Name Changes?

[gondowe]

Hello everybody,
in my humble oppinion there so much complicate thougths about the matter of Maedhros. I think that doubt to the relation of names, if Maedhros is changed for Maedron so it must be changed Amros to Amron. But for me Maedhros (Maedros) is right here.

I am confused about Maelor, is it the last form?, correct me but i remember it only appears in the lay reccomenced, written in 1950, and for example in TSOF appears Maglor. Why do you name him so?

Greetings

[Findegil]

About Maelor: There is also a note written by Tolkien into a copy of the second edition of The Lord of the Rings that names the second son of Fëanor Maelor. Since the second edition was printed in 1966 the note must be later. But The Shibboleth of Fëanor is from 1968. So I agree to you that the natural interpretation of the evidence we have is, that Maelor was a change that Tolkien later skipt. But up to now we thought that Maelro was the last idea of Tolkien and therefore used it in our version. The change back to Maglor is not yet aproved, but I think it most likely.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Now I'm confused (again)

The note with Maedros and Maelor in Tolkien's Return of the King includes a reference to Umbarto being burned, and if it's the case, as CJRT thinks, that this idea (of Umbarto dying) arose in the course of Tolkien's notes on the names of the sons of Feanor (given at the end of The Shibboleth of Feanor) -- does this not open up the possibility, at least, that the 'Maelor note' (RK note) follows The Shibboleth?

I'm not trying to muddy the waters again but I thought that was part of the point Findegil made to me earlier concerning Maedros, when he wrote (about the Maedron note): 'But that does not make it necessarly the last mention of the charachter of Feanors eldest son.'

In other words, now we don't know which is the latest (the Shibboleth is technically 1968 or later according to Hammond and Scull) of the following:

A) The Shibboleth of Feanor and notes on the names of Feanor's sons: Maedros, Maglor

B) The Maedron note (given in notes to TPOR): Maedron (arguably later than Shibboleth at least)

C) Or The Return of the King note: Maedros and Maelor


And if so, some other criterion might need to be raised, in order to choose. And I want to stress again that the change Maedros to Maedron doesn't necessarily mean Amros must become Amron. This is just a further idea that I think is merely one possibilty among others.

If pressed to choose I would choose Maedros because of the doubt involved with the dating, but also because one could then bring along all the other '-russa, -ros' names that certainly agree with this conception, if you take my meaning.

As for Maglor, I like it better, it agrees with the published Silmarillion (not that that's necessarily a factor here) and it also hails from the conception in which Maedros and Amros appear -- and in a text in which the names are certainly considered from a linguistic standpoint (thus certainly focused on in some measure).

But I am biased simply because I like Maglor and its meaning... and I'm not constructing a Silmarillion, merely rambling on about a subject I'm interested in.

[Findegil]

The note with Maedros and Maelor in Tolkien's Return of the King includes a reference to Umbarto being burned

I didn't observed that! But you are right it means we have an additional info on the timing. We have (not considering the the order of writing by JRR Tolkien):

- a) The Lay of Leithian Recommenced (certainly post-1955 probably much later): Both, Maglor and Maelor, used but finally settled on Maelor

- b) Late change to Later Quenta Silmarillion 2: Maglor changed to Maelor

- c) The Shibboleth of Feanor and notes on the names of Feanor's sons: Maedros, Maglor

- d) The Return of the King note: Maedros and Maelor

- e) The Maedron note (given in notes to TPOR): Maedron

From the names only I would orer these text d), c), a) & b) and last e). That is possible but does not ring true to me entirely. I rather think that Tolkien changed his mind (probaly more than once) about Maelor and returned in the end to Maglor. But then this is based on no fact.

And I want to stress again that the change Maedros to Maedron doesn't necessarily mean Amros must become Amron.

I agree to this. We can for sure use Maedron beside Amros. If we chose Maedron we might be forced to do so because I do not see an alternative for Amors that was given by Tolkien. Beside that, Maedron is not equivalent to Maedros in my oppioin as explained above.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

I wanted to bring this thread back up because it seems to me that the names of Feanor's two eldest sons were never resolved.

For my part, I am still inclined, as I was a few years ago, to go with 'Maedros' and 'Maglor'.

As to the first, I am still quite convinced that the change to 'Maedron' was associated with the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros', which was rejected. It seems clear to me that the motivation for the change was elimination of the RUS- stem. Though this half of the proposal does not run afoul of 'Cair Androst', I think that without suitable replacements for the other RUS- names (e.g. Ambarussa/Amros, Russandol), it must be considered a projected change that cannot be implemented. It is true that if we were to adopt 'Maedron', we wouldn't be forced to alter 'Amros' - but if we can't alter 'Amros', then as I see it, the entire reason for the change to 'Maedron' (i.e. getting rid of RUS-) is invalidated.

'Maglor' vs. 'Maelor' is a less complex problem. Here we simply cannot ascertain with any certainty which form was later. In such a case, I would prefer to be conservative and use the better-attested form 'Maglor'.

[Findegil]

As already written above, I agree that we should use Maglor, because I consider Maelor to be a change later skipt by Tolkien as atested in On Sindarizing of the names.

On Maedros/ Maedron: I don't think that the changes is directly conected to The problem of ROS. Since we have some names ending in -ron elements: Sauron, Daeron and changes that lead to similar names Tauros/Tauron, Bauglir/Baugron, I would use Maedron.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Findegil

On Maedros/ Maedron: I don't think that the changes is directly conected to The problem of ROS. Since we have some names ending in -ron elements: Sauron, Daeron and changes that lead to similar names Tauros/Tauron, Bauglir/Baugron, I would use Maedron.

I don't deny that 'Maedron' is valid Sindarin (as is shown by the names you quote). Rather, the twofold question is:

1. Was the change of 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' motivated by the elimination of the RUS- stem?

2. Are there instances of 'Maedros' that post-date the 'Maedron' note?

If the answer to either of these is 'yes', then we must stick with 'Maedros'. And while I don't think we can be absolutely certain about either question, it seems to me fairly likely that the answer to 1 is yes, and quite possible that the answer to 2 is yes (as Galin pointed out earlier, we have no good way of dating the Maedron note vs. the Return of the King note).

Perhaps I haven't fully explained why I think the change to 'Maedron' is likely to have been motivated by deletion of the RUS- stem. As I see it, we have the following evidence:

1. In 'The Problem of Ros', Tolkien expresses dissatisfaction with both the ROS- and RUS- stems (noting not only the homophony as a problem, but also the similarity of RUS- to Indo-European 'red' words)

2. Although the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros' (of changing ROS- to a Beorian stem) does not in itself necessitate changes to the RUS- words, the fact that he wrote 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter' in the margin indicates that he considered a change of 'Maedros' to be part of the solution.

3. 'Maedron' occurs in a note post-dating 'The Problem of Ros'.

It is at the very least easy enough to read this evidence, taken together, as Tolkien reluctantly changing 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' in order to eliminate the 'RUS' stem.

[Findegil]

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Yes but the failure there had to do with the "other ros" (the ros in andros) being Beorian, so Aiwendil is suggesting (as I read it) that since that failed, at some point Tolkien took up his thought -- his thought in the note that goes with The Problem of ROS -- that perhaps the other ros (red-brown haired) could be dealt with...

... thus the later Maedron note.

While it is possible that Maedron reflects the loss of -russa/-ros (red-brown haired), we can't be sure. The note merely seems to say that JRRT "now" will alter Maedros to Maedron, but we have no further information there, and are left with what this might mean, if anything, concerning the Amros brothers.


It's also possible that the same note (the Problem of ROS note) in which Tolkien thinks that Maedros is so long established that it would be difficult to alter, plays some part in his "returning" to Maedros in the note in a copy of The Lord of the Rings.

If that's what Tolkien did, that is


My thought is that a choice of Maedron comes with a number of questions... while the choice of Maedros provides the Quenya and Sindarin names for all three brothers, as well as the detail behind these names, that these brothers had a measure of red-brown, or coppery coloured hair.

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

Not that you are necessarily going to use all of this information for this reconstructed Silmarillion! But anyway, if one is forced to choose, I mean.

Although obviously that's just one way of looking at the scenario.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Well, we don't know when Tolkien wrote the 'Maedron' note; nor do we know when he wrote, 'Most of this fails' on the manuscript of 'Ros'. It seems to me perfectly plausible that the 'Maedron' note pre-dated the realization that the proposed 'Ros' solution would not work, even if it apparently post-dated 'The Problem of Ros' itself (which Christopher Tolkien presents no actual evidence for, though I grant that he is probably right).

But, as Galin points out, the fact that Tolkien rejected the idea to make ROS- a Beorian stem doesn't necessarily mean that he no longer wanted to get rid of RUS-.

Apart from these considerations, though, I think Galin is right:

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

We don't know which was later. (I don't think the analogy to other '-on' names is conclusive evidence that 'Maedron' is later; after all, we have 'Maedros' as late as 1969 or 1970, while for example 'Tauros' had already become 'Tauron' as early as the early 1950s.) And given that we don't know, I think 'Maedros' is preferable.

[Findegil]

So in the end we settle down on Maedros and Maglor.

I will work that back into our texts.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Glad we're agreed. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll go through and update the list of names we're using in the 'General Changes in TftE' thread.

[Aiwendil]

Here's a revised list of general changes, arranged alphabetically. For ease of reading, I've removed the quotes from the discussions about those changes, instead supplying links to the relevant threads. One thing I realized as I was doing this is that we never actually came to a decision about the name 'Gwarestrin'.

{Amon Gwareth}[Amon Gwared] per LQ2 (HoMe XI)

{Amras}[Amros] per Shibboleth and Ros. Discussed in Name Changes?

{Angamandi}[Angband] per Q30.

{Artanaro}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Artanor}[Doriath] per Q30.

{Auredhir}[Eluréd and Elurín] per QS77

{Avranc}[Daruin] per WH note 55.

{Bad Uthwen}[Way of Escape], decided in Bad Uthwen vote after discussion here

Battle of Sudden {Fire}[Flame] per QS77

{Bansil}[Belthil] per QS77

{Belthil}[Silpion] when it refers to the tree in Valinor, per QS77.

{Bëor}[Bregor] when referring to the Father of Barahir per HoME XI

{Bladorion}[Ard-galen] per HoME XI

{Bronweg}[Voronwë] per QS77and late 'Tuor'

{Celegorn}[Celegorm] per QS77

{Celon}[Limhir] per 'Of Maeglin'

{Côr} [Túna] or [Tirion] per QS77. In BoLT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the City and the hill on which it stands. It should be changed to 'Tirion' when it refers to the city and 'Tuna' when it refers to the hill.


{Cranthir}[Caranthir]

{Cranthor}[Caranthir] per QS77

{Crisaegrim}[Crissaegrim] per QS77

{Cristhorn}[Cirith Thoronath] per QS77

{Cûm an-Idrisaith}[Cûm-nan-Arasaith] (Mound of Avarice) per Q30. This may need linguistic revision.

Dagor {Vreged-sir}[Bragollach] per QS77

{Dairon}[Daeron] per QS77

{Damrod}[Amrod] per QS77.

{Díriel}[Amros] per Shibboleth and Ros

{Dorlas}[Darlas] per WH note 55.

{Dorlomin}[Dor-Lómin] for consistency with UT and QS77

{Dor-na-Fauglith}[Dor-nu-Fauglith] per QS77

{dragon-helm}[Dragon-helm] just for consistency.

{dwarfen}[dwarven] per Tolkiens general use of the old plural when refering to Dwarves.

{Eärendel}[Eärendil] per QS77and LR.

{Egnor}[Aegnor] per QS77 (except where it refers to Beren's father)

{Egnor}[Barahir] per QS77 when it refers to Beren’s father.

{Elfinesse}[Elvenesse] per Tolkien's general change of Elfin to Elven from earlier to later writings.

{Erchamion}[Erchamon] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Decided in this thread.

Ereinion: No change.

{Ermabwed}[Erchamon] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’.

{Finellach}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Finrod}[Finarfin] per QS77 when it refers to Felagund's father.

{Flinding go-Fuilin}[Gwindor, Guilin’s son] this seems to be covered by the two entries 'Flinding' and 'Fuilin' but since in alliterative verse Flinding and Fuilin are both in the alliteration it is here surely necessary to change the alliteration.

{Flinding}[Gwindor] per QS77 but this change does only occur in the verse and Flinding is often used in the alliteration. Thus each line needs some special solution.

{Fuilin}[Guilin] per QS77 but this change does only occur in the verse and Fuilin is often used in the alliteration. Thus each line needs some special solution.

{Galion}[Galdor] per HoME XI

{Galweg}[Orodreth] per QS77.

{Gar Ainion}[Place of the Ainur], decided here

{Gar Thurian}[Gar Thoren] per 'Etymologies': under 3AR-, section GARAT-. Decided here

{Gelion} and {River Gelion} [Duin Daer] per 'Of Maeglin'.

{Gelmir}[Faramir] when referring to the companion of Arminas, per Narn plot synopses. Discussed in this thread.

{Glingal}[Laurelin] when it refers to the tree in Valinor per QS77

{Glingol}[Glingal] per QS77.

{Glommweaver}[Ungoliant] and {Ungoliantë}[Ungoliant] per QS77

{Glorund}[Glaurung] per Wanderings of Húrin.

{Gnome}[Elf] or [Noldo] and {Gnomes}[Elves] or [Noldor]. “Gnomes” was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Elves except where a general reference to Elves would not fit, as in “the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not.” Then use Noldor.

{Gochressiel} [Crissaegrim] per QS77

{Gondothlim}[Gondolindrim] per QS77

{Gondothlimbar}[Gondothrimbar] per 'Etymologies'; under GOND-. Discussed here

{Gods}[Valar] Tolkien almost entirely drops "Gods" as a English translation in later writings.

{Gorthu}[Sauron] or [Gorthaur] per LR.

{Gumlin}[Galdor] per HoME XI

Gwarestrin:

{Gwendelin} [Melian] per QS77.

{Gwenniel}[Melian] per Q30.

{Gyrth-I-Guinar}[Dor Firn-i-Guinar] per QS77

{Haladin}[Halethrim] when referring to the general populace of Haleth’s people, per ‘The Wanderings of Hurin’.

{Haleth}[Halmir] when it refers to Haleth the Hunter per LQ

{Haud-in-Nengin}[Haudh-en-Nirnaeth] per QS77

{Hisilómë}[Hithlum] per S.

{House of the Swan}[House of Hador] when it refers to Tuor’s ancestry. The sign of Annael remains the Swan.

{Hundar}[Haldir] per LQ when it refers to Halmir's son.

{Hundor}[Haldir] per LQ.

{i•Guilwarthon}[Dor Firn-i-Guinar] per QS77.

{Ing}[Ingwë] per QS77

{Inglor}[Finrod] or [Felagund] per LR

{Inwe}[Ingwë] per QS77

{Indrafangs}[dwarves of Belegost] when not referring to the dwarves of Moria per QS77

{Isfin}[Aredhel] per QS77

{Karkaras} (Knife-fang)}[Carcharoth ('the Red Maw')] per QS77.

{Kôr} [Túna] or [Tirion] per QS77. In BoLT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the City and the hill on which it stands. It should be changed to 'Tirion' when it refers to the city and 'Tuna' when it refers to the hill.

{Lalaith}[Lalaeth] per genealogical tables associated with LQ2. Discussed in this thread.

{Legolas Greenleaf}[Laegolas], discussed here and decided here.

{Lhandroval}[Landroval] per LR

{Lothengriol}[Loth-a-ladwen] per 'The Lay of the Fall of Gondolin' (in 'Poems Early Abandoned, HoMe III).

{Lothlim}[Lothrim] This latter is the probable correct Sindarin form.

Maglor: No change. Discussed in this thread.

{Mahtan}[Sarmo] per Shibboleth, discussed in Name Changes?[/url]

{Maidros} [Maedros] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Malkarauki}[Valaraukar] per Valaquenta published with QS77.

{Mavwin}[Morwen] per QS77.

{Meglin}[Maeglin] per QS77.

{Melko}[Morgoth] per QS77. After BoLT Tolkien almost never uses Melkor in narration of events following Fëanor’s invention of the name Morgoth, except in a back-reference to ancient times.

{Minnastirith}[Minas Tirith] per QS77

{Nan-Tathrin}[Nan-Tathren] per QS77

{Nauglafring}[Nauglamír] per QS77.

{Nauglath}[dwarves of Nogrod] or [Naugrim] per QS77

{Nienóri}[Nienor] per UT.

{Noldoli}[Noldor] per QS77. Noldoli, though possibly still a valid form, is not used at all in QS77or late Tolkien writings.

{Noldorin}[Sindarin] per HoME XI

Nost-na-Lothion: No change. Discussed here

{Nivrost}[Nevrast] per QS77.

{Palúrien}[Kementári] per LQ2 and Valaquenta.

{Peleg}[Huor] per QS77and “Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin”.

{Pengolodh}[Pengoloð] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Discussed in this thread.

{Place of the Gods}[Place of the Ainur], decided here

{Rodnor}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Rodothlim}[Elves of Nargothrond] per QS77.

{Saeros}[Orgol] per CoH

{Salgant}[Talagand] per “The Eytmologies”, decided here

{Sorontur}[Sorontar] per “The Etymologies” (under THOR-, THORON-) and “The Wanderings of Húrin” in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11).

{Sarn Athrad} and {Sarnathrod}[Athrad Daer] per 'Of Maeglin'.

{Silver Bowl}[Dimrost] per QS77.

{Tarin Austa}[Gates of Summer], decided here

{Taur-na-Fuin}[Taur-nu-Fuin] per QS77

{Tauros}[Tauron] per LQ

{Tavros} [Tauron] per LQ

{Teiglin}[Taeglin] per WH note 55.

{Tengwethil}[Taniquetil] per QS77

{Thargelion}[Talath Rhúnen] or [Dor-Caranthir] per HoME XI

{Thingódhel}[Pengoloð] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Discussed in this thread.

{Thorn Sir}[Sîr Thoron], discussed here and here

{Thornhoth}[Thoronhoth] This latter is the probable correct Sindarin form.

{Throndor}[Thorondor] per QS77and LR.

{Thu} [Sauron] or [Gorthaur] per LR.

{Tinwelint}[Thingol] per LR.

{Tower of Ingildon}[Tower of Nimras] per QS77.

{Tumladin}[Tumladen] per QS77.

{Tun}[Túna] per QS77

{Umboth-Muilin}[Aelin-uial] per QS77 and UT

{Úrin}[Húrin] per LR.

{Valmar}[Valimar] per LR

{Ylmir}[Ulmo] per QS77

[gondowe]

Hello. Regarding TNoME Part II, IV. Could we consider Finwain as the last name of Gil-Galad?

Greetings

[Findegil]

Yes, I think the late source given by gondowe does mean that the father-name of the Elve mostly known by his epesse 'Gil-galad' was 'Finwain'.

I will have to search our text to see which older alternatives 'Finwain' has to replace.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Huinesoron]

Not my region of the forum (I haven't the patience!), but I wanted to drop in and mention that NoME might also change your conclusions on Maelor: 3.VII Manwe's Ban uses that form of the name, and is written on papers from 1970. It's also linked by CH to PoME XII.1 Glorfindel II, which CT implies dates from late 1972.

The timeline of the Maelor texts would thus be:

-1955+: The Lay of Leithian Recommenced. Both Maglor & Maelor as written, the latter ultimately being preferred
-1958+: Late change to Later Quenta Silmarillion 2. Maglor > Maelor
-1966+: Return of the King note. Maelor
-1968+: Shibboleth of Feanor [1 footnote + VT41 'Sindarizing']. Maglor
-1972: Manwe's Ban. Maelor

Galin noted back in 2011 that CT implies the story of Amrod being burnt only arose during the writing of the Shibboleth; as the RotK note makes mention of that story, it would seem to be post-Shibboleth.

hS

[Findegil]

Since the decision in the case of Maglor/Maelor was taken due to timing consideartions, I agree that with the new information from NoME we have to switch again back to Maelor.

But before I undertake that work in my working copy, I would like to hear an agreement from at least some members.

Respectfully
Findegil

[gondowe]

For my part I agree with the the two name changes. Besides I think they are of better logical.
MAEdros with MAElor and Finwain closer to Finellach in Aldarion.

Greetings

Editing. Now I have been thinking when revising my glossary. If the mother name of Maelor is Makalaure per the Shibboleth, I am not sure if Maelor could derive in Sindarin from Makalaure. But Maglor fits well independently of timing. I woldl like an autorithative opinion of someone expert on language.

[gondowe]

A simple question. Ambar or Imbar?, or both are valid?
Speaking of the last Tolkien idea of course.

Greetings

[Findegil]

Up to now we used 'Ambar'. But without any discussion and 'Imbar' never came up in our source texts used so far.

A quick search gave the following clear statemnet from Myths Transformed; Text II:

There are features in the present text that clearly associate it with
the Commentary on the Athrabeth (see notes 2 and 3 below), among them the use of the name Arda to mean the Solar System; but while the Earth itself is in the Commentary named Imbar it has here the older name Ambar.

So it should be 'Imbar' throught out our whole text. We used it so far only once and in the compound 'Ambarcanta' but it is on the Maps and Diagrams.

Thank you gondowe for catching this!

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

I am not sure we should adopt the switch. We have extensive linguistic attestation for the development and process of producing Ambar, but none for Imbar. In the text itself, he still uses Ambar, and Imbar only appears here as far as I am aware. It may be a valid alternative to Ambar, but I do not see the need or the reason to change all Ambar to Imbar.

But if we only use it once as Fin said, it may be not much of an issue. However, there is more use of it in the Volume 3 texts.

[Arvegil145]

Shouldn't Sador be changed to Sadog, as per 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969) from The Peoples of Middle-earth, p. 309? (Also, shouldn't he be a Druadan according to the same text?)

Additionally, there is strong evidence that the characters of 'Magor' and 'Hador' should switch places, in that Hador becomes the grandfather of Magor, and not the other way around as it has been presented in most writings. This is largely because Tolkien wanted Hador to become the Lord of Dor-lomin earlier than in the published Silmarillion. This information comes from 'Of the Kindreds and Houses of the Edain' from the 'later Quenta' - namely, from some of the later revisions to it, found in The War of the Jewels, pp. 225-6.

Here is a quote from 'The House of Hador' genealogy commentary by CT:

In hasty pencillings on Hador table II the note saying that Magor and Hathol served no Elf-lord but dwelt near the sources of Teiglin, and that Hador was the first lord of Dor-lómin, was struck out; while at the same time Hador Lorindol first lord of Dorlómin was written above Magor (the Sword), and Magor Dagorlind the Sword singer in battle above Hador Lorindol. This reversal has been seen already in emendations made to the carbon copy only of the text of the chapter (pp. 225-6, §§16, 31-2 - where my father changed Glorindol, not to Lorindol, but to Glorindal). That this was not an ephemeral change is seen from the Athrabeth, where Adanel is the sister of Hador Lorindol, not of Magor.

This note, I believe, dates from c. 1959/1960.

[Findegil]

Hello Arvegil,

the change of Sador to Drûg we discussed once upon a time. In the end we deciseded that for us this planed change was unworkable. The argument was twofold: On the one hand we did not see how to integreate the background story why in th ehousehold of Húrin a Drûg would be found. And even more improtant we were sure that with the change to a Drûg the charachter backgriund would have changed. Sure enough a Drûg would be a good woodcarver, but would he have still maintained the krippling in youth by a missed blow of an axe? Probabaly not because being and Drûg already meant having a mis-shapened body in the eyes of the surounding comunity. And being so special meant that the Drûg that came with Hareth would probably always stay as house carls by her and her famaly and never go as carpenters into the woods. And would he survive into the service of Brodda? Dificult as we know that the Orks that terrorised the land after the incomming of the Easterlings hated the Drûg. And the Drûg were short lifed, so either Sadog might life up to Túrins return or he might have fought the Bagorlach.
In the end we had too many unanswered questions to work out that change. And in that vein I think we decisede against the name change {Sador}[Sadog] because we thought that it was connected to the charachter change.

{Hador Lorindol}[Magor Dagorlind the Swordsinger] & {Magor the Sword}[Hador Glorindal} is quiet a diffrent kettle of fish. I think what stayed our hand their was that Hador is named 3 times in LotR. But looking deeper into this, it does not prevent the change: He is named as one of 'the mighty elf-friends of old' as 'the Goldenhaired' and as the head and name giver of 'the Third House of the Edain'. But all that he can still be even if he switched the position in the genealogy with Magor.

It would switch Hador to the same generation as Haleth, which might be considered a pro argument since it means the Second and Third House are named at roughly the same time. But for sure Hador would keep his role to collect the House in Dor-Lomin and with that we would skip the settekemnt in the south of Ered Wethrin - not bad, since who later ever journey throught that region (Turin four times, Tour) never found any sign of that settelment.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

So, how about we change Hador with Magor already?

Lol, I know this forum generally has the speed of a 100 year old snail, but still - no post for almost a year?!

Are you folks ok? (says a guy who hasn't posted on the downs for 7 years...)


Also, Hiril, Beren's sister mentioned only once in a late Edain genealogy is 'canon' (lord, I hate that word )

[Arvegil145]

Speaking of genealogies - will they appear at some point in the finished work?

Because I'd gladly volunteer to make them: ALL of them - I love making family trees! Spent years meticulously, painstakingly getting them right, to the point of borderline obsession.

[Arvegil145]

Also, you should change Ingwion to Ingwil - according to 'The Nature of Middle-earth': the text that mentions the name 'Ingwil' is from c. 1959, while the one in 'The War of the Jewels' that mentions 'Ingwion' is from c. 1957/1958.

[Findegil]

Does it only look like that or do the others avoid this thread?

{Hador Lorindol}[Magor Dagorlind the Swordsinger] & {Magor the Sword}[Hador Glorindal} I already hasitating agreed to this change, but I would like some other opinions here as well.

{Ingwion}[Ingwil] Agreed, good catch.

About genealogies: We have a chapter for them in volume III. But so fare we (as a group) have only worked on the content list in that part. I do not know what ArcusCalion has done on them already.

But I would like to add a warning here: The project tries to eddit Tolkiens work not to perfectionat it. I have my self made genealogies spanning from the first generation of Men to Eldarion and his unnamed sistern, but since Tolkien never made anything alike that, they clearly do not fit here.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

I agree about {Ingwion}[Ingwil].

The Hador/Magor issue is a big change, and I'd like to personally scour HoMe a little bit to satisfy myself about it. I agree, however, that the mentions of Hador in LotR are not a problem.

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I agree about {Ingwion}[Ingwil].

The Hador/Magor issue is a big change, and I'd like to personally scour HoMe a little bit to satisfy myself about it. I agree, however, that the mentions of Hador in LotR are not a problem.

IMO, the only significant change to Hador/Magor swap is that Tolkien never provided the exact date that Hador became the Lord of Dor-lomin in the later conception (in the earlier one, it was in FA 416, I think).

But, assuming that the dates of the Hador/Magor swap remained the same, that would place the establishment of the Lordship of Dor-lomin in FA 367 (since in the earlier conception Hador became the Lord at age 26 in FA 416, and in the later conception he is essentially given Magor's date of birth: FA 341).

I hope all of this made sense...

[gondowe]

Hello everybody. How are you folks? I've out of this web since the Concerning...the Hoard revolution. But I read this updates now and only want to make my opinion about this name changes.

Of course I agreed about Inngwil but... this is a fast thinking.

In its time I considered the matter of Magor/Hador change, but, refresh me if I'm wrong: as I include a Tale of years of first age, the change of this names, wouldn't mean a reinvent of born years and year lines?, in spite of possibly the last known desire of Tolkien but never developed in narrative that feed the change.
Well, I possibly must re-study the texts but, a priori, I'm not agreed with this.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

Hello everybody. How are you folks? I've out of this web since the Concerning...the Hoard revolution. But I read this updates now and only want to make my opinion about this name changes.

Of course I agreed about Inngwil but... this is a fast thinking.

In its time I considered the matter of Magor/Hador change, but, refresh me if I'm wrong: as I include a Tale of years of first age, the change of this names, wouldn't mean a reinvent of born years and year lines?, in spite of possibly the last known desire of Tolkien but never developed in narrative that feed the change.
Well, I possibly must re-study the texts but, a priori, I'm not agreed with this.

Greetings

1) Earlier idea:

- Magor (born in 341)
- Hathol his son (born in 365)
- Hador Lorindol, Hathol's son (born in 390; became the Lord of Dor-lomin in 416; died in Dagor Bragollach in 455; husband of Gildis and the father of Gloredhel, Galdor and Gundor)


2) Later idea:

- Hador Lorindol (born in 341; and at some undisclosed date becomes the Lord of Dor-lomin*; he also receives the Dragon-helm at a much earlier date)
- Hathol, Hador's son (born in 365)
- Magor Dagorlind, "the sword-singer in battle", Hathol's son (born in 390; became the Lord of Dor-lomin after his father Hathol's unknown date of death; died in Dagor Bragollach in 455; husband of Gildis and the father of Gloredhel, Galdor and Gundor)


In other words, Tolkien simply switched the names 'Magor' and 'Hador' in the genealogical table of the 'House of Hador': i.e. he gave Hador's dates and deeds to Magor, and vice versa (except the Lordship of Dor-lomin!) - it's really not a monumental change.





*footnote - if going by the age at which Hador became the Lord of Dor-lomin in the earlier conception (aged 26), Hador should become the Lord of Dor-lomin in 367 (i.e. 341 + 26 = 367) in the later conception - but this is just speculation


P.S. It also makes far more sense for Hador, the original Lord of Dor-lomin, to be the son of Malach Aradan, who spent much of his life serving Elven lords: to the point of adopting an Elvish name ('Aradan') and naming his children in Elven tongue ('Adanel' and 'Hador').

[gondowe]

I was reviewing the texts and I am going to try to explain my line of thought. But correct me if I'm mistaken in points.

For some time now, I tend to emphasize the dates on which the texts and corrections and notes are supposedly written. I suppose you will agree with me that many of these situations are undatatable and more so after the publication of TNoME in which other dates are given by Hostteter to some texts.

With respect to the Hador/Magor matter, we are supposed to be talking about this reversal of history as contained in hasty pencil notes to a c.1959 text, (WJ, 229, 233), and corrections to these notes we cannot know when they were made.

We also know from experience that Tolkien tended to vary his views frequently in later years, or to forget some changes that occurred to him at another time. The thing is, while Tolkien probably intended to swap Magor for Hador, he too probably forgot or changed his mind again.

An example, in my opinion, is Of Dwarves and Men (c.1967-1970, because, as CT said, the fact that the texts were written on 1968 calendars is not a terminus a quo, but rather means that they were written from that date onwards) in POME, 307 where "Hador... the chieftain who commanded... when first entered Beleriand". That is to say, that here he returns to the initial conception (or in other words, it could be said that Hador was Marach).

Another example would be TNoME, 323 where in a text from c.1965 it says that "... Eärendil (son of Tuor, the great-great-grandson of Hador)" where if this g-g-gs refers to Eärendil the genealogy is the habitual, and if he refers to Tuor, Hador I think he would be in the position of Hathol, not Magor (probably a mistake of the Professor so common in him, although we do not know if by default or excess).

What I want to say with all this is that, in my humble opinion, in a case with as much tradition as this and there being a "finished" narrative that implies, in addition to the QS, the Narn, the Tale of Years and the Athrabeth, the data about the supposed dates of the texts make us be, at least a little prudent. But it's just my opinion.

By the way, I've not found in this forum (correct me again if I'm mistaken) a proposal change in two names:

Dor Daedeloth> Dor-na-Daerachas per WJ, 183, 187, 338-9
Dor Firn i guinar > Dor Gyrth i chuinar per Letters no 332.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

I was reviewing the texts and I am going to try to explain my line of thought. But correct me if I'm mistaken in points.

For some time now, I tend to emphasize the dates on which the texts and corrections and notes are supposedly written. I suppose you will agree with me that many of these situations are undatatable and more so after the publication of TNoME in which other dates are given by Hostteter to some texts.

With respect to the Hador/Magor matter, we are supposed to be talking about this reversal of history as contained in hasty pencil notes to a c.1959 text, (WJ, 229, 233), and corrections to these notes we cannot know when they were made.

We also know from experience that Tolkien tended to vary his views frequently in later years, or to forget some changes that occurred to him at another time. The thing is, while Tolkien probably intended to swap Magor for Hador, he too probably forgot or changed his mind again.

I should have mentioned this in my last post, but I forgot: the decision to swap Magor with Hador is incorporated into the Athrabeth. As CT says:

In hasty pencillings on Hador table II the note saying that Magor and Hathol served no Elf-lord but dwelt near the sources of Teiglin, and that Hador was the first lord of Dor-lomin, was struck out; while at the same time Hador Lorindol first lord of Dorlómin was written above 'Magor (the Sword)', and "Magor Dagorlind the Sword singer in battle" above 'Hador Lorindol'. This reversal has been seen already in emendations made to the carbon copy only of the text of the chapter (pp. 225-6, §§16, 31-2 - where my father changed 'Glorindol', not to 'Lorindol', but to 'Glorindal'). That this was not an ephemeral change is seen from the 'Athrabeth', where Adanel is the sister of Hador Lorindol, not of Magor.

[gondowe]

Yes, I know. But, still in my opinion, as the Athrabeth is of the same time, it could only reveal that the swap is a thought of this years 1958-59 (or the unknown date of the pencilled notes) and that perhaps later was forgotten or rethought.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

Yes, I know. But, still in my opinion, as the Athrabeth is of the same time, it could only reveal that the swap is a thought of this years 1958-59 (or the unknown date of the pencilled notes) and that perhaps later was forgotten or rethought.

Greetings

A lot of 'ifs', 'coulds', 'maybes'...

Do I think that it's possible that Tolkien changed his mind later on? Certainly. But you can make the same argument about half of the stuff that we included in 'The New Silmarillion' - especially the names: Tolkien kept changing those all the time as if he was changing his socks!

Also, I'm quite aware that Tolkien in his late years had a habit of just inexplicably changing some elements of the story, the most egregious example of it being IMO the fact that he seems to have totally forgotten about the existence of Fingolfin in the notes to the 'Maeglin' text!


However, in the absence of any concrete, textual proof that he reverted back to the older idea, the evidence is pretty clear: the latest texts dealing with the subject of Hador's family tree have him as the son of Malach Aradan and brother to Adanel.

[Findegil]

Arvegil145 you convinced me at least. I suport the change. It will make same toilsome reading to bring to trough, but as you siad, we addopted changes with less clear evidence.

Respectfully
Findegil

[gondowe]

Ok. The ifs, coulds and maybes are only in order to be prudent. With the years I learned to be so.
I only wanted to share my opinion.
I do think that there are proofs that it was not his last idea about the matter as wrote in my previous post. But if you are convinced it's ok, go on.

Greetings.

[gondowe]

By the way. About Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar. Were they discussed? If not, what do you think?

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

By the way. About Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar. Were they discussed? If not, what do you think?

Greetings

I just checked both, and I agree. They are from very late sources (1970 + ), and I can't find any examples where he reverted back to the other forms.

[Findegil]

Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar: Could one of you give us a bit more of context here. What is the source for these changes? Of course we all have a bundle of source text that we could search to find out, but I at least have some other work at hand (some even for this project). And since you Gondowe has brought them up, you could have given the information without any work more than writing a few lines here. And you Arvegil145 seems to have looked them up anyhow. So why not charing a bit more than only the final result and making life easier for all other participants?

Respectfully
Findegil