Name Changes?

[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

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Findegil

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.

I don't deny that 'Maedron' is valid Sindarin (as is shown by the names you quote). Rather, the twofold question is:

1. Was the change of 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' motivated by the elimination of the RUS- stem?

2. Are there instances of 'Maedros' that post-date the 'Maedron' note?

If the answer to either of these is 'yes', then we must stick with 'Maedros'. And while I don't think we can be absolutely certain about either question, it seems to me fairly likely that the answer to 1 is yes, and quite possible that the answer to 2 is yes (as Galin pointed out earlier, we have no good way of dating the Maedron note vs. the Return of the King note).

Perhaps I haven't fully explained why I think the change to 'Maedron' is likely to have been motivated by deletion of the RUS- stem. As I see it, we have the following evidence:

1. In 'The Problem of Ros', Tolkien expresses dissatisfaction with both the ROS- and RUS- stems (noting not only the homophony as a problem, but also the similarity of RUS- to Indo-European 'red' words)

2. Although the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros' (of changing ROS- to a Beorian stem) does not in itself necessitate changes to the RUS- words, the fact that he wrote 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter' in the margin indicates that he considered a change of 'Maedros' to be part of the solution.

3. 'Maedron' occurs in a note post-dating 'The Problem of Ros'.

It is at the very least easy enough to read this evidence, taken together, as Tolkien reluctantly changing 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' in order to eliminate the 'RUS' stem.

[Findegil]

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Yes but the failure there had to do with the "other ros" (the ros in andros) being Beorian, so Aiwendil is suggesting (as I read it) that since that failed, at some point Tolkien took up his thought -- his thought in the note that goes with The Problem of ROS -- that perhaps the other ros (red-brown haired) could be dealt with...

... thus the later Maedron note.

While it is possible that Maedron reflects the loss of -russa/-ros (red-brown haired), we can't be sure. The note merely seems to say that JRRT "now" will alter Maedros to Maedron, but we have no further information there, and are left with what this might mean, if anything, concerning the Amros brothers.


It's also possible that the same note (the Problem of ROS note) in which Tolkien thinks that Maedros is so long established that it would be difficult to alter, plays some part in his "returning" to Maedros in the note in a copy of The Lord of the Rings.

If that's what Tolkien did, that is


My thought is that a choice of Maedron comes with a number of questions... while the choice of Maedros provides the Quenya and Sindarin names for all three brothers, as well as the detail behind these names, that these brothers had a measure of red-brown, or coppery coloured hair.

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

Not that you are necessarily going to use all of this information for this reconstructed Silmarillion! But anyway, if one is forced to choose, I mean.

Although obviously that's just one way of looking at the scenario.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Well, we don't know when Tolkien wrote the 'Maedron' note; nor do we know when he wrote, 'Most of this fails' on the manuscript of 'Ros'. It seems to me perfectly plausible that the 'Maedron' note pre-dated the realization that the proposed 'Ros' solution would not work, even if it apparently post-dated 'The Problem of Ros' itself (which Christopher Tolkien presents no actual evidence for, though I grant that he is probably right).

But, as Galin points out, the fact that Tolkien rejected the idea to make ROS- a Beorian stem doesn't necessarily mean that he no longer wanted to get rid of RUS-.

Apart from these considerations, though, I think Galin is right:

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

We don't know which was later. (I don't think the analogy to other '-on' names is conclusive evidence that 'Maedron' is later; after all, we have 'Maedros' as late as 1969 or 1970, while for example 'Tauros' had already become 'Tauron' as early as the early 1950s.) And given that we don't know, I think 'Maedros' is preferable.