Name Changes?

[Galin]

Ah, I see what you mean now Findegil. And later than the Shibboleth still isn't specific, so even an arguably later (than the Shibboleth) occurance of Maedros leaves one up in the air a bit.

This touches upon Maelor: both Maedros and Maelor appear in the note published (in the notes to) Of Dwarves And Men -- along with the idea that one of the Amros twins was burned in the ships -- and CJRT suggests that the sinister story arose during the composition of the text noted in The Shibboleth of Feanor -- that is, in the text The names of the Sons of Feanor with the legend of the fate of Amrod and so on.

Hmmm.

[Findegil]

Okay, to spare you a long windig search: In post #3 Inderjit Sanghera gave a quote from On Sindarizing of the names [of the sons of Fëanor]. He said that it came from Vinyar Tengwar 39. Since I wanted to read that in full context, I searched for it and found it at last in [Vinyar Tengwar 41[/i]. Since I am sure we will need at least part of it later on in the project, I give the text here in full:

Immediately following the legend of the fate of Amrod (XII:353-55) is a set of notes, labelled "On Sindarizing of the names", keyed to the numbered list of the names of the seven sons of Fëanor (XII:352-53). Cf. XII:366 n.65.

1) Maedros combines elements of Nelyafinwe's mother name Maiti- (Commen Eldarin magiti- shapely, Sindarin maed) and of the epesse russandol (C.E. russā, S. ross).
2) Makalaure was converted simply phonetically to S. maglaur > maglor. Its pure Sindarin [development] would have been [deleted: maka-glawar] maka-glaur-. In S. glaware > glawar = Q. laure but as second element in compound glaware > glaur. magalor-.
3) S. celeg (*kelekā) = Q. tyelka. The form was celeg-orm because in North Sindarin medial m was not opened [to v] as in [?Western] Sindarin.
4) Curufin so usually written = Kurufinwe. C.E. kuru- skill, especially in artifices and devices. Q. kuro (kuru-) a skilful [?device]. Kurwe skill of the hand. [In] Sindarin kurwē > curu-. Finwe would in fact have given S. Fim but the Noldor Sindarized it as -fin.
5) [In] Sindarin carani- > caran + þîr face (< stīrē) [?substituted] for Q. car'ni-stîr(e). So Caranthir. [Mariginal note: Carastir?]
6) 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.
Maedros, Maglor, Celegorm, Curufin, Caranthir, Amros, Amarthan.

Finally, a note about the twin sons of Fëanor, who called each other Ambarussa, is quoted in full on XII:355, excepting its final sentence, which reads: "Others called them Minyarussa and Atyarussa"; i.e. 'First-russa' and 'Second-russa'

Having read this part of The shibboleth of Fëanor I also must say that Maglor really is established here as the name of Fëanors second son. So I think now that Maelor was passing idea, and that Tolkien change his mind and came back to Maglor. What do other say about that matter?

Respectfuly
Findegil

[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