Are 🧝Legolas from 'The Fall of Gondolin' and 'the' Legolas the same?

[Ent]

the "Tale of Years",

The Tale of Years usually refers to Appendix B in LoTR.
I've just reviewed it again, and can find no reference to a birth year of Legolas. In fact no reference to Legolas at all.
A quick scan of PoME also doesn't turn up a birth year for the young Legolas that I can find.

I'd be curious of this too. I don't recall a specific date being given.

I don't have an 'absolute' answer from all the sources but I believe there are several threads on this issue here and no date has ever been brought forward before.

I did find one interesting thing: in Letter 297 (draft) Tolkien gives a very 'technical' translation of the name Legolas.
S. laeg ‘viridis’ fresh and green, and go-lass ‘collection of leaves, foliage’.

So we could always call him "Fresh and Green Foliage" if we want to.

For an Ent, since names mean stuff, "Fresh and green collection of leaves" is more in line with our use of languages. 😁

 

[Áramandë Amaniel]

For an Ent, since names mean stuff, "Fresh and green collection of leaves" is more in line with our use of languages. 😁

Foilage sounds more Elvish to me...so I'll go with that.

 

[Wastrel]

The Tale of Years usually refers to Appendix B in LoTR.
I've just reviewed it again, and can find no reference to a birth year of Legolas. In fact no reference to Legolas at all.
A quick scan of PoME also doesn't turn up a birth year for the young Legolas that I can find.

You are correct. I got out my copy of the book, and what I thought I had read there, I must have read somewhere else.

"In the "official movie guide" for The Lord of the Rings, a birthdate for Legolas is set to 87 of the Third Age. This would make him 2931 years old at the time of the War of the Ring. This date for Legolas' birth was made up by the movie writers. Curiously, the year 2931 was the year Aragorn was born; the writers may have picked the number at random from the Tale of Years in the Appendices." -- Tolkien Gateway

Maybe I read it there.

However, since he's the son of Thranduil, who is thought to be the son of Oropher, it seems that he could not be the same Legolas as the one in Gondolin.

One thing I've wondered about: Since Elves are immortal and do not leave Arda as Men do, shouldn't they all have unique names so they don't get confused? How awkward would it be to meet your namesake in the Halls of Mandos?

 

[Ent]

shouldn't they all have unique names so they don't get confused?

In one of his writings, Tolkien admitted he tried to avoid repeating names for the Elves, unlike the Dwarves who made it a bit of a habit.

yes, the concensus is pretty much that the two Legolai (Legolasses? Legolases? Legolae?) are not the same... though Glorfindal is indeed (most likely) the same. (upon saying which, Ent awaits the retorts of those who disagree. )

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Legolasses?

 

[Elthir]

One thing I've wondered about: Since Elves are immortal and do not leave Arda as Men do, shouldn't they all have unique names so they don't get confused?

Nerdanel gave her last two sons the same name: Ambarussa

Feanor's reaction aside, others called them Minyarussa and Atyarussa "First-russa" and "Second-russa"

Or: ". . . Celebrimbor. This was a Sindarized form of Telerin Telperimpar (. . .). It was a frequent name among the Teleri, who in addition to navigation and ship-building were also renowned as silver-smiths."

Or [Shibboleth of Feanor] " . . . the Sindarin form Argon was often given as a name by Noldor and Sindar in memory of his valour)." [The memory of Arakano].

In any case, according to The Shibboleth of Feanor, the Eldar could have multiple names:

Father-name
Mother-name
After-name
Self-names (among the Exiles)
__________

Note that the following conception does not appear in The Shibboleth of Feanor, but from an earlier text, and I can't say whether its "omission" in The Shibboleth is due to it being abandoned, or maybe due to brevity [especially as it was "maybe" a specifically Noldorin custom].

In On Naming, from a text called -- Of The Laws And Customs Among The Eldar Pertaining To Marriage And Other Matters Related Thereto: Together With The Statute Of Finwe And Miriel And The Debate Of The Valar At Its Making -- Tolkien once described another type of name called the Chosen-name -- concerning "which point, maybe, they differed from the other Eldar."

Skipping some interesting details for brevity (!), this Chosen-name was usually freshly devised in Elder Times, but in later ages, it was more often selected from names that were known: "But even so" [the text says] "some modification of the old name might be made."

These names were private (but not secret), and were regarded by the Noldor as part of their personal property. The use of the Chosen-name, except by members of the same house (parents, sisters, brothers), was a token of closest intimacy and love, when permitted. It was, therefore, considered presumptuous or insulting to use it without permission.

This text was published in Morgoth's Ring.

 

[Elthir]

. . . though Glorfindal is indeed (most likely) the same. (upon saying which, Ent awaits the retorts of those who disagree.)

Good Sir Ent, I do not disagree, but only wonder slightly at your parenthetical "most likely".

I guess I'm wondering, why, for you, does this conception get a most likely, considering Tolkien's rather notable hill of PPP (posthumously published papers).

🐾

 

[Ent]

"most likely".

'most likely' because there are two different categories of people who (may likely) differ from that opinion.
1) - many who have not necessarily read the PPP, and 2) many who have not accepted them as definitive even if they have. (Would mean they are held as 'canon'..!!)
yet they are nonetheless most willing to engage in disagreement, dispute and dismissal.
Ent does not want to close a door on anyone who would like to discuss things seemingly different in conclusion.

That's all.

 

[Elthir]

'most likely' because there are two different categories of people who (may likely) differ from that opinion.
1) - many who have not necessarily read the PPP, and 2) many who have not accepted them as definitive even if they have.

Okay, but I guess my question is more about: why a "most likely" on the Glorfindel matter specifically?

For example, if I post that Angrod is Galadriel's brother, these categories of people are still out there,
and both categories (any peoples really) are free to challenge my statement -- that door is wide open folks (and I can point you [anyone] to a PPP text in which Angrod has no sister).

In shorter, there are heaps of posts in these Tolkienian halls that cull from the triple P material!

 

[Ent]

on the Glorfindel matter specifically?

Because Legolas is an elf but not the same, but Glorfindel is an elf but IS the same, and Ent has seen Glorfindel hotly debated on 3 other sites to the point of most destructive abuses of language and people, in spite of the facts of the case.

(Of course, Legolas has been similarly debated as well with unfortunate consequences.)

Ent could have just said "Glorfindal IS the same" but is not desirous of starting World War TTF on any thing at any time, holding to a strict "no riots please" policy if at all possible.

If this is insufficient there we have it. It's all there is.

 

[Elthir]

Ent could have just said "Glorfindal IS the same" but is not desirous of starting World War TTF on any thing at any time, holding to a strict "no riots please" policy if at all possible. If this is insufficient there we have it. It's all there is.

Okay. I was just wondering. And obviously, how you post (and why) is entirely up to you


For myself, my opinion is that there's only one Glorfindel.

This is primarily* based on very late texts in the posthumously published writings, in which Tolkien himself ultimately answers this question (twice) -- plus, so far (that I'm aware of), there are no competing answers from JRRT.

*in the drafts for The Lord of the Rings, JRRT jotted down that Glorfindel should tell of his ancestry in Gondolin, although, of course, this never crystalized in the tale as published.

And if someone should take up the position that Tolkien never published his answer to the question, then I'd point out that if we are holding only to Tolkien-published texts -- then there are no "two Glorfindels" in the first place!

Basically:

Tolkien-published Texts

Glorfindel of Rivendell [no reference to any other Elf named Glorfindel]

Posthumously Published Texts

Glorfindel of Rivendell is the reincarnated Glorfindel of Gondolin.

In either case, one Glorfindel

 

[Ent]

In either case, one Glorfindel

Don't tell anyone but that's my conclusion as well.

 

[Elthir]

I'll tell no one.

Or that is, I'll try not to.

Okay I'll probably tell someone.

Alright you got me, I already e-mailed Adam Tolkien

A perhaps interesting side note: as I say, when, in the course of writing The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien noted that Glorfindel should tell of his ancestry in Gondolin [draft texts, The History of The Lord of the Rings, The History of Middle-Earth], the mode of reincarnation, at the time, was rebirth.

So, if I'm correct, and if JRRT "still" considered Glorfindel of Gondolin to have died -- and I see no great reason to think JRRT had suddenly changed his mind here for this brief mention -- then if Glorfindel of Imladris is Glorfindel of Gondolin, he could have been reincarnated by being born again as a baby Elf!

Well, in that abandoned conception anyway.

Anyway, Adam Tolkien thought it was interesting

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Don't tell anyone but that's my conclusion as well.

You do realize it is now PUBLIC information, right? 😅

 

[Elthir]

Another aside -- since I went on about Elvish names and information from Glorfindel II, I might as well add what Tolkien said about the name Glorfindel, in Glorfindel II!

"This repetition of so strking 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."

Not my favorite Tolkien quote, but there it is. JRRT noted this about the name Galdor: "Galdor also appeared in The Fall of Gondolin, but the name is of a more simple and usual form [than Glorfindel]
and might be repeated."

In any case, for an author-published example, there appears to have been at least two Elves named Rúmil.

 

[Ent]

So seemingly the same reasoning exists with the Legolas Issue that consumes the minds of the great and mighty.
The 'first' Legolas was of little importance and consequence, or just didin't have a 'striking' enough name, to preclude repetition.
Therefore a 2nd Legolas is permissible, acceptable and seemingly unavoidable.
"So let it be written." Another thing that "is".

 

[Elthir]

We aren't even certain (or at least I'm not) that Legolas was the true name of this character in The Fall of Gondolin, as opposed to being a later confusion of two names (see below), but anyway, at the time FG was written, this character was a Noldo . . . noting another elven character named Gimli.

Just in case no one doesn't care, what my former, younger self means here is that if the Gondolin Elf was really named Laigolas Legolast ["perhaps" noted in the quote below, but the rest of it at least seems to confirm the point], the confused form Legolas could be . . .

A) the confusion of a later scribe, which could mean that no Elf ever called Laigolas Legolast by the name "Legolas".

Or

B) that the Elves themselves confused it, and began calling this Elf Legolas -- thus it became his name (in the same way a nickname becomes a name), and the scribes merely used in to record the histories.

And looking (now!) in The Book of Lost Tales I Appendix, a note associated with the tale says of this character: "he liveth still in Tol Eressea named by the Eldar there Laiqalasse"

Okay, Laiqalasse is a Qenya (early Quenya) form for "Greenleaf", and mirrors Laigolas. So it seems that the Elves of Tol Eressea actually called him Laiqalasse, which would seem to indicate that he, or others, actually used/heard/uttered Laigolas.

Gnomish leg meant "keen, piercing" and referred to his sight. And Gnomish last meant "look, glance", thus Legolast "Keen-sight

So again, did anyone ever call this Elf Legolas? Into his very ears I mean?

Or is there some reason that makes this question senseless?

note: if it makes no sense, I was only joking

"Note: Laigolas = green-leaf (...) But perhaps both were his names, as the Gnomes delighted to give two similar sounding names of dissimilar meaning, as Laigolas Legolast, Turin Turambar, etc. Legolas the ordinary form is a confusion of the two." JRRT The Book of Lost Tales

Ordinary form?

Fake edit: I suppose it's possible that Laigolas' friends actually used the confused form, but when he ended up in Tol Eressea, he was given the Qenya form of Laigolas, it being more accurate.

So, never mind.

 

[Ent]

¯\_|ツ|_/¯ - I dunno Sr.
¯\_|ツ|_/¯ - I dunno Jr.
¯\_|ツ|_/¯ - I dunno III.

Bottom line: ¯\_|ツ|_/¯

 

[Elthir]

Ah, but does it remain possible that there was never any "two" Legolaseses in the first place [even if we jam The Book of Lost Tales into the world of the later Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings, that is] -- if the confusion is merely scribal, that is, a confused form of the name found only in text?

Does that at least hold water as an option? And is the Sea really always right?

By the way, there was no Second or Third Ages when this Fall of Gondolin was first written, and this Legolas went to Tol Eressea, which [in one version among early conceptions] later became England itself!

Just sayin'

 

[Starbrow]

One thing I've wondered about: Since Elves are immortal and do not leave Arda as Men do, shouldn't they all have unique names so they don't get confused? How awkward would it be to meet your namesake in the Halls of Mandos?

I don't think it would be any more awkward than a person meeting someone they are named after in this day and age.

Now I am musing on the conversation Martin Luther and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are having in heaven.🤔