The Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin

[Galin]

My point (the part that was not simply added information from WPP) is more basic: if one looks at what Tolkien himself published, we find hyphenated Gil-galad translated as Starlight. For myself I would see nothing wrong or inaccurate with the project following this. I realize that over the years Tolkien changed his mind about the etymology of Gil-galad, but I'll put it this way, if you said: since Celeborn the Teler (from Aman) was the latest idea from Tolkien we must accept this history as accurate... I would also have to disagree.

Since I assume the Silmarillion project is not going to delve into the etymology of the name, or its external history, to my mind 'what Tolkien published' seems a simple enough path to follow. In a sense it's not really about whether 'Starlight' or 'Star of Radiance' is used, but this is a small example of a larger textual issue.

And one that I tend to possibly annoy people about

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Perhaps Tolkien deliberately gave two (somewhat) conflicting interpretations to indicate that the "Sindarin Loremasters" were themselves unsure of its ultimate derivation.

In any event - and I'm sorry if this wasn't clear before - what I was trying to say in my previous post was that translating "Gil-galad" as "star-light" is fine with me, as long as the linguistic situation 'behind-the-scenes' is understood. I simply like to justify things for my own sake, even if the justification is never printed.

[Aiwendil]

There are plenty of cases where the English translations Tolkien provides for Elvish names are somewhat loose, and plenty of cases in which he gives alternate, slightly different translations. So I don't think that 'starlight' vs. 'star of radiance' is really a matter of tremendous importance.

Moreover, I tend to think that the presence or absence of a hyphen may be more of an issue with the transliteration into the English alphabet than with the actual name. I may have simply forgotten, but is there an equivalent of a hyphen in Tengwar?

In any case, we all seem to agree that 'Gil-galad' and 'star-light' are fine to use.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

No. Hyphens aren't even represented by spaces in the Tengwar, but Tolkien used them to distinguish between different kinds of mutations in the Latin alphabet.

[Aiwendil]

Finally, some comments on the first section.

First, a general comment on the text: There is a lot of jumping back and forth between QS and GA here. This is to be expected, given the textual situation, and I think that for the most part it is skillfully done; but I worry a little that in trying to provide as complete and detailed an account as we can, we may be slicing up Tolkien's prose too indiscriminately. In particular, I think we must be careful not to use additions from other sources merely for the sake of added verbiage, but only when some substantive detail is gained. I will try to point out specific places where this is an issue.

RB-DB-01: This is a good example of my concern above. Here we have cognate sentences in QS and GA:

Originally Posted by QS

But because the land was fair and their kingdoms wide, most of the noldor were grown content with things as they were, trusting them to last.

Originally Posted by GA

But because the land was grown so fair most of the Eldar were content with matters as they were and slow to begin an assault in which many must surely perish, were it in victory or defeat.

Our text as it stands combines these sentences, but it seems to me that little is gained from this. I would rather choose one or the other. The GA version does further explicate the Eldar's reluctance, so I would choose it:

. . . whether they hasted or delayed. <GA But because the land was grown so fair most of the Eldar were content with matters as they were and slow to begin an assault in which many must surely perish, were it in victory or defeat.> Therefore they were little disposed . . .

§134: "Third battle" should be changed to "fourth battle" here:

This was the {Third}[Fourth] of the great Battles, Dagor {Vreged-sir}[Bragollach], the Battle of Sudden {Fire}[Flame].

RB-DB-07: I don't think it's necessary to add "now" here:

In the front of that fire came {Golmund}[Glaurung] the golden, the father of dragons, RB-DB-07 <GA in his full might,>

§137: Here we again have similar sentences from both sources combined, posing, I think, the danger of making the sentence long and cumbersome:

The sons of {Finrod}[Finarfin] bore most heavily the brunt of the assault, and Angrod and {Egnor}[Aegnor] were slain; and [b]RB-DB-08[b] {Bregolas son of Bëor, who was lord of that house of Men after his father's death,}<LQ2 Bregolas, son of Bregor, who was lord of the house of Bëor after Boromir his father's death> [b]RB-DB-09[b] <GA and a great part of the warriors of Bëor's folk> {was}were slain beside them.

Also, in combining the sentences, the scope of "was slain beside them" is changed. In QS, this refers specifically to Bregolas, and suggests to me that Bregolas was literally standing with Angrod and Aegnor when he was slain. With the addition from GA, it becomes not just Bregolas but also "a great part of the warriors of Beor's folk", which in my opinion alters the meaning and diminishes the more personal nature of the original statement. I do, however, see the desirability of including the GA statement about the death of many Beorian warriors. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be anything crucial in the QS sentence that is lacking in GA, so I would suggest taking the whole sentence from GA:

§137 {The sons of Finrod bore most heavily the brunt of the assault, and Angrod and Egnor were slain; and Bregolas son of Beor, who was lord of that house of Men after his father's death, was slain beside them.} RB-DB-08<GA In the assault upon the defences of Dorthonion Agrond and {Egnor}[Aegnor], sons of {Finrod}[Finarfin], fell, and with them Bregolas was slain and a great part of the warriors of Bëor's folk.>

The remainder of §137 seems to me to exhibit similar difficulties. I wonder - would we really lose anything if we were to simply replace the whole paragraph with GA §146?

{§137. . . }<GA In the assault upon the defences of Dorthonion Agrond and {Egnor}[Aegnor], sons of {Finrod}[Finarfin], fell, and with them Bregolas was slain and a great part of the warriors of Bëor's folk. But Barahir his brother was in the fighting further wesward nigh the passes of Sirion. There King {Inglor}[Finrod] Felagund, hastening from the south, was defeated and was surrounded with small company in the Fen of Serech. But Barahir came thither with the doughtiest of his men, and broke the leaguer of the Orcs and saved the Elven-king. Then {Inglor}[Finrod] gave to Barahir his ring, an heirloom of his house, in token of the oath that he swore unto Barahir to render whatsoever service was asked in hour of need to him or to any of his kin. Then {Inglor}[Finrod] went south to Nargothrond, <QS his deep fortress prepared against the evil day.> >

Here I have only removed the last clause of GA §146, in order to avoid redundancy with the next paragraph in QS, and added the description of Nargothrond back in from QS to avoid an unnaturally short sentence.

§141: There are some missing Celegorn > Celegorm changes here:

<GA Celegor[m] and Curufin held strong forces behind Aglon, and many horsed archers, but they were overthrown, and Celegor[m] and Curufin hardly escaped

RB-DB-24: Here again the merging of QS and GA causes awkward prose. As it stands, the sentence is missing a conjunction; but more importantly, the addition from GA, stating that Morgoth's forces broke through the defences between Gelion and Celon (okay, Duin Daer and Limhir) seems superfluous. The QS text doesn't use the words "broke through" but it clearly describes exactly that occurring. I would leave out the addition from GA:

But they overwhelmed the riders of the folk of Fëanor upon Lothland, for {G1omund}[Glaurung] came thither, and passed through {Maglor}[Maelor]'s Gap, and destroyed all the land between the arms of {Gelion}[Duin Daer].

joined the remnant of his people to the scattered folk of the {hunters}hunter, {Damrod and Diriel}[Amrod]

We may have discussed this elsewhere and it slipped my mind, but shouldn't it be Amras who is alive in Beleriand and Amrod who died at Losgar?

§143: Here again some difficulties arise from the mixture of QS and GA. But first of all there is an issue of chronology. The situation appears to be that the assault on Minas Tirith was placed in 457, two years after the Bragollach, in AB 2 and in QS. In GA it was moved first to 456 and then to 455, the same year as the battle, and before the death of Fingolfin. Our text as it stands has the earlier chronology, and this at the very least must be changed.

But, as previously, I'm somewhat inclined to take the bulk of the passage from GA instead of from QS. As far as I can tell, nothing of substance appears here in QS that is absent from GA. The only thing I would perhaps want to salvage from QS is the description of Sauron, which is given at greater length in QS and was revised in LQ. If we take this, then we must remove the redundant description from GA. I would therefore suggest this:

<GA Morgoth learning now of the defeat of the sons of {Finrod}[Finarfin], and the scattering of the people of Fëanor, hemmed Fingolfin in Hithlum and sent a great force to attack the westward pass into the vales of Sirion; and Sauron his lieutenant {(who in Beleriand was named Gorsodh)} led that assault{,}[.]> <LQ Now Sauron, whom the {Noldor}[Sindar] call {Gorthu}[Gorthaur], was the chief servant of Morgoth. {In Valinor he had dwelt among the people of the gods, but there Morgoth had drawn him to evil and to his service.} <LQ He was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of ghosts, foul in wisdom><QS , cruel in strength, mis-shaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.> <GA [A]nd his hosts broke through and besieged the fortress of {Inglor}[Finrod], {Minnas-tirith}[Minas Tirith] upon {Tolsirion}[Tol Sirion]. And this they took after bitter fighting, and Orodreth the brother of {Inglor}[Finrod] who held it was driven out. There he would have been slain, but Celegorm[m] and Curufin came up with their riders, and such other force as they could gather, and they fought fiercely, and stemmed the tide for a while; and thus Orodreth escaped and came to Nargothrond. Thither also at last before the might of Sauron fled Celegor[m] and Curufin with small following; and they were harboured in Nargothrond gratefully, and the griefs that lay between the houses of Finrod and Fëanor were for that time forgotten.
GA §154 But Sauron took {Minnas-tirith}[Minas Tirith] and made it into a watch-tower for Morgoth, and filled it with evil{; for he was a sorcerer and a master of phantoms and terror}.And the fair isle of {Tolsirion}[Tol Sirion] became accursed and was called Tol-in-Gaurhoth, Isle of Werewolves; for Sauron fed many of these evil things.>

[Galin]

We may have discussed this elsewhere and it slipped my mind, but shouldn't it be Amras who is alive in Beleriand and Amrod who died at Losgar?

It seems discussed here a bit...

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4479


I'm not a member of this Silmarillion project, but as a fan of Tolkien's nomenclature I'll give this a go: Ambarto becomes the youngest or 'last' child, thus matching up better with Telufinwe 'Last Finwë' (though this was not specifically marked it appears).

Amros (1) Sindarin for Ambarussa. Had Amros (2) Ambarto lived, it [i.e. the name Ambarto] would probably have been [Sindarized] as Amrod, but when [?encountered] at all in Sindarin form it was [?] Amarthan Fated One. S. ambart- > ammarth, amarth fate = Umbarto.' Vinyar Tengwar 41

In the revised scenario where one of the sons dies, in my opinion there is really no one named Amras or Amrod. Or to put it another way, we would now have Amros and Amrod if the latter had lived... but as he didn't we have Amros and Amarthan, as in Tolkien's list published in VT.

Maedros, Maglor, Celegorm, Curufin, Caranthir, Amros, Amarthan.

[Aiwendil]

Good to see you, Galin!

I will have to look into the name issue some more, but as far as I can tell you are correct. My memory is a bit hazy on some of these issues. Glancing at the Name Changes thread, though, I noticed that in fact we had (at my suggestion!) already settled on "Amros" rather than "Amras". I'm less clear on the Amrod vs. Amarthan point, as (alas) I still don't have any of the Vinyar Tengwar (maybe those ought to go on my Hanukkah/Christmas wish-list).

However, my point here was simply that it is Amras/Amros who is alive and well in Beleriand at this point and Amrod/Amarthan who died at Losgar, and not the other way around.