• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Was the Silmarillion Glorfindel the same as the LOTR Glorfindel?

Firiel23

Lost in Lindon
Joined
Oct 20, 2023
Messages
151
I love Glorfindel; he's one of my favorite elves. And don't get me going on PJ's decision to replace him with Arwen☹️. I don't think Tolkien ever decided either way, but I like to think that the Glorfindel who rode to Frodo's rescue was the same Elf who single-handedly rescued the refugees of Gondolin from certain destruction by sacrificing himself. First, there is Tolkien's description of him in the book, where Frodo, who is half in the wraith world, sees him as a brilliant being. This is already different than any other elf that Frodo sees. But there is also Tolkien's propensity to make a rule about elves, and then break it with one; for example, they only marry once, but Finwe... If he mentions that Elves go to Mandos, and then "reincarnate" in Valinor and can't get back to Middle Earth, then I'm willing to bet that he'll send one elf back just to see what happens.
 
I think we've got other threads covering this at length... i'll try to find one and get it posted here.
 
Meh. change of plans. Our Wiki covers it sufficiently, I do believe.
 
I think we've got other threads covering this at length... i'll try to find one and get it posted here.
Do we?



https://thetolkien.forum/threads/glorfindel-number-1-and-number-2-are-they-the-same.18740/
--started by yours truly in his fledgling days


This is NOT to say re-asking a question is a bad thing OP, just throwing some previous threads your way to read what others have posted/discussed as well :).
 
Short answer: yes, there are the same person according to JRR Tolkien.

Christopher Tolkien revealed this twice in The History of Middle-Earth series -- first by explaining
his father's idea -- and in a later volume of the series (volume XII), by publishing two texts that clearly illustrate his father's "answer" to the question.

See the texts titled Glorfindel I and Glorfindel II, both published in The Peoples of Middle-Earth, which again, is The History of Middle-Earth, volume 12.
 
OK, thanks all for the answers! I did look for some threads on the topic, but as I'm new here I guess I missed them. Thanks for the links!
No worries and never hesitate to re-ask, you wouldn't be the first and certainly not the last. I like when these types of questions are repeated, it gives me inspiration to look through the archives and things to find old discussions people haven't looked at in ages. There are truly a lot of gems hidden away. Thanks for being with us, can't wait to see your next question :)
 
(. . .) If he mentions that Elves go to Mandos, and then "reincarnate" in Valinor and can't get back to Middle Earth, then I'm willing to bet that he'll send one elf back just to see what happens.

Just to add, in the text Glorfindel I, Tolkien noted the following about the Elvish folk: "When they were re-embodied they could remain in Valinor, or return to Middle-earth if their home had been there." However, this return was allowed up to the point before Aman was taken away (Fall of Numenor and so on, in the Second Age).

Also, in response to the claim (sometimes made) that Tolkien himself "never published" these Glorfindel essays, I keep in mind that -- not only do we treat plenty of posthumously published texts as "true" within Middle-earth -- Tolkien himself never published (in the first place) that there was an Elf in Gondolin named Glorfindel!

In other words, you end up with one Glorfindel either way!

Tolkien-published material: one Glorfindel (Rivendell)
Tolkien-published material plus posthumously published material: one Glorfindel (Gondolin, re-embodied, Rivendell)
 
I would actually.

Yes, I am the same. Tolkien originally made a mistake naming Glorfindel in LOTR, for the name was all ready taken. Because of the One Elf per name rule (at least for those of extreme significance), Tolkien comments the likelihood of them being different for so striking a name is very small. Hence, we must reason they are the same. This is paraphrase of a direct quote from one of his letters. Hope that cleared it up @Firiel23!

Edit: I went to actually search for it.
This difficulty, far more serious than the linguistic one, may be considered first. At any rate what at first sight may seem the simplest solution must be abandoned: sc. that we have merely a reduplication of names, and that Glorfindel of Gondolin and Glorfindel of Rivendell were different persons. 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 borne by another Elvish person of importance. Also it may be found that acceptance of the identity of Glorfindel of old and of the Third Age will actually explain what is said of him and improve the story.
- JRR Tolkien, The Peoples of Middle-earth, "XIII. Last Writings", "Glorfindel I & II"
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am the same. Tolkien originally made a mistake naming Glorfindel in LOTR, for the name was all ready taken. Because of the One Elf per name rule (at least for those of extreme significance), Tolkien comments the likelihood of them being different for so striking a name is very small. Hence, we must reason they are the same.

Indeed we could follow Tolkien's reasoning here :)

But I've some questions about some of Tolkien's reasoning in the late Glorfindel texts -- again, not about his simple conclusion in any case (that the "two" are one), which is clearly stated in both Glorfindel I and Glorfindel II.

This is paraphrase of a direct quote from one of his letters. Hope that cleared it up.

As noted in your edit, the text you quoted is rather from a section of Glorfindel II, which dates to very late in Tolkien's life, the early 1970s, and for myself, I wonder: was the quoted information in play at any point in time before Glorfindel II was written?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Anyway, in The Lord of the Rings as published, there are two Elves named Rúmil for example, and in another late text [see The Shibboleth of Feanor], Tolkien has Nerdanel give the name Ambarussa to two of her sons (Feanor objected, but still).

And in yet another late text [Of Dwarves And Men] Tolkien notes that Telperimpar (Sindarized Celebrimbor) "was a frequent name among the Teleri" -- and back to The Shibboeth again:
"(but the Sindarin form Argon was often later given as a name by Noldor and Sindar in memory of his valour."). And even these late texts arguably precede the two Glorfindel essays, which are presented under the chapter Last Writings [PME].

Okay, and Tolkien does write [Glorfindel II] that the reduplication of so striking a name as Glorfindel
is possible
, but would not (in his opinion) be credible, due to the result that we would have two "important" characters with the same name. This seems to say (to me) that even the reduplication of a striking name is possible, except for the "importance element" -- but then again, in a note about Galdor, Tolkien brings up the form of the name as a factor "but the name is of a more simple and usual form [than Glorfindel] and might be repeated."

Hmm. Well, again I'm no linguist, but are Ambarussa or Telperimpar "striking" names?

And who decides which Elves are "important enough" (in some way) as to make a given set of Elves with the same name incredible? Tolkien I guess! And yes, we could just go with Tolkien's decision here about the name Glorfindel specifically -- but more generally speaking, I'm not a huge fan of these ideas (importance of character/form of the name), whenever they arose.

In any case I try to keep in mind that no Glorfindel of Gondolin existed in the collective minds of JRRT's readership, now would he ever appear on paper, except in posthumously published writings. And as Christopher Tolkien notes, it was entirely possible for his father to simply alter the name of the Elf of Gondolin, if something "too problematic" arose.

That said, the early 1970s Tolkien did say that the choice of the name "escaped reconsideration" before The Lord of the Rings was published. I'd say that was a "slow escape", given how long Tolkien worked on the book . . .

;)

. . . but that'll be the next issue I plan to ramble about here -- emphasis on plan.
 
Escaping Reconsideration

subtitle: "I feel bad about criticizing Tolkien, but here goes"

Decades earlier than the Glorfindel essays, for the drafts of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien somewhat randomly borrows the name Glorfindel from earlier, unpublished works (along with Legolas and Gimli too, for two other examples), and within the drafts, Tolkien noted to himself "(Glorfindel tells of his ancestry in Gondolin)" (HME VI. 214)

And as noted, a much older JRRT would later write that the choice of this particular name "escaped reconsideration" before The Lord of the Rings went to print. Okay, why should the inclusion of the name Glorfindel in The Lord of the Rings need reconsideration? Tolkien's answers appear to be [see Glorfindel II]:

A) a lingustic issue: does the name fit well enough into Sindarin -- as it originated from a different language, now long discarded, called Gnomish. Concerning this, see footnote below.

B) Tolkien writes: "difficulty is presented by the things recorded of Glorfindel in The Lord of the Rings, if Glorfindel of Gondolin is supposed to be the same person as Glorfindel of Rivendell."

Okay, but wait-a-minute now, JRRT then goes on to correctly note that according to the already published text, Glorfindel of Rivendell must be an Exile, a Noldo . . . agreed, but Glorfindel of Gondolin was a Noldo (a Gnome), and the reincarnation of Elves had been a long-standing
truth within Middle-earth.

And after seemingly forgetting that he had already altered the earlier idea of Gondolin being entirely Noldorin, Tolkien still considers the question of: what if Glorfindel of Gondolin was Sindarin. He concludes that this doesn't work (again, within the context of: if the "two" are supposed to be the same being). Then JRRT writes "This difficulty, far more serious than the linguistic one, may be considered first"

So here the difficulty is far more serious than the linguistic one, but I note again: Glorfindel of Gondolin wasn't Sindarin in the already written histories. He never was Sindarin, so why, as it seems to me, throw that "in the way"?

Next JRRT goes off on a tangent about reduplication of names (as quoted above in the thread) -- for myself, and I realize this is subjective, I don't see a huge problem with another Elf even using the name Glorfindel, especially given that Elven mothers could have some measure of foresight regarding naming their children -- but in any case, this tangent is not the same thing as what is said about Glorfindel of Rivendell in the text of The Lord of the Rings -- and the next paragraph is basically an explanation of Elvish reincarnation.

In the following paragraph, we seem to get to a perceived difficulty with Glorfindel of Gondolin being a Noldo -- Tolkien noting that he was under the ban imposed by Manwe, and thus should not be allowed to re-incarnate in the Blessed Realm.

Right. But why should Glorfindel need to be reincarnated before the ban was lifted? In the explanation given, Tolkien goes to some length to explain why Glorfindel was allowed to become an incarnate person again, and then explains that he remained in the Blessed Realm until the Second Age, in any case.

And finally, JRRT goes on to ponder when in the Second Age Glorfindel returned to Middle-earth, which explanation includes a bit of the history of the Second Age, in order to fit in his return before the Change of the World. The text ends (if not it would be very long indeed), and according to Christopher Tolkien, it ends with: "no indication that it was unfinished, although the "linguistic difficulty" referred to on p. 379 was not taken up."

So my fellow Tolkien fans, so far it seems to me that JRRT has created a difficulty by imagining Glorfindel "needing" to be reincarnated before the ban was lifted.

Keeping in mind: "difficulty is presented by the things recorded of Glorfindel in The Lord of the Rings, if Glorfindel of Gondolin is supposed to be the same person as Glorfindel of Rivendell."

Well, I guess so, if . . .

. . . you propose that Glorfindel of Gondolin was Sindarin (but again, he never was).

. . . you propose that Glorfindel of Gondolin is reincarnated before the ban is lifted. But have I missed something about this? The Noldor were allowed, in body, back West after the ban was lifted, so wouldn't this apply to the re-incarnates?

__________

Again I'm no linguist, but the issue seems to be nd. In Sauron Defeated, in The King's Letter, the "Noldorin" name of Goldilocks, one of Sam's children, is Glorfinniel. And in a Sindarin context, Tolkien would publish:

"Nd became nn usually, as Ennor "Middle-earth", Q. Endore; but remained nd at the end of fully accented monosyllabls such as thond "root" (cf. Morthond "Blackroot"), and also before r, as Andros "long foam". This nd is also seen in some ancient names derived from and older period, such as Nargothrond, Gondolin, Beleriand." Appendix E, Writing and Spelling

Okay, the name Glorfindel isn't mentioned here, but in Words Phrases and Passages [PE 17], under his Glorfindel entry, JRRT notes: "OS findel later to finnel. The names of the Noldor in legend often contain archaic elements notably retention of nd medially and finally."

This was written well after The Lord of the Rings was published, and well before Glorfindel II was written. I'll grant Tolkien would have liked to reconsider using Glorfindel before the book was published, but he seems to have tackled the "problem" of the form of the name well before the early 1970s, in any case.

Comments? Corrections? Any negative finger-pointing at me for "arguing" with one of my heroes?

Anyway, I must nap 🐾
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top