# Aragorn's choice



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 9, 2020)

After the Fellowship has broken and the death of Boromir, Aragorn, as leader, has to choose between following Frodo and Sam, or Merry and Pippin.

_'Let me think!' said Aragorn. 'And now may I make a right choice and change the evil fate of this unhappy day!' He stood silent for a moment. 'I will follow the Orcs,' he said at last. 'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I seek him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played its part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left. _

Yet the purpose of the Fellowship was to enter Mordor to destroy the Ring. Frodo and Sam don't even know the way into Mordor and Mt Doom. Yet Aragorn follows his heart rather than his head and trusts the ring bearer and Sam will find a way. In fact, Merry and Pippin escape their orc captors anyway but Aragorn cannot know that would happen. But he does know Merry and Pippin's lives are in danger and they may face torture by Saruman. I believe Aragorn makes the right choice.

This also reminds me of the 1950s John Ford western The Searchers. It is marred by racist themes but is still a great film imo. A band of volunteer Texas Rangers seeking to recapture a kidnapped white girl are forced to retreat across a river by a superior force of native Americans. The captain of the rangers (Ward Bond) after this says "we're not enough but too many". That is too many to catch the native Americans unawares but not enough to take them on in direct combat. Was the original Fellowship of the Ring too many to enter Mordor and destroy the ring in Mt Doom? Had the other Fellowship members been there, would Frodo still have claimed the ring for his own at the end?


----------



## grendel (Sep 9, 2020)

Actually, the purpose of the Fellowship - as I read it - was to accompany Frodo on the way to Mount Doom, as far as Fate or their desire would take them. Frodo was the only one on whom any onus was laid, to attempt to destroy the Ring, which meant going all the way to the fiery mountain. But I'm not sure Elrond thought ALL of them would make it into Mordor. I'm pretty sure Gandalf did NOT think they should all go to Mordor. Boromir certainly had no intention of going anywhere but Gondor.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 9, 2020)

Note that the topic of the thread is the wisdom of Aragorn's choice.


----------



## Deleted member 12094 (Sep 10, 2020)

It is a thin line, indeed; there are good arguments to do either of both options (to follow Frodo or to pursue the Orcs). I agree with Rivendell_librarian that it must have been quite difficult a decision to make.

If we limit the discussion to that, then not much more could be said. But as regards the general line of the story, it is “functionally” obvious that Aragorn had to take that decision, I think: Frodo and Sam lose their protectors and must take care of themselves alone from there on.

It is not the first time that this theme returns. Remember e.g. how Gandalf disappeared halfway Bilbo’s trip to Erebor, and once more how he failed to appear on time in Hobbiton, leaving no other choice to Frodo than to depart without him.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 10, 2020)

I have to paraphrase here. A statement perhaps in LoTR or outside it by JRRT: "While the eyes of The Great are focused elsewhere ..." (as in, most memorably, Aragorn giving Sauron a reason to "change his underwear" by ripping control of the Orthanc-stone from him) "small hand turn the wheels of the world". The whole theoretic possibility of a direct military assault on Mordor had been dumped very early. Secrecy, unobtrusiveness seemed to be the more sensible option (and just think of Aragorn, certainly of stature placing him above those basketball "Hobbits" known as guards, trying to navigate the Dead Marshes!). And the more immediate danger lay in Merry and Pippin being taken to Isengard and revealing the purpose of the Fellowship there. Not that the Palantir connection between Saruman's Orthanc-stone and the Minas Ithil (later Morgul) Palantir stone captured by the Ring-wraiths had been discovered yet. But Saruman being an enemy had been revealed at the Council of Elrond.

The question has often (IIRC) asked why Elrond did not send Glorfindel, without the slightest doubt a far more powerful Elf than Legolas, on the (anti-) quest. The answer, I think, lies in the vision of Glorfindel that Frodo (close to becoming a wraith himself) had of Glorfindel, explained to him by Gandalf in the chapter I "Many Meetings" of Book Two in "Fellowship": "Yes, you saw [Glorfindel] for a moment as he is on the other side: one of the mighty of the Firstborn." Perhaps the mightiest in some way in Middle-earth for having been allowed to return to M-e, presaging Gandalf's own return as the vastly more powerful "The White" compared to the previous "The Grey". As this "other side" is the natural vision of the Ring-wraiths, and so without a doubt of Sauron, sending Glorfindel would have had the effect of burdening the Fellowship with the equivalent of police car / fire fighter / ambulance lights. A seriously bad idea if one wants secrecy ...


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 10, 2020)

Yes, a passage in the drafts makes the idea clear.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 10, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Yes, a passage in the drafts makes the idea clear.


I'm not sure what this means


----------



## Elthir (Sep 10, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> I'm not sure what this means




I think it means that there's a passage in the drafts that makes clear whatever idea *S-eS* is talking about there.



Possibly the idea regarding why Glorfindel did not go on the quest.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 10, 2020)

Yes which idea and which passage are what I don't know.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Sep 10, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Secrecy, unobtrusiveness seemed to be the more sensible option (and just think of Aragorn, certainly of stature placing him above those basketball "Hobbits" known as guards, trying to navigate the Dead Marshes!).


I wonder whether this perhaps over-complicates the issue. Secrecy is on point, but if Aragorn's presence was more of a liability than a benefit then I imagine he wouldn't have been sent in the first place. Certainly travelling unobtrusively would have been one of the issues considered, and the fact that he was chosen as one of the nine indicates that his usefulness outweighed any potential loss of secrecy.

I see Aragorn's choice a simple one: it was Merry and Pippin who had been captured and who were in the most immediate danger. Perhaps there was an element of foresight, too, but it only takes him a moment to decide, so it's a gut decision.


----------



## frodolives7601 (Sep 10, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> After the Fellowship has broken and the death of Boromir, Aragorn, as leader, has to choose between following Frodo and Sam, or Merry and Pippin.
> 
> _'Let me think!' said Aragorn. 'And now may I make a right choice and change the evil fate of this unhappy day!' He stood silent for a moment. 'I will follow the Orcs,' he said at last. 'I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I seek him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played its part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left. _
> 
> ...


Interesting questions! I agree with you that Aragorn makes the right decision. At that moment, Merry and Pippin are the ones in imminent danger. I think perhaps Aragorn is acting partly out of some basic trust that Frodo's quest will work out as it needs to, whether he himself is present at the end or not.

I suspect Frodo would have claimed the Ring regardless of who else had been there. Since the other members of the Fellowship had not borne the Ring for a long time, as he had, I believe they would have been unable to say anything that would have gotten through to him, that would have broken into the reality he was experiencing when he came to the climax of the quest after feeling the Ring's growing influence for so long.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Sep 11, 2020)

frodolives7601 said:


> I suspect Frodo would have claimed the Ring regardless of who else had been there. Since the other members of the Fellowship had not borne the Ring for a long time, as he had, I believe they would have been unable to say anything that would have gotten through to him, that would have broken into the reality he was experiencing when he came to the climax of the quest after feeling the Ring's growing influence for so long.


Exactly, making sure resisting the Ring's temp is the most prior consideration for the Fellowship's mission.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 13, 2020)

Frodo’s mission was certainly secret! Aragorn’s not so much: after Pippin viewed Sauron in the palantír, Aragorn took the opportunity to frighten and press Sauron, though at the “Last Debate”, he remarked that “if I had foreseen how swift would be [Sauron’s] onset in answer, maybe I should not have dared to show myself.” 

In _Reader’s Companion_ for “Departure of Boromir”, Hammond and Scull observe that
Aragorn does indeed make the right choice. It is notable that he does not even consider going to Minas Tirith as an option. It is an _unhappy day_ because of the death of Boromir, but though its events appear _evil_, the culminate in good: Frodo escapes from Boromir towards Mordor with Sam, Merry and Pippin come to the Ents and rouse them to action against Saruman, and Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, reunited with Gandalf, are led to Rohan in time to free Théoden, ally of Gondor, from the influence of Wormtongue.​I might add that Aragorn’s intention was to go with Frodo to Mordor, at which Merry and Pippin exclaimed they would go, too: so many people would have aroused Sauron’s suspicions.


Rivendell_librarian said:


> This ... reminds me of the 1950s John Ford western The Searchers. ... The captain of the rangers ... says "we're not enough but too many". That is too many to catch the native Americans unawares but not enough to take them on in direct combat. Was the original Fellowship of the Ring too many to enter Mordor and destroy the ring in Mt Doom? Had the other Fellowship members been there, would Frodo still have claimed the ring for his own at the end?


Yes and yes. Sauron and Saruman had both tracked the Company from Hollin onwards. They knew about the fall of Gandalf in Moria, and Saruman even knew the words of the song Galadriel sang at their parting. (“What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”) I think that in retrospect, Sauron saw Aragorn sitting on Amon Hen (number 15 and number 19 in this post) and later recognized him as Isildur’s Heir. There was no way the Company of the Ring was going to enter Mordor: there were too many of them! 

And yes, Tolkien said that Frodo was, in effect, fated to fall to the power of the Ring. In _Letter_ 191, written nine months after the publication of _Return of the King_, Tolkien said,
If you re-read all the passages dealing with Frodo and the Ring, I think you will see that not only was it _quite impossible_ for him to surrender the Ring, in act or will, especially at its point of maximum power, but that this failure was adumbrated from far back. He was honored because he had accepted the burden voluntarily, and had then done all that was within his utmost physical and mental strength to do. He (and the Cause) were saved – by Mercy: by the supreme value and efficacy of Pity and forgiveness of injury. ​And there are a great number of other references to Frodo’s inability to destroy the Ring, and how this had been foreshadowed not only from the beginning of the finished tale, but from its very conception. For instance, at one point he considered having Sam and Gollum fall together into the fire, or Sam alone; and at another, he remarked that had Gollum not fallen back into evil when Sam awoke and unjustly rebuked him for “pawing at Master” outside Shelob’s Lair, Gollum would still have seized the Ring from Frodo and cast himself into the fire. So yes, Frodo would still have claimed the Ring: he was in the place that it was forged, the very heart of Sauron’s kingdom, where the Ring was at its most powerful and most potent, “its point of maximum power,” as Tolkien puts it.

As for Aragorn’s presence among the Nine Walkers, he could hardly be refused! Like Gandalf, this was his central, core purpose: regaining the throne of Gondor, succoring the only surviving Dúnedain kingdom, and fulfilling Elrond’s requirements for Arwen’s hand in marriage. The dreams of Faramir and Boromir (“Seek for the sword that was broken…”) Aragorn saw as both a summons to him and the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Northern Dúnedain (“[T]he Sword that was Broken is the Sword of Elendil that broke beneath him when he fell. … [I]t was spoken of old among us that it should be made again when the Ring, Isildur’s Bane, was found.” _FotR_, “Council of Elrond”) But once Frodo and Sam departed, his tasks took him elsewhere: In the case of Merry and Pippin, he said, he could not “abandon [them] to torment and death” (_Two Towers_, “Departure of Boromir”); moreover, whether they were taken to Isengard or Barad-dûr, they would certainly reveal all that they knew under torture, to the ruin of the West. Aragorn had no other viable option but to try to rescue them.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 14, 2020)

Rivendell_librarian said:


> Yes which idea and which passage are what I don't know.


Apologies for not replying sooner. The passage appears in "The Treason of Isengard", p. 165:

_'The elf-lords I may not send, for though their power is great it is not great enough. They cannot walk unhidden from wrath and spirit of evil , and news of the Company would reach Mordor by day or night.'_

Although not taken up into the final version, the intent seems clear: to creatures of the Shadow, they would appear as Glorfindel did to Frodo, "a shining figure of white light". Or even more so, as Frodo was not fully in the wrath-world.

On first reading this passage, I made a note wondering if something similar could be the case with the eagles. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but it sure would be convenient!


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 14, 2020)

Though Legolas was the son of Thranduil so he was no ordinary elf warrior.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 14, 2020)

If I recall correctly (*and maybe I don't*), in _The Book of Lost Tales_ there's a suggestion that the Noldo Legolas was notably gifted with respect to sight (possibly "night sight" . . . though maybe sight in general, without checking if a distinction is clearly made there)

-- with one of his names meaning "keen sight" or similar -- while the Noldorin Elf Gimli was notably gifted with respect to hearing.

That said (again, *if* remembered correctly), is there something in _The Lord of the Rings_ that arguably elevates the martial skills of Legolas son of Thranduil (in the minds of readers) notably beyond the skills or prowess of the Elvish folk of Mirkwood or Lorien?

I realize Legolas shot down a Nazgul for example, but are we to think this was _necessarily_ beyond the ability of an "average Elf archer" *with a bow from Galadriel*?

couldn't help add the Galadriel bit **

I'm *not* saying there isn't any suggestion anywhere, I'm just asking. Or do you simply mean that while Legolas was no reincarnated Glorfindel from Aman, he was still a notable foe to deal with in combat.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 14, 2020)

The Legolas of the Fall of Gondolin and the Legolas of the Nine Walkers are two different people, I believe, whereas Glorfindel of Gondolin and Glorfindel of the _Lord of the Rings_ are the same entity, but re-embodied, or reincarnated if you prefer. Legolas of Gondolin was also, I believe, one of the Noldorin exiles.

Legolas of Gondolin is described in _Book of Lost Tales 2_ as having “eyes … like cats’ for the dark, yet could see further,” and that he knew all the plain of Tumladen (the plain in which Gondolin stood) even in the dark: he led the escapees, including the boy Eärendil and his parents Tuor and Idril, across the plain.

Legolas son of Thranduil was apparently born in the Third Age; or so I believe that is the general consensus: as far as I know, it is never specifically stated. Thranduil was from Doriath, akin to Celeborn and, perhaps, to Celeborn’s uncle, Elu Thingol: Thranduil and Legolas were Sindar. Also in _Book of Lost Tales 2_, “The History of Eriol”, “Ælfwine of England”, in the commentary, Christopher Tolkien remarks that
​[M]y father would write, in a wrathful comment on a “pretty” or “ladylike” pictorial rendering of Legolas:He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgûl, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship.​​


----------



## Elthir (Sep 14, 2020)

I believe that as well, as I wrote recently in the linked thread for example (after my initial response of *"I say no"*) . . .

www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/is-legolas-from-the-fall-of-gondolin-the-same-person-as-the-legolas.29051/#post-534928


. . . meaning that I don't consider these Legolas characters to be the same person (unlike Glorfindel). Actually I'm not even certain that an updated Fall of Gondolin was going to employ 
the name "Legolas" for this character, but that's another matter.

I probably shouldn't even have brought up the "other" Legolas, but I was merely noting that in the early Fall of Gondolin, the Noldorin Legolas seems to have been noted for something that stood out among his peers, given that his night sight is noted twice in the tale, and again in a name list.

So again, that said, is the Legolas of _The Lord of the Rings_ ever noted as standing out from the folk of Mirkwood with respect to any gift or martial prowess?

As I say I can't recall at the moment, so I'm just asking. And not that *Alcuin* said otherwise, but the wrathful comments from JRRT don't necessarily state that Legolas stood out compared to other Elves, as *"immensely strong"* could be being granted here in the same sense as the *"tremendous vitality" *of Elvish bodies (in general).


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 15, 2020)

I was thinking of Squint's "_The elf-lords I may not send,"_

Legolas of Mirkwood being the son of the elven-king Thranduil, I was wondering how that stood Legolas with respect to being an elf-lord


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 15, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> The Legolas of the Fall of Gondolin and the Legolas of the Nine Walkers are two different people, I believe, whereas Glorfindel of Gondolin and Glorfindel of the _Lord of the Rings_ are the same entity, but re-embodied, or reincarnated if you prefer. Legolas of Gondolin was also, I believe, one of the Noldorin exiles.





Elthir said:


> . . . meaning that I don't consider these Legolas characters to be the same person (unlike Glorfindel). Actually I'm not even certain that an updated Fall of Gondolin was going to employ the name "Legolas" for this character, but that's another matter.





Rivendell_librarian said:


> I was thinking of Squint's "_The elf-lords I may not send,"_
> Legolas of Mirkwood being the son of the elven-king Thranduil, I was wondering how that stood Legolas with respect to being an elf-lord


"Thranduil was the son of Oropher of the Grey-Elves [Sindar] of Doriath, who had been accepted as King early in the *Second Age* by the woodland "people" [Silvan Elves] of northern Mirkwood." (My J.E.A. Tyler "The complete Tolkien Companion")
Hypothesis: the not giving a name of a (noted) Elf to a later one (in contrast to what Men did) may have been something of a taboo among the returnees to Middle-earth / exiles from Valinor, the Noldor. The Sindar may have had fewer compunctions about this, if they had taken note of the name of a Noldorin Elf of earlier times.

S-es's quote (from an earlier phase of LoTR writing) might similarly indicate that "Elf-lords" was limited to these Noldorin exiles, and did not include Grey-Elves. And Glorfindel as not just a Noldorin exile of the First Age, but the only *double-returnee* of all Ages was very seriously a one-of-a-kind.

Legolas of the Fellowship would by this hypothesis not represent an "Elf-lord", nor would his father Thranduil, nor even his grandfather Oropher (who died in the War of the last Alliance) at the end of the Second Age.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 15, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Hypothesis: the not giving a name of a (noted) Elf to a later one (in contrast to what Men did) may have been something of a taboo among the returnees to Middle-earth / exiles from Valinor, the Noldor. The Sindar may have had fewer compunctions about this, if they had taken note of the name of a Noldorin Elf of earlier times.




*If* this is in reference to my earlier statement, I was thinking that -- as the name Legolas had (externally) become a Silvan dialectal form of Sindarin *Laegolas *-- I'm not sure Tolkien would have employed "Legolas" for his night sighted Elf of Gondolin (in an updated _Fall of Gondolin_). . .

. . . or even Laegolas for that matter, as Tolkien could have invented something else of course, but at least this would be purer Sindarin for an Elf of Gondolin.

With respect to naming in general, we have the example of the Noldo* Argon* -- noted as a name often given by Sindar and Noldor in memory of Aracano's valour (The Shibboleth of Feanor).

And then we get into the following, about the "striking" nature of a name, and the major-ness, or importance of, characters, with Tolkien's statement: "This repetition of so striking a name, though possible, would not be credible. No other major character in the Elvish legends as reported in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings has a name born by another Elvish person of importance." 

JRRT, Glorfindel


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 16, 2020)

Just speculation, but…

Since the Noldor had lived in Aman and were intimately acquainted with the Valar, the Maiar, and their own fate within Arda, that their spirits went to Mandos (and were emphatically reminded of this in the Doom of Mandos) until they were rehoused, they may well have suspected that, because of his self-sacrifice in the battle against the balrog on behalf of the refugees of Gondolin in Crissaegrim, Glorfindel might well be expected to be re-embodied in Valinor. Out of respect for Glorfindel not only for his selfless sacrifice, his courage, and his saving them from certain doom, but also in respect of his anticipated return as they may have deemed it likely, the Gondolindrim (the people of Gondolin, an amalgam of Noldor and Sindar from Nevrast) reserved his name against any other person’s use. 

Naming another Noldor “Argon” in honor of the son of Fingolfin was a different matter: this was an honorific, almost a wishful title; and the same might be true among the survivors of Doriath in regards to “Legolas”, another of the leaders of the refugees of Gondolin who came to the Havens at the Mouths of Sirion and there joined the refugees of Doriath. (We are not told that Legolas of Gondolin survived until then, but whether he did or not, we can safely presume, I think, that the Eldar reverenced his name there.) There and in Lindon, the mixed survivors of the ruinous wars of Beleriand may well have named their children after forebears or famous figures of old, as do we also in the real world today. 

But the name of Glorfindel seems to have been set aside for from reuse in respect of that Noldo and his accomplishment for the succor of the Gondolindrim, and from their admixture at the Havens of Sirion and later in Lindon with the survivors of Doriath and of Círdan’s folk from the coastlands, that reservation (or prohibition) could come among all the Eldar of the Second and Third Ages.


----------



## Starbrow (Sep 16, 2020)

It kind of sounds the same as retiring a number in sports. Like "42" is retired in baseball in honor of Jackie Robinson, not that they expected him to come back to play again.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 17, 2020)

In the spirit of speculation . . .

. . . the Legolas of _The Book of Lost Tales_ was said to* "liveth still in Tol Eressea"*, but as I noted in the linked thread, he was arguably named *Laigolas Legolast*, with _Legolast_ referring to his keen sight, and "Legolas" being a confusion of these names.

That said, even a "confusion name" could be passed down or used by others, especially if it had "become" the name due to everyday use. Primary World names can get replaced of course, even if only in some measure -- noting *"Maisie"* *Williams* of _Game of Thrones_ fame, for an interesting example.

Although if we are imaginatively employing the later mode of transmission, one could question whether or not the confusion "Legolas" _was actually spoken _in Beleriand, as opposed to only appearing in some later text of the story.

But perhaps we don't need to merge external scenarios in every detail. It's arguably a bit easier to speculate L*ae*golas being the original form in Gondolin, altered to Legolas due to Silvan influence.

Just as an aside: we know Tolkien had a problem with the form Glorfindel (originally conceived as a Gnomish name) fitting into Sindarin, but as far as I can tell, it's characterized (explained) as archaic, which fits the reincarnated scenario well enough in my opinion. Samwise had a child *Glorfinniel* "Goldilocks", and even though envisioned in the "Noldorin phase" of the language concerned, I guess the name also becomes Sindarin by default.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 17, 2020)

Elthir said:


> Samwise had a child *Glorfinniel* "Goldilocks", and even though envisioned in the "Noldorin phase" of the language concerned, I guess the name also becomes Sindarin by default.


Perhaps an inobservant person might mistake Elanor Gardner, Sam’s eldest, for an elf in the twilight, but it seems unlikely that anyone would mistake his daughter Goldilocks, wife of Pippin’s eldest and successor Thain Faramir Took, for Glorfindel the Noldo.

But it is amusing to consider the name _Glorfindel_ a feminine form of the name _Goldilocks_. I imagine “Glorfindel and the Three Balrogs”:_
“Someone’s been jumping on my rock,” growled the Papa balrog.

“Someone’s been jumping on my rock, too,” said the Mama balrog.

“Someone’s been jumping on my rock, and he’s still there!” exclaimed the Baby balrog.
_​


----------



## Elthir (Sep 17, 2020)

*Alcuin* 😁

And speaking of locks, I've probably pondered this scenario too much in my spare time, but it's interesting to me that when Tolkien penned -- but did not follow up on -- the idea that in _The Lord of the Rings_ Glorfindel should *tell of his ancestry in Gondolin* . . . at the time JRRT wrote this, the mode of Elven reincarnation was rebirth as a baby . . .

. . . I realize Tolkien ultimately dropped this mode or reincarnation, but it held on for a notable time! And within that scenario, who were Glorfindel's parents the second time around? And were they dark haired? And* if *so, I guess we could assume Glorfindel's returning _fea _"influenced" the return of his golden locks?


cough 🔥

Anyway, I'm off to read a new book -- _Idril and the Were-Bears _by Magnus Bjornsson.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 18, 2020)

Moving on to _external_ speculation: my *guess* is that Tolkien would have invented a new name for the night sighted Elf of Gondolin -- and with respect to meaning, something to do with sight.

And as far as not reusing the name* Glorfindel* for his "two" characters, my feeling is that Tolkien's reason was rather prosaic, something like: it would seem a bit odd if two "important" characters -- one from _The Silmarillion_ and one from _The Lord of the Rings_ -- had the same name, and especially the name _Glorfindel_ as it's arguably memorable enough to be "noticeable".

Tolkien also points out that this doesn't happen with any other name (*Rumil* arguably included, if JRRT had remembered it when he wrote the late text) . . .

. . . and *if* I read Tolkien's mind correctly here (based on the statement quoted above from a late text on Glorfindel), what if Mirkwood_ Legolas _was named after Gondolin _Laegolas_? In other words, if we imagine this scenario internally, would we be creating a similar scenario to the one Tolkien seemingly objected to in the Glorfindel quote above?

We could probably argue the matter both ways 

. . . as we would then be swimming in subjective waters. Is a given character important enough? Important in what measure, or sense? And if Legolas of Mirkwood is important enough (or counts as a "major character") with respect to _The Lord of the Rings,_ did his mother foresee that her son would be caught up in the events that would lead to the fall of Sauron?

In other words,* if not*, would it be too incredible to have her name her son after another, arguably important Laegolas of Gondolin, so many years before he (Mirkwood Legolas) became famous, or "historically notable"?

So many questions . . . so few Glorfindels


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 18, 2020)

Elthir said:


> ...
> So many questions . . . so few Glorfindels


Not to mention so few Galadriels ... 🤓

My hunch also tends more in the direction of:


Elthir said:


> Moving on to _external_ speculation: my *guess* is that Tolkien would have invented a new name for the night sighted Elf of Gondolin -- and with respect to meaning, something to do with sight.


As to Glorfindel, a question popped up in my mind about the whole re-incarnation thing.
The way you put it in your previous post, was the time when JRRT decided "the two mentioned Glorfindels are the same person" the same time as he dumped the Hindu / Buddhist reincarnation mode as being reborn as a baby in favor of the "re-bodying" in the same adult Hröa?


----------



## Elthir (Sep 18, 2020)

For clarity then (apologies if I suggested a different scenario earlier),_ The Reincarnation of Elves_ dates to around *1959-60*, wherein Tolkien abandons the idea of Elves being reborn in their children . . .

. . . while the Glorfindel texts, wherein Tolkien decides that the "two" Glorfindels are the same person (while also noting his much earlier draft note to _The Lord of the Rings_, which seems to suggest the same idea in any case), are much later, probably *the last year of Tolkien's life*.

And now that I checked Hammond and Scull's description of _Reincarnation of Elves_, I think it could use a further sentence actually! While I realize they are describing the scenario as described in this text, they end up repeating an error made by Christopher Tolkien, without correcting it, at least in the entry concerned. Christopher Tolkien corrected the error in note 17 to the late Glorfindel text.

Anyway, in the late period Tolkien rejected the idea yet again, noting that the old rebirth idea must be abandoned, or at least noted as a false notion *"e. g. probably of Mannish origin"*.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 18, 2020)

Elthir said:


> ...
> Anyway, in the late period Tolkien rejected the idea yet again, noting that the old rebirth idea must be abandoned, or at least noted as a false notion *"e. g. probably of Mannish origin"*.


I continue to growl at the concept of "Mannish origin" for both LoTR and TH, with their absolutely clear Halfling focus - and for Bilbo's "Translations from Elvish" for that matter, too. "Red Book of Westmarch" and "Mannish origins" - bah, humbug! 👿


----------



## Elthir (Sep 18, 2020)

Well, growl or huzzah, that the legends of the Elder Days are largely a Mannish affair (if written in Elvish), is a relatively well attested, late characterization from JRRT himself. And even according to author-published text, we have the _Numenorean_ tale of Turin and Mim!

🐾


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 18, 2020)

Elthir said:


> Well, growl or huzzah, that the legends of the Elder Days are largely a Mannish affair (if written in Elvish), is a relatively well attested, late characterization from JRRT himself. And even according to author-published text, we have the _Numenorean_ tale of Turin and Mim!


Late characterization is the operative word. Perhaps in a thread about "Mannish traditions", perhaps elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that I'm very happy that JRRT never got around to effecting these late revisions. Or that Christopher ignored these "late lunacies". I just finished re-reading Verlyn Flieger's 1997 "A Question of Time", which unearthed some highly unusual sources for some highly ignored aspects of JRRT's writing (though thundering ignorance on the original negative critics does come to mind). Flieger sees JRRT drifting, for whatever reasons, into a state of "rationalization" of his earlier work. That JRRT (my interpretation of Flieger's work) wrote stories of Faerie or whatever earlier, but tried to turn these into science fiction or whatever later.

I return to what was written in the single-volume "The History of The Hobbit" by John D. Rateliff that I bought very recently (originally a two-volume series): JRRT gave his 1960 reworking of "The Hobbit" to someone whose judgement he trusted. The devastating critique was " well, it's very nice ... but it's *not* The Hobbit."


----------



## Elthir (Sep 18, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Late characterization is the operative word. Perhaps in a thread about "Mannish traditions", perhaps elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that I'm very happy that JRRT never got around to effecting these late revisions.




But why growl if the Mannish characterization meant that Tolkien would not have to revise _The Silmarillion . . . _ well, generally speaking JRRT still needed to revise _The Silmarillion_ of course, but I mean not in the way he began to as illustrated in Morgoth's Ring, _Myths Transformed_.

Timeline Aside: even before the "Numenorean slash Bilbo" transmission was in play, and before _The Lord of the Rings _was published, Tolkien wrote a round world cosmology for example. He also began a Mannish _Fall of Numenor _and began to think about Elvish versus Mannish versus Mixed traditions. My "late characterization" refers to very general descriptions of the legendarium written after the Ælfwine transmission had fallen away.

In _Morgoth's Ring_ Christopher Tolkien stated that the new characterization basically solved what Tolkien believed to be problematic.

And I think Tolkien realized that a new Silmarillion wasn't necessary due to the characterization of the legendarium as largely Mannish, which also fell in harmony with the new, Numenorean/Bilbo transmission scenario.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 18, 2020)

As a philologist, Tolkien often encountered tellings and re-tellings of old tales which differed from one another. One of his tasks was to determine why and how they differed, and one major contributing factor was distance in time from the event. For instance, Homer clearly describes in Iliad an historical event – a major war between the Achaeans and the Trojans that until the 1870s when Heinrich Schliemann discovered ancient Troy the _majority_ of historians belittled and pooh-poohed – but the distance in time from the event, perhaps four or five hundred years, has distorted events. A more modern example can be observed in arguments over the proximate causes and responsibilities for the outbreak of World War I, a traumatic event that not only shattered Europe but one that lead, seemingly inevitably, to a greater bloodbath only a generation later as well as the spread of murderous totalitarian regimes driven by seemingly insane self-serving philosophies that have spread throughout mankind. 

Tolkien assigns the origin of several tales to Men. Christopher Tolkien comments in _Sauron Defeated_ regarding the “later” (in the mythos) conflation of Elves with Maiar
​Where could such ignorance of the Elves be found but in the minds of Men of a later time? This … is what my father was concerned to portray: a tradition of Men, through long ages become dim and confused. … [H]e did write … a note [of his reflections] on the envelope that contains the texts of The Drowning of Anadûnê:​Contains very old version (in Adûnaic) which is good - in so far as it is just as much different (in inclusion and omission and emphasis) as would be probable in the supposed case:​
Mannish tradition
Elvish tradition
Mixed Dúnedanic tradition


Th[is] … suggest[s] a relatively late date, … I would guess it to be some time in the 1960s.​​…I conclude … that the marked differences … reflect my father's shifting ideas of what the “Mannish tradition” might be, and how to present it: … possible modes in which the memory, and the forgetfulness, of … descendants of the Exiles of Númenor might have transformed their early history.​​Tolkien was at pains to present the forgetfulness of Men. I cannot find the passage that says that the Men of Gondor in the Fourth Age believed the Ring Bearer was a Man, when in fact he was a Halfling. But when Merry asks, “Who was Gil-galad?” Strider doesn’t answer, but “seemed to be lost in thought.” It suddenly struck Aragorn that Merry, for all practical purposes a prince of the Shire (as was Pippin), intelligent and careful and as well-educated as could be expected of any Hobbit, was altogether unaware of a critical part of the history of Middle-earth. Gil-galad was an _important_ person, but Men (and Hobbits, their close kinsfolk) had completely forgotten him. Aragorn realized they would eventually forget him, too. Then Sam, the least educated of the Hobbits, the most rustic among them, murmurs, “Gil-galad was an Elven-king…” Like Ioreth who remembers “The hands of the king are the hands of a healer,” Sam proves the wisdom of Celeborn, who counsels, “Do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.”

The _Narn i Hin Húrin_, “The Tale of the Children of Húrin”, is “ascribed to the poet Dírhavel, a Man who lived at the Havens of Sirion in the days of Eärendil and perished in the attack of the sons of Fëanor.” (_Silmarillion_, Glossary). As far as I know, Tolkien never assigned attribution to the poet that first composed the Lay of Leithian, Release from Bondage, but I suppose that might also have been composed by a Man: it was of particular interest to the descendants of Eärendil.


----------



## Elthir (Sep 18, 2020)

Nice post *Alcuin.*

Regarding the Lay of Leithian, an interesting revision: _Quenta Silmarillion _(the LQ2 text): _*'Of their lives was made the Lay of Leithian, Release from Bondage, which is the longest save one of the songs of [the Noldor >] Númenor concerning the world of old; . . .*_ "

And the brief note you quoted (on the envelope) is why I think Tolkien "ratified" _The Drowning of Anadûnê_ in the 1960s. In my opinion it fits nicely into the multi-perspective legendarium.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 20, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> ...
> Tolkien was at pains to present the forgetfulness of Men. I cannot find the passage that says that the Men of Gondor in the Fourth Age believed the Ring Bearer was a Man, when in fact he was a Halfling.


It sounds plausible, looking at real history. As are "mixed traditions". My favorite comment on this was something like "If you compare English and French History books dealing with about the last 1000 years, you would think what they describe had taken place on separate planets" (yes, I *am* paraphrasing ... 🤓 )

But assuming that, what JRRT feigns as having "translated" to create LoTR (and, for that matter, TH) simply cannot have come down to us through Gondor. The simple fact of the existence of TH and LoTR as they are published would almost have to imply a "time capsule", with which I mean the rather recent "custom" of placing some "era-typical objects" in the foundation of buildings or whatever, to be unearthed by archaeologists of a later era.

As JRRT knew better that most due to his professional studies, manuscripts only having reached us as later copies of earlier writings (or even oral traditions) tend to get corrupted by copyists who increasingly misunderstand older terms and concepts. Think of a "Beowulf" reworked say by Chaucer, then Shakespeare (or Milton), then Dickens ...
"Beowulf" is not the worst example. It remained in a kind of time-capsule, in being ignored, until found and then translated in the early 19th century. No one "reworked" it in the interim.

So how does JRRT rationalize the "uncorrupted transmission" of TH and LoTR? Especially as Bilbo's "Translations from Elvish" seem to clearly (to me) be the Sil? Why would the first two slip through millennia uncorrupted, while the latter got as confused a "Beowulf" *criticism* pre JRRT's seminal lecture M&C?

Perhaps from my very recent re-reading of Verlyn Flieger's "A Question of time", certainly in part from my yesterday reading my newest acquisition (picked up on Friday), Jason Fisher's 2011 selection (as editor and contributor) "Tolkien and the Study of His Sources" I have a fairly clear indication that JRRT himself noticed his creative energies waning (and things like simply memory, too) after his retirement from Oxford. That in his later writings he tended more and more to "rationalization", being the other part of his professional success, the positive aspect of his being a niggler, perhaps. C.C. Lewis once commented (upon being approached as editor for something) "I can no more edit than I can audit. I'm not precise." JRRT was, as can be seen in his painstaking emendations to his invented languages when he decided on a fundamental change (all this mainly early on). Christopher himself has termed some of the early, mainly BoLT 1&2 writings, as "wild" and "primitive". Some, but not all, of these earlier writings JRRT managed to hone later on with mounting experience. He spent his period of brilliance in writing LoTR (and I think that even the most brilliant "Silmarillion", had he instead written it in this period, would not have remotely been a successful as LoTR). Perhaps the most important contribution of the Sil, be it 1977 publication, UT, HoMe, etc. was that JRRT *himself* had created a huge feigned historical background to LoTR.

It was his very own invention, the Hobbits, that were his greatest success. His Hobbit Quadrilogy.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 21, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> It sounds plausible, looking at real history. As are "mixed traditions". ...
> 
> But assuming that, what JRRT feigns as having "translated" to create LoTR (and, for that matter, TH) simply cannot have come down to us through Gondor. The simple fact of the existence of TH and LoTR as they are published would almost have to imply a "time capsule", ...
> 
> As JRRT knew better that most due to his professional studies, manuscripts only having reached us as later copies of earlier writings (or even oral traditions) tend to get corrupted by copyists who increasingly misunderstand older terms and concepts. ...


The conceit of the story (that is, its fictional background, what is imagined in order for it to make sense) is not that the Red Book came from Gondor, but was found in England in a trove, perhaps Oxford’s Bodleian Library, a copy of a copy of a copy, perhaps. And it is not the original Red Book written by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, but a copy of the Thain’s Book that was copied in Gondor in the second century of the Fourth Age during the reign of Eldarion son and heir of Aragorn Elessar and Arwen Undómiel. And there are indeed such troves still extant in the world: the Vatican Library stretches, I understand, seven miles, mostly underground; the libraries of Mecca include looted volumes from across Christendom and Persia, parts untouched for centuries; there are the libraries of the eleven universities of Timbuktu, deserted for hundreds of years, in addition to other random libraries abandoned in a “half-ruined city” much as Tolkien describes Minas Tirith; and there are others: these are only what come immediately to mind.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 21, 2020)

Ye-hes. But the Red Book, and I would think the Thain's Book copied (and I believe edited, if lightly) in Gondor Included those "Translations from Elvish" compiled by Bilbo during the 16 years he was in Rivendell (after having visited Erebor, Dale and the new Lake-town) between the long-expected party in TA 3001 and Frodo's arrival in Rivendell in TA 3018. So then the conceit would have to be that the (mainly) Hobbit-authored TH and LoTR escaped the sloppiness of later scribal copyists, while the Sil ended up as a mangled, contradictory confusion.

Though one thing is hypothetically possible. The distance between the Fourth Age and "our time" was once given by JRRT as about 6,000 years. Well, the distance from the end of the First Age and Bilbo's settling in Rivendell was over 6,400 years, and Númenor had existed for a bit over 3,300 years in the Second Age. So what Elrond had collected in Rivendell might also have included some late-Númenórean "revisionist writing" (so mainly truly "fake news") about the First and Second Ages.

Or to put it another way, Bilbo's "translations from Elvish" were just as big a contradictory mess as were JRRT's own the Sil writings that caused Christopher so much trouble with compiling the published "Silmarillion" ... 🥴


----------



## Elthir (Sep 21, 2020)

With respect to the matter of the Elder Days, the blending and confusion began thousands of years before Bilbo took up his translations in Rivendell.

*"What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions . . . handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back -- from the first association of the Dúnedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand -- blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas." *JRRT, Myths Transformed

🐾


----------



## Elthir (Sep 22, 2020)

We know that _The Notion Club Papers_ were found on the top of one of a number of sacks of waste paper in the basement of the Examination Schools at Oxford -- in a disordered bundle, loosely tied with red string. They were found by a Mr. Howard Green, the Clerk of the Schools.

Of course, very different circumstances . . .

. . . and while I think a trove at the Bodleian makes sense, as far as I recall we don't have anything similarly specific from JRRT as to how the Middle-earthian papers came to be found. There's an interesting statement in the original foreword to the first edition of _The Lord of the Rings:_ *"To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history."*

This could be interpreted to mean that Tolkien had some Hobbit help in his time, but I'm not prepared to push such a case based on one interpretation of this alone.


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 22, 2020)

Hobbits as "back-room-librarians", i.e. those not sitting at the book checkout desk (I'm thinking of my college's library back in the early to middle 1970s Sixth Age  ), and working in the stacks where the books were filed, in the Bodleian - I like the idea! 😁

So Bilbo, when sifting the stuff in Rivendell for his "Translations from Elvish" might have made some idiosyncratic choices in his elections, taking in some confused and doubtful mannish sources because they appealed to him. I'd guess that Elrond (or more correctly *his* librarians) had plenty of time to get the library organized. As Per Appendix B, Elrond founded Rivendell during the War of Sauron and the Elves in 1697 Second Age. So when Sauron was driven out of Eriador in 1701 SA with Númenórean Help sent by Tar Minastir, they had a bit over 4,700 years to get the library organized in Rivendell ...


----------



## Elthir (Sep 22, 2020)

Another question: was there an Elvish (perspective) Silmarillion to translate?

I'd say there were Elvish texts, like _The Awakening of the Quendi_ for example (*"preserved in almost identical form among both the Elves of Aman and the Sindar*"), but we don't know if there was a single Elvish text "like" the Silmarillion -- something already existing for Bilbo's use that could serve as a historical backdrop for the Great Tales (long prose or poetic versions) . . . or, if there was an Elvish version, how long it might have been.

🐾


----------



## Olorgando (Sep 22, 2020)

Elthir said:


> Another question: was there an Elvish (perspective) Silmarillion to translate?


I'd tend towards the "living libraries", foremost Cirdan. Galadriel and Celeborn, too, and Elrond at least for the Second and Third Ages from personal experience, and for the First Ages (of the Lamps, Two Trees and the Moon and Sun) from "fireside chats" or the like. Actual libraries from the First Ages might have existed in Doriath, Nargothrond and Gondolin, but they were all sacked with few if any survivors, and Beleriand sank under the sea at the end of the First Age anyway. Then I'd guess the Grey Havens and later Rivendell from the Second Age onwards.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Sep 23, 2020)

Despite Bilbo's reputation as a thief I found that Gandalf was less reliable for returning books on time to the Rivendell library.
And Saruman, before he was banned, used to return the books with subtle changes or important leaves removed.
Elrond used to leave books all over the place saying that he had every right to since he owned the library and its books.
Such was the life of the Rivendell librarian in the Third Age.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (Oct 8, 2020)

I am not sure Aragorn's choice was correct. I mean, it did seem like the right choice at the moment, but I think that if Aragorn knew what would happen next, he would have gone after Frodo (in the books). Merry and Pippin did not even meet Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli until a long time later. It probably would not have worked out if he didn't make this choice, but he could have at least sent Legolas with them. That would have certainly helped. Legolas doesn't really do anything important, so he would have been more useful with Frodo. That would be good. I think that Tolkien left Frodo and Sam alone to show that even the smallest person can change the course of the world. That, maybe, is the same reason why he let Merry and Pip go with the Fellowship.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 9, 2020)

Lily-Victoria Thorn said:


> ... I think that Tolkien left Frodo and Sam alone to show that even the smallest person can change the course of the world. ...


Yes, to be joined shortly by a third Hobbit (hardly to be recognized as such, but then again having resisted "wraithing" to a degree Sauron himself might have been surprised at). Perhaps the point JRRT wanted to make above all others ...


----------

