Name Changes?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

(...) Galin, if I understand you rightly, you think that after Tolkien saw that the elegant solution of the problem of ROS that was supposed in that essay failed due to Cair Andros, he solved the problem by altering the other stem ROS, beeing 'a colour word, referring to the red, red-brown hair of the first, sixth, and seventh sons of Feanor' to RUN 'red, glowing' with the word urun meaning 'copper'. In that way you think 'Maitimo *Runnandol' sindarized his name to 'Maedron'. Therefore and since Tolkien did not provide a fitting sindarization you supposd '*Ambarunna' to become '*Amron'.

That is also a very elagant solution, but I am not so sure Tolkien did think about it in the way you do.

I don't think Tolkien himself necessarily thought of it this way either

I would stress that my theories concerning RUN in a previous post were for fun speculation.

Let's talk about the Quenya names first: I agree that the later mentioning of the stem RUN and word urun would replace ROS and would make the names Rusco, Russandol and Ambarussa unusable. For Rusco 'fox' as an eppesse of Nerdanels father we have the replacement Urundil 'copper-lover'. That said the new form for older Russandol 'copper-top' should be *Urundol, I think.

The name *Runnandol is based on an adjectival *runná (I'm not positive but I think russa hails from older adjectival *rusná). *Urundol also seems an arguable construction to me, I was just echoing the existing name.

And for old Ambarussa I would think we should get *Ambarun

That echoes my hypothetical *Ambarunna, cut shorter of course

Again I was trying to echo Ambarussa. And just to note it, the shorter version alters the primary stress.

Now lets go to Sindarin: What I miss is a prove that Maedron still had the same meaning as Maedros. Okay, Maedros might have had no proper meaning because it is an sindarized mix of Maitimo and Russandol. But it would still mean somthing like 'well-shaped copper' or less litarily 'well-shaped red one'. Does Maedron mean the same? I don't think so. I would rather think that it is a translation of Maitimo thus meaning 'well-shaped one' as in (...)

Yes, it could certainly mean that. Roman Rausch suggested this to me last year, but in any case I certainly have no proof whatsover that Maedron still carries a 'copper related' sense. Again that was pure speculation. The problem is the brevity of this late note.

Thus Aiwendil is in a sense right: If we change Maedros to Maedron but keep Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros we do not solve the problem of ROS at all. But I do not see how we can do better, without violating our rules.

It still seems possible, at least, that Maedros becomes Maedron and all the other 'ros' related names (Quenya and Sindarin) remain unchanged -- in other words, it's possible that Tolkien was not here thinking of solving his problem, but simply liked Maedron better and desired it to mean basically the same as Maitimo.


The speculation goes on!

The simple question is then: Do we consider the Maedron note to be Tolkiens last idea? (It is clearly not a case of an idea that can not be integrate, since it is easy to make and even so it does not effectly amend the problem of ROS, it does also not make it worth.)

As for the question of dating...

2 [Added in the Margin: 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter'. In a later note, however, my father declared that he would change Maedros to Maedron.'] JRRT, CJRT The Problem of ROS

For myself, I find it unlikely -- or less likely at least -- that CJRT is here simply explaining that the 'Maedron note' is another later note in general; that is, not necessarily later than the note he quotes here, which appears to date at the time of the essay proper.

The early forms have -ros going way back, and Tolkien seems to think a name with -ros has been too established at this point. I think that CJRT would have noted something like: 'In another late note, however...' if he was uncertain as to which statement followed the other.

So I read it as: a 'later' note than even the late note to the Shibboleth.

[Findegil]

About the dating of the note to change Maedros to Maedron: It seems I was not clear enough in my last post. I have no doubt, that the note is later then the text of Shibboleth. So the fact we can be sure of is that the note was later then 1968 when the Shibboleth was written. But that does not make it necessarly the last mention of the charachter of Feanors eldest son.
Anyway, we have other examples were Tolkien needed some time to addapt to a name change, so even if we could find a later mentioning of Maedros we could consider it as a slip of the pen.

Since it corrospondce nicely to establishment of the new stem RUN, I would think Maedron is the right choice.

What do other think about it?

Respectfuly
Findegil

[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