Pengolodh - is it his name?

[Aran e-Godhellim]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Indeed, it seems pretty clear from this note that 'Pengolodh' must be changed to 'Thingódhel' unless some later source can be found to contradict this.

A possible contradiction may perhaps be found in 'Danweth Pengolodh'. Now, 'Danweth Pengolodh' itself was written sometime between 1951 and 1959, with CT preferring an earlier date to a later one; 'Quendi and Eldar' on the other hand is from 1959-1960. So the 'Thingodhel' suggestion almost certainly post-dates 'Danweth Pengolodh' itself. However, CT notes that the text was enclosed in a newspaper dated 5 January 1960 on which Tolkien wrote 'Two items from the lore of Pengoloð'. So we do have a use of the name Pengoloð that could post-date 'Thingodhel'.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I just found this in the 'Cirdan' text given in 'Last Writings' in HoMe XII:

So we do have an instance of 'Pengoloð' post-dating the 'Thingodhel' note. Probably, at the time he wrote this Tolkien had completely forgotten the change to 'Thingodhel'; nonetheless, I think that in light of this we should retain 'Pengoloð'.

I tend to disagree. I'd say this most likely means that Tolkien simply forgot the note on 'Thingódhel.' Pengoloð was the form he had used for decades, and he probably wrote it out of habit. I would advocate adopting Thingódhel because even if Tolkien hadn't given us a name, his statements in "Quendi and Eldar" throw the element 'golodh' in Pendolodh's name into doubt, as I said earlier. And Thingódhel fits perfectly his description as the child of a Noldo and a grey-elf, as the name literally means 'Grey-Noldo.'

To retain the element 'golodh,' we would have to somehow reconcile it to the statements in "Quendi and Eldar." It's much simpler in my opinion to simply accept the new form as correct, and say Tolkien forgot what he had written, which he often did. (Much to our chagrin!)

Still, my argument is far from bullet-proof.

[Aiwendil]

This does seem to be a bit of a grey area. There are two related points against accepting the late use of 'Pengoloð' in 'Cirdan':

1. Tolkien's note proposing a change to 'Thingodhel'.
2. The statement in Q&E that 'golodh' was not used among the Noldor or those most friendly to them.

If it were a matter of point 1 alone, I would say that the appearance of 'Pengoloð' in 'Cirdan' pretty clearly takes precedence. But point 2 makes this much more doubtful.

It's perhaps worth noting that in the text of Q&E itself, Tolkien uses 'Pengolodh' several times without appearing to worry about a contradiction with his statement (in the very same text) about the non-use of 'golodh'. On the other hand, in all likelihood the change to 'Thingodhel' arose when he noticed this contradiction.

[Aran e-Godhellim]

I concur. We really need more people here to discuss this. Is the forum always this quiet?

[Aiwendil]

Yes. For the past few years the main contributors have been Findegil, Maedhros, and me, and at times activity dies down altogether. But I hope this doesn't dissuade you from staying active here! We have actually gotten quite a bit accomplished (with at times some very lively debate) with such a small group.

[Findegil]

Thingodhel or rather Thingoðel in our spelling seems to have the upper hand for me. The continued use of Pengolodh could simply be considered as a some what continued 'slip of the pen'.

Respectfully
Findegil

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Findegil

Thingodhel or rather Thingoðel in our spelling seems to have the upper hand for me. The continued use of Pengolodh could simply be considered as a some what continued 'slip of the pen'.

Respectfully
Findegil

From someone who has absolutely no business posting in this forum: Pengolodh is a much more familiar name even though Thingoðel may be more correct. When I read "Pengolodh", I realized "oh, that loremaster from Valinor." When I read "Thingoðel" I think, "whodat??" Maybe when you introduce him you can use both together "Gandalf Mithrandir", so to speak.

Or you could just brand this post "nutcase" and delete it.

[Aiwendil]

Nice to see you venturing into this forum, mark12_30!

You raise a point worthy, perhaps, of some note. One somewhat odd consequence of our principles is that a sizeable number of familiar names are in our version replaced by names that appear only once, and often in brief, hasty notes, in Tolkien's writings. 'Avranc' becomes 'Daruin', for example, and even 'Gelion' is in our version 'Duin Daer'.

The fundamental reason for this is that name changes are by their nature easy to implement. Whereas similar late notes that propose plot changes are often 'proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed' and thus, according to our principles, not taken up, name changes are almost always quite straightforward and therefore almost always allowed.

I'm not suggesting that anything should (or can) be done about this. In theory, we could add to our principles a stipulation that long-standing names are not to be changed on the basis of a single isolated note, but that would be quite arbitrary and would leave a large number of ambiguous cases (not to mention that allowing alterations to the principles would really be opening Pandora's box). Like it or not, I think we must use 'Duin Daer' and 'Thingodhel'. But this is perhaps one unfortunate feature of our version of the Silmarillion.