Name Changes?

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

I was reviewing the texts and I am going to try to explain my line of thought. But correct me if I'm mistaken in points.

For some time now, I tend to emphasize the dates on which the texts and corrections and notes are supposedly written. I suppose you will agree with me that many of these situations are undatatable and more so after the publication of TNoME in which other dates are given by Hostteter to some texts.

With respect to the Hador/Magor matter, we are supposed to be talking about this reversal of history as contained in hasty pencil notes to a c.1959 text, (WJ, 229, 233), and corrections to these notes we cannot know when they were made.

We also know from experience that Tolkien tended to vary his views frequently in later years, or to forget some changes that occurred to him at another time. The thing is, while Tolkien probably intended to swap Magor for Hador, he too probably forgot or changed his mind again.

I should have mentioned this in my last post, but I forgot: the decision to swap Magor with Hador is incorporated into the Athrabeth. As CT says:

In hasty pencillings on Hador table II the note saying that Magor and Hathol served no Elf-lord but dwelt near the sources of Teiglin, and that Hador was the first lord of Dor-lomin, was struck out; while at the same time Hador Lorindol first lord of Dorlómin was written above 'Magor (the Sword)', and "Magor Dagorlind the Sword singer in battle" above 'Hador Lorindol'. This reversal has been seen already in emendations made to the carbon copy only of the text of the chapter (pp. 225-6, §§16, 31-2 - where my father changed 'Glorindol', not to 'Lorindol', but to 'Glorindal'). That this was not an ephemeral change is seen from the 'Athrabeth', where Adanel is the sister of Hador Lorindol, not of Magor.

[gondowe]

Yes, I know. But, still in my opinion, as the Athrabeth is of the same time, it could only reveal that the swap is a thought of this years 1958-59 (or the unknown date of the pencilled notes) and that perhaps later was forgotten or rethought.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

Yes, I know. But, still in my opinion, as the Athrabeth is of the same time, it could only reveal that the swap is a thought of this years 1958-59 (or the unknown date of the pencilled notes) and that perhaps later was forgotten or rethought.

Greetings

A lot of 'ifs', 'coulds', 'maybes'...

Do I think that it's possible that Tolkien changed his mind later on? Certainly. But you can make the same argument about half of the stuff that we included in 'The New Silmarillion' - especially the names: Tolkien kept changing those all the time as if he was changing his socks!

Also, I'm quite aware that Tolkien in his late years had a habit of just inexplicably changing some elements of the story, the most egregious example of it being IMO the fact that he seems to have totally forgotten about the existence of Fingolfin in the notes to the 'Maeglin' text!


However, in the absence of any concrete, textual proof that he reverted back to the older idea, the evidence is pretty clear: the latest texts dealing with the subject of Hador's family tree have him as the son of Malach Aradan and brother to Adanel.

[Findegil]

Arvegil145 you convinced me at least. I suport the change. It will make same toilsome reading to bring to trough, but as you siad, we addopted changes with less clear evidence.

Respectfully
Findegil

[gondowe]

Ok. The ifs, coulds and maybes are only in order to be prudent. With the years I learned to be so.
I only wanted to share my opinion.
I do think that there are proofs that it was not his last idea about the matter as wrote in my previous post. But if you are convinced it's ok, go on.

Greetings.

[gondowe]

By the way. About Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar. Were they discussed? If not, what do you think?

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by gondowe

By the way. About Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar. Were they discussed? If not, what do you think?

Greetings

I just checked both, and I agree. They are from very late sources (1970 + ), and I can't find any examples where he reverted back to the other forms.