dwarves who
came down from the north. The narrative now became fully consistent
with the details provided in "Durin's Folk", where the family was said
to have abandoned Erebor after Thrain I died.
There were other changes which Tolkien introduced to the narrative in
1966 to make it more consistent with "Durin's Folk". For example, in
the original narrative, Gandalf told Thorin:
"I did not 'get hold of it,' I was given it," said
the wizard. "Your grandfather was killed, you
remember, in the Mines of Moria by a goblin."
Tolkien revised this in 1966 to conclude with: "Your grandfather Thror
was killed, you remember, in the Mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin."
Changing "a goblin" to "Azog the Goblin" brought the text into full
agreement with "Durin's Folk", but it was not previously contradicting
the account in "Durin's Folk".
Tolkien could have made these changes in 1950, but he chose not to.
We don't know why. We simply know that he did not introduce these
explicit references to the "Durin's Folk" history into the narrative
at that time.
There is nothing in the first edition narrative which explicitly
contradicts the "Durin's Folk" account, not even the references to the
Arkenstone of Thrain. The published story doesn't actually say who
found it (or for whom it was named). Now, since there was only one
Thrain in the origainl, pre-submission story, it follows that the
Arkenstone was named for Thorin's father Thrain. Even so, that
doesn't mean it was Thrain who found it.
Since the original, pre-submission manscript was only completed
through what became Chapter 14 ("Fire and Water"), it would -- at most
-- have only had one passage which mentioned the Arkenstone: the
section in "Inside Information" where the Dwarves talk about the
treasure of Erebor:
"...But the fairest of all was the great white gem, which
the dwarves had found beneath the roots of the Mountain,
the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of Thrain."
Tolkien never altered this text. Simply naming the Arkenstone for a
Thrain was consistent with the account provided in THE LORD OF THE
RINGS. In the revised ANNOTATED HOBBIT, Douglas Anderson briefly
addresses the rightful naming of the Arkenstone at the beginning of "A
Thief in the Night" in a comment on the opening paragraphs:
Now the days passed slowly and wearily. Many of the
Dwarves spent their time piling and ordering the
treasure; and now Thorin spoke of the Arkenstone
of Thrain, and bade them eagerly to look for it in
every corner.
"For the Arkenstone of my father," he said, "is worth
more than a river of gold in itself, and to me it
is beyond price. That stone of all the treasure I
name unto myself, and I will be avenged on anyone
who finds it and withholds it."
Anderson concludes his commentary by saying:
...On page 287 of THE HOBBIT, the Arkenstone is referred
to as "the Heart of the Mountain, the Arkenstone of
Thrain." Here, Thorin speaks of "the Arkenstone of my
father," and on page 334 Thorin says "that stone was
my father's." Surely in naming the stone "the Arkenstone
of Thrain," Tolkien would have meant the Thrain who
discovered it. Originally, the discoverer was Thorin's
father, but when Tolkien came to expand the Dwarvish
ancestry he seems to have missed the significance here
of Thorin describing the stone as being his father's.
By rights, at the time of the coming of the dragon,
the stone belonged not to Thrain but to Thror, Thrain's
father, then the King under the Mountain.
If, when he first published THE HOBBIT, Tolkien had intended the
Arkenstone to be named for Thorin's immediate father, he should have
(according to Christopher's anecdote regarding the name mixup) changed
"Arkenstone of Thrain" to "Arkenstone of Thror". Anderson does not
refer to the name mixup, much less indicate that it affected the
naming of the Arkenstone. I have sought clarification on the point
but have not yet received a reply.
Anderson referred to a second passage, in "The Clouds Burst", where
the Arkenstone is again mentioned:
"Is there then nothing for which you would yield any
of your gold?"
"Nothing that you or your friends have to offer."
"What of the Arkenstone of Thrain?" said he, and
at the same moment the old man opened the casket and
held aloft the jewel. The light leaped from his
hand, bright and white in the morning.
Then Thorin was stricken dump with amazement and
confusion. No one spoke for a long while.
Thorin at length broke the silence, and his voice was
thick with wrath. "That stone was my father's, and is
mine," he said. "Why should I purchase my own?" But
wonder overcame him and he added: "But how came you by
the heirloom of my house -- if there is need to ask
such a question of thieves?"
Now, "heirloom of my house" is a curious expression for someone to use
of an artifact which his father has supposedly found. The expression
implies that the Arkenstone has been in Thorin's family for more than
a generation. The whole passage is rendered ambiguous with respect to
whom the artifact is named for. Does it HAVE to be Thorin's immediate
father? No. Now, Christopher asserts (in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD)
that it was originally Thorin's father Thrain who found the stone.
But though that would have been the case for the pre-publication
story, it does not follow that it had to remain so when Tolkien added
new material to THE HOBBIT as he prepared it for submission to Allen &
Unwin.
Neither of these passages was altered by J.R.R. Tolkien. Nor did he
mention the Arkenstone in his original draft of "Durin's Folk", and
the one reference to it in THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH does not
suggest the Arkenstone was involved in the name mixup. At the very
least, Tolkien found nothing to contradict the idea that the
Arkenstone was named for Thrain the Old (Thrain I) when he reviewed
the second edition proofs for THE HOBBIT and the drafts for "The Tale
of Years" and "Durin's Folk" in 1950.
Concerning "Durin's Folk", while it is true, as Christopher said in
his note for the 2590 Tale of Years entry, that "the history of
Thror's ancestors had not yet emerged", THE HOBBIT nonetheless always
referred to Thorin's family prior to his grandfather:
"Stand by the grey stone where the thrush knocks," said
Elrond, "and the setting sun with the last light of
Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole."
"Durin, Durin!" said Thorin. "He was the father of the
fathers of one of the two races of dwarves, the Longbeards,
and my grandfather's ancestor..."
(From "A Short Rest")
Durin is placed at the remotest beginning of Dwarf history, and
therefore the reader understands that Thror himself was forebears
going all the way back to Durin. The only change Tolkien made to this
passage for the second edition was to replace the word "where" in
"where the thrush knocks" with "when". "the two races of dwarves" was
only replaced by "the eldest race of Dwarves" in 1966, clearly an
oversight when Tolkien reviewed the text of THE HOBBIT in 1950.
It should be noted that, while working on Appendix A, Tolkien wrote
the following passage:
To [their children] they are devoted, often rather
fiercely: that is, they may treat them with apparent
harshness (especially in the desire to ensure that
they shall grow up tough, hardy, unyielding), but
they defend them with all their power, and resent
injuries to them even more than to themselves. The
same is true of the attitude of children to parents.
For an injury to a father a Dwarf may spend a life-
time in achieving revenge. Since the 'kings' or
heads of lines are regarded as 'parents' of the
whole group, it will be understood how it was that
the whole of Durin's Race gathered and marshalled
itself to avenge Thror.
Tolkien thus clearly envisioned the Dwarves looking upon each king as
a "father", and his use of the word "father" (and the similar words
"sire" and "longfather") throughout the books is relatively broad. A
father could be a figurative leader (as when Ghan-Buri-Ghan called
Theoden "father of horse-men"), or a remote ancestor (as in Durin
being the father of the fathers of the Longbeards), or one of many
ancestors (as when Faramir speaks of Gondor's "longfathers of old" at
Aragorn's coronation). Aragorn calls Isildur and Anarion his "sires
of old" when he passes between the Argonath. Aragorn's use of the
plural is necessitated because he is speaking of two ancestors.
Individually, he would have referred to Isildur as "my sire of old" or
Anarion as "my sire of old", but he would have been using the word
"sire" figuratively, not literally, since his literal sire was
Arathorn II.
Tolkien is not obligated to avoid such ambiguous usage for Thorin,
when he claims the Arkenstone "was my father's". If Douglas Anderson
is correct in arguing that Thorin's father Thrain should not have been
the rightful owner of the Arkenstone, then it follows that either
J.R.R. Tolkien failed to correct several occurences of "the Arkenstone
of Thrain" -- AS WELL AS at least two passages where Thorin associated
"my father" with the Arkenstone -- or else Tolkien intended to leave
those passages unaltered THROUGH TWO REVISIONS of the text because he
felt they referred to a remote ancestor of Thorin's named Thrain,
Thrain the Old (Thrain I).
In fact, if Thorin's statements were so obviously incorrect, then why
did Tolkien not change them in 1966, when he removed the second
paragraph of the prefatory note and inserted a reference to Thrain I
in "An Unexpected Party"? No revisions were made to either "Inside
Information" or "A Thief in the Night" in either the second or third
editions of THE HOBBIT. One change was introduced to "The Gathering
of the Clouds" in 1937 and several more were made in 1966 -- none of
them concerned with Thorin's ancestry or the Arkenstone. A single
foot-note was added to "The Clouds Burst" in 1966. All in all, after
reviewing the texts twice, Tolkien elected not to change a thing
regarding Thorin's statements about the Arkenstone.
Clearly, Tolkien didn't feel they HAD to refer only to Thrain II,
Thorin's father. In Tolkien's view, these passages obviously agreed
with both the 1950 prefatory note and the 1966 revision to Thorin's
history in "An Unexpected Party", and therefore he also deemed them to
be in agreement with his revised history of Durin's Folk as published
in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. That history was only revised after Tolkien
received the proofs for the second edition of THE HOBBIT.
Clearly, he had realized he had introduced a second Thrain into the
Hobbit story in 1936, an ambiguous ancestor of Thorin's who was not
his father, and Tolkien had to adjust THE LORD OF THE RINGS to
accomodate that fact.