Of Maeglin

[Findegil]

M-00.5: I think we should include the sub-title: ‘Sister-son of Turgon, King of Gondolin’.

M-01: Okay, we are lucky Ar-Feiniel was used no where else.

M-01.5: I think we should include the three names of the Lords to lead Aredhel:

And Turgon appointed three lords of his household M-01.5<Marglin, Note to the B(i) Glorfindel, Egalmoth and Ecthelion >to ride with Aredhel, and he bade them lead her to Fingon in Hithlum, if they might prevail upon her.

M-04: Since I am for including the names, I am all for holding this passage.

M-07 to M-13 and M-15 to M-17: Agree, but we should add the source information into the editing markers.

M-14: I do not see a good reason for this change. In my view it is equal if the name or the fords of Aros is used. In such a case the original text should rule.

M-18: The example used was Galadriel and Teleporno from the later time when Celeborn was a grandson of Olwë of Aqualondë, as was Galadriel a granddaughter of Olwë through Earwen. And the Laws and Customs where the marriage of first cousins was allowed if the paraents that were not siblings would be not akin at all. That could be the case with Galadriel and Teleporno. (I as well said that Celeborn by that law could have been both the grandson of Olwë and Elmo.) In the case of Maeglin and Idril, I suggested that Eöl as a tatyarin Avari could have been akin to Elenwë (supposedly a noldorin lady) and that by this kinship the Maeglins love for Idril would be rendered ‘a thing strange and crooked’. But in the discussion these arguments did not find the majority. And up to this point we did not make Eöl a tatyarin Avari. So equally if we revise this decision now, at least last the statements might stand.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

M-01.5: I would be as well, but Tolkien himself made directions that they should be unnamed, bc he thought that the lord of the Gondolindrim would not be so easily ensnared in the webs of Nan Dungortheb.

M-14: Agreed, I was unsure about the change myself.

M-18: So it would be the statement in Laws and Customs that must be emended then. The list of changes to that document gets longer every day lol

[Findegil]

M-01.5: Okay, as sad as it is we have to let the 3 be unnamed.

M-18: I would change neither, but that is my opinion.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

M-18: not that it matters for thisa thread, but why would you not change the LC? Would you leave it thjere for the reader to use to infer that Eol must be related to Turgon?

[Findegil]

I am a 'combiner' as long as solution is thinkable, there is no contradiction and with that no need for a change.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

fair enough

[Arvegil145]

Following from my post about Eol's heritage in another forum - is the following excerpt about Eol being one of those Teleri that stopped at the sight of the Misty Mountains (i.e. the Nandor) contradictory to Tolkien's later note to that passage and Eol's implied kinship with Thingol?

I'll give the text here:

To the passage "But Eöl... was no Dwarf, but a tall Elf of a high kin of the Teleri" my father wrote on the manuscript A (only) a note beginning with the words "Not in revision" - which probably means that what follows is not in the corrections made to the copies of the typescript ('the revision'). In this note my father was copying a very faint and illegible form of it on the same page, and trying to interpret his own writing; I give it exactly as it stands:

"Eöl should not be one of Thingol's kin, but one of the Teleri who refused to cross the Hithaeglir. But [later] he and a few others of like mood, averse to concourse of people, ... [had] crossed the [Mts] long ago and come to Beleriand."

Against this note he wrote "but the relationship to Thingol would have point", and the date 1971.

- The War of the Jewels, 'Maeglin', §9, p. 322