🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Of Elves

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
Do elves duplicate other names? Like Thorin II and Thorin III who was related?
Or like Denethor II Steward of Gondor and Denethor of Ossiriand?

Coz i heard many of same names but different figure. Save Glorfindel. Like Legolas,Haldir,Barahir,Denethor.

So, is it possible for an elf, to have a same name, (example: Mithrellas me vs. Mithrellas wife of Imrazor) and they live on the same timeline? (Like First Age or Second Age)(Even each name has different meaning. My Mithrellas means:mithril leaf while another Mithrellas means Grey Leaf)
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
Generally speaking Elves can have the same name. Nerdanel even gave two of her sons the same name, though Feanor begged her to change one.

Less generally speaking the form of the name itself might be a factor: JRRT once noted that Galdor is a name of more simple form than Glorfindel, and so it (Galdor) might be repeated, Tolkien also noting that Glorfindel is a "striking" name...

... I agree :)

Something could be said here concerning the desired individuality of "Chosen-names" (seemingly a Noldorin custom), but that can get a bit complicated...

... and the idea possibly abandoned.
 
Last edited:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
Generally speaking Elves can have the same name. Nerdanel even gave two of her sons the same name, though Feanor begged her to change one.

Less generally speaking the form of the name itself might be a factor: JRRT once noted that Galdor is a name of more simple form than Glorfindel, and so it (Galdor) might be repeated, Tolkien also noting that Glorfindel is a "striking" name...

... I agree :)

Something could be said here concerning the desired individuality of "Chosen-names" (seemingly a Noldorin custom), but that can get a bit complicated...

... and the idea possibly abandoned.

Oh okay. I got it. Thanks!

I was a bit surprised when I open this forum from my gmail. Coz I mark my questions as "watched thread". But from my gmail, you reply are completely different with what I saw above. But nevermind.

But seriously you dont know any other Legolas? Legolas of Gondolin.

Can elves be evil?

Even some Maia who were Ainur could. Saruman, Sauron, Balrog.

I mean, Feanor did a heavy sin. His oath, his rebellion, the kinslaying. But he still oppose Morgoth.

What I mean evil is EVIL. Like MORGOTH or SAURON. Maybe the dark lords corrupted some elves, but not to change them into orcs, but into a real villain-minded-killer-dictator-whatever dressed in good looking creature.

Like Annatar. Evil inside, beauty outside.

So, can them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
Yes, I edited the Legolas part out and in general made my answer more to the point. But now we can deal with...

"But seriously you dont know any other Legolas? Legolas of Gondolin."

Don't I look serious in my photo ;)

What I had posted was not that I don't know about any other Legolas (though that might have been implied by brevity), but rather (hopefully) something like: in my head I don't believe more than one Legolas exists; in other words, I don't believe this keen-sighted Elf from the very early Fall of Gondolin text was going to be named Legolas in any revised update...

... which unfortunately was abandoned (meaning the early 1950s revision published in Unfinished Tales) well before we meet this character in any case. I also don't believe that the keen-eared Elf named Gimli (also from the early The Book Of Lost Tales) was going to be named Gimli in any revised, updated text.

I believe Tolkien was going to re-name this character, as, more than thirty years later (the version in UT), the language called "Gnomish" no longer existed, and the ultimate explanation of the name Legolas is that it's a Silvan dialectal form of Sindarin Laegolas.

And why would an Elf of Gondolin have a name in a Silvan dialect, the Silvan Elves being those Elves from Mirkwood or Lorien? I'm not saying someone couldn't invent some reason (I've even read at least one fan invented theory which tries to claim that these "two" characters are the same Elf), but from Tolkien's perspective, he wouldn't need to do any inventive dances here. Just alter the name in a text that needed revision anyway.

Tolkien had a similar problem with the name Glorfindel: it was first conceived as a Gnomish name, and when it "became" Sindarin (in an external sense), an Elf named Glorfindel, an Exile from Over Sea, had also been published in The Lord of the Rings. JRRT had to deal with this, so he explained the form as archaic.

But no Legolas of Gondolin had ever been published, and JRRT could just lift the name and reinvent its history for a Silvan character from Mirkwood.

Now maybe you see why I edited this matter out :D

__________
Aside: I'm also not wholly sure Legolas of Gondolin, again in the context of the old version, was "really" named Legolas anyway!

"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

So who confused these names, and when? This Elf's "real" name (arguably, and in some sense) appears to be Laigolas Legolast rather, where the second of these names refers to his keen sight.
 
Last edited:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
Yes, I edited the Legolas part out and in general made my answer more to the point. But now we can deal with...

"But seriously you dont know any other Legolas? Legolas of Gondolin."

Don't I look serious in my photo ;)

What I had posted was not that I don't know about any other Legolas though, but rather (hopefully) something like: in my head I don't believe more than one Legolas exists; in other words, I don't believe this keen-sighted Elf from the very early Fall of Gondolin text was going to be named Legolas in any revised update...

... which unfortunately was abandoned (meaning the early 1950s revision published in Unfinished Tales) well before we meet this character in any case. I also don't believe that the keen-eared Elf named Gimli was going to be named Gimli in any revised, updated text.

My reason is simple: I believe Tolkien was going to re-name this character...

... because more than thirty years later the language called "Gnomish" no longer existed, and the new etymology of the name Legolas made it a Silvan dialectal form of Sindarin Laegolas.

And why would a Noldorin Elf of Gondolin have a name in a Silvan dialect, the Silvan Elves being those Elves from Mirkwood or Lorien? Gimli too, is no longer the name of an Elf in the internal world of Middle-earth, it's an Old Norse name and obviously used to refer to a Dwarf.

Tolkien had a similar problem with the name Glorfindel: it was first conceived as a Gnomish name, and when it "became" Sindarin (in an external sense), Glorfindel, the Exilw from Over Sea, had been published in The Lord of the Rings. JRRT had to deal with this, so he explained it as archaic.

No "Legolas" of Gondolin had ever been published though, and JRRT could just lift the name and reinvent its history for a Silvan character from Mirkwood.

Now you maybe see why I edited this matter out :D

__________

Aside: I'm also not wholly sure "Legolas of Gondolin", again in the context of the old version anyway, was "really" named Legolas anyway!

"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

So who confused his names, and when? His "real" name (arguably, and in some sense) appears to be Laigolas Legolast rather, where the second of these names refers to his keen-sight.
Yea I agree with the Legolas thing. Perhaps his name was one of those. Laigolas or Legolast. And maybe people choose to call him Legolas since he picked the Quenya mode of it when he moved to Tol Eresseä. Laiqalassë. Perhaps because Legolas is more simple. Than Laigolas or Legolast or Laiqalassë.

Maybe thats why, people think there are more than one Legolas. Eventhough both have different name meaning as youa have said before.
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
Well, for clarity perhaps, it's sometimes an internal answer versus an external answer.

When folks ask questions (we love it) I think they are probably looking for an internal answer,
as opposed to: what did Tolkien write but (maybe) revise, reject, possibly reconsider, and so on (external stuff). Take my answer above for instance: I didn't delve into the desired individuality of the Noldorin Chosen-names simply because (external note) Tolkien "might" have abandoned the concept...

... and if so (if he did abandon the Noldorin Chosen-names), some might then say who cares in the sense that they don't need to know. You're writing a story, you probably don't care in some sense that early on Tolkien envisioned Galadriel's hair as white, or that he described it as golden in The Lord of the Rings, and (I think) only seemingly added touches of silver in later texts.

Folks just want an internal answer, so to speak, and that's understandable of course, but with Tolkien there's so much posthumously published stuff, things can get tricky sometimes.

So that said, in my Middle-earth (in my opinion) there's no Elf named Gimli for example, and there never were so many Balrogs slain in Gondolin (there were even seemingly thousands of Balrogs in early conceptions, but arguably because they were less powerful back then too, in an external sense).

There's no Elf named Rog and no Elf named Legolas/Laigolast/Legolast who survived Gondolin to go to Eressea, called Laiqalasse in "Qenya"...

... for just a few examples from The Book of Lost Tales and the early Fall of Gondolin, written in Tolkien's youth. To me these are rejected concepts and names (well, some names being reused of course, but you get my point hopefully).

Christopher Tolkien edited out "Rog" from his constructed Silmarillion for instance, feeling that Tolkien would not have kept such a name in the much later scenario -- while some fans disagree with Christopher Tolkien here, finding nothing wrong with an Elf named Rog in a Sindarin context.

Concerning this early Fall of Gondolin, Christopher Tolkien explained (Unfinished Tales):
"It is written in the extreme archaistic style that my father employed at that time, and it inevitably embodies conceptions out of keeping with the world of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion in its published form."

Anyway, Tolkien updated the Quenya form of Sindarin Laegolas (Silvan Legolas) to Laicolasse 'green foliage'...

... ahem, for the Silvan Elf of Mirkwood :D

Now someone come along and argue that the seemingly Noldorin Chosen-names were not abandoned!

I might myself... if I ever stop rambling about something else ;)
 
Last edited:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
Well, for clarity perhaps, it's sometimes an internal answer versus an external answer.

When folks ask questions (we love it) I think they are probably looking for an internal answer, as opposed to: what did Tolkien write but (maybe) revise, reject, possibly reconsider, and so on (external stuff). Take my answer above for instance: I didn't delve into the desired individuality of the Noldorin Chosen-names simply because (external note) Tolkien "might" have abandoned the concept...

... and if so (if he did abandon the Noldorin Chosen-names), some might then say who cares in the sense that they don't need to know. You're writing a story, you probably don't care in some sense that Tolkien first envisioned Galadriel's hair as white, or that he described it as golden in The Lord of the Rings, and (I think) only seemingly added touches of silver in later texts.

Folks just want "the" internal answer, so to speak, and that's understandable of course, but with Tolkien there's so much posthumously published stuff, things can get tricky sometimes.

So that said, in my Middle-earth (in my opinion) there is no Elf named Gimli for example, and there never were so many Balrogs slain in Gondolin (there were even seemingly thousands of Balrogs in early conceptions, but arguably because they were less powerful back then too, in an external sense).

There's no Elf named "Rog", and no Elf named Legolas/Laigolast/Legolast who survived Gondolin to go to Eressea, called Laiqalasse in "Qenya"...

... for just a few examples from The Book of Lost Tales and the early Fall of Gondolin, written in Tolkien's youth. To me these are rejected concepts and names. Christopher Tolkien edited out "Rog" from his constructed Silmarillion for instance, feeling that Tolkien would not have kept such a name in the much later scenario -- while some fans disagree with Christopher Tolkien here, finding nothing wrong with an Elf named Rog in a Sindarin context.

Concerning this early Fall of Gondolin, Christopher Tolkien explained (Unfinished Tales): "It is written in the extreme archaistic style that my father employed at that time, and it inevitably embodies conceptions out of keeping with the world of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion in its published form."

Anyway, Tolkien updated the Quenya form of Sindarin Laegolas (Silvan Legolas) to Laicolasse 'green foliage'...

... ahem, for the Silvan Elf of Mirkwood :D
Well i knew Gimli for the first time at Lord Of The Rings. (Thats obvious). And i just knew there is a blind elf named Gimli when i read Beren and Luthien for the first time. Even Gimli doesnt sound right for me.

Sorry for a bit misconnection between what i want to talk and what you want to talk, because to clarify this, i am just a student, at high school, and my birth year at this forum was filled wrong. And English is not my mother tounge. So to understand your reply, i have to translate it (Google ofc.) And i have to rephrase it again. Just, your language often confused me. No offense.

I dont really understand about the Noldorin individual chosen names. But finally i understand the external internal thingies. After digesting it for a while.

Even i dive to Tolkien's work mostly because of my writing project, that doesnt mean i hate details. I do like details and external cases so to say. In case, there will be my friend who ask me such thing. I should know the answer.

I dont really understand about "my Middle earth thingies". Like Gimli thing, Balrogs, blah blah. What do you mean? I mean, i havent read the books.

And thanks for Legolas' name revision.

Maybe if you dont mind, you can rephrase it so i can understand it. But if you wont thats fine.

Thanks.
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
No problem Mithrellas, and no offense taken at all :)

"My" Middle-earth refers to the way I imagine Tolkien's internal world.

Tolkien readers are working with so much material that Tolkien himself never published, we can end up with different "Middle-earths" -- based on the same texts, or not, because not everybody has read all the same texts -- but not necessarily the same opinions about those texts in any case.

Of course we all have our own Middle-earths with respect to our interpretations of even those books that only Tolkien himself published, but with Tolkien's world it gets more complicated.

My answers are based upon my approach to the texts: I give first priority to works Tolkien himself published in his lifetime: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Road Goes Ever On, and a Map (drawn by Pauline Baynes) that Tolkien helped with before he passed away...

... after that I give priority to late, or later texts over earlier texts (where this can be known), but not if I think a late idea conflicts with something already in print, something already published by Tolkien (he didn't always remember or keep track of this) -- and after this, well, things can get even more complicated...

... but my point is, someone else will maybe approach things differently, and come up with a very different internal-style answer. And that will be his or her Middle-earth, in a sense, compared to mine.


I'll stop for now. I hope some of this helps.
 
Last edited:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
No problem Mithrellas, and no offense taken at all :)

"My" Middle-earth refers to the way I imagine Tolkien's internal world.

Tolkien readers are working with so much material that Tolkien himself never published, we can end up with different "Middle-earths" -- based on the same texts, or not, because not everybody has read all the same texts -- but not necessarily the same opinions about those texts in any case.

Of course we all have our own Middle-earths with respect to our interpretations of even those books that only Tolkien himself published, but with Tolkien's world it gets more complicated.

My answers are based upon my approach to the texts: I give first priority to works Tolkien himself published in his lifetime: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Road Goes Ever On, and a Map (drawn by Pauline Baynes) that Tolkien helped with before he passed away...

... after that I give priority to late, or later texts over earlier texts (where this can be known), but not if I think a late idea conflicts with something already in print, something already published by Tolkien (he didn't always remember or keep track of this) -- and after this, well, things can get even more complicated...

... but my point is, someone else will maybe approach things differently, and come up with a very different internal-style answer. And that will be his or her Middle-earth, in a sense, compared to mine.


I'll stop for now. I hope some of this helps.
Oooooooo i, finally get it. Thanksss...

So what you have been trying to say is that all such stuffs you said before, like Gimli and blah blah were only your opinion to Tolkien's works? Or in other name "your middle earth"?

Okay then. Thanksss.... that is helping a lot.. thanks to be very patient with me...
 
Last edited:

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
The Elvish words fea, plural fear, roughly translate to "spirit(s)", while hroa plural hroar roughly translate to "body/bodies"

"But by nature the fear of Men were in much less strong control of their hroar than was the case of Elves. Individual Elves might be seduced to a minor "Melkorism": desiring to be their own masters in Arda, and to have things their own way, leading in extreme cases to rebellion against the tutelage of the Valar; but not one had ever entered the service or allegiance of Melkor himself, nor ever denied the existence and absolute supremacy of Eru."

JRRT, commentary to The Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth ("Converse of Finrod and Andreth"), Morgoth's Ring

And in the same general "phase" of writing (this time in Laws and Customs of the Eldar), it's said that some Elves without bodies (Elvish spirits who refused the summons to Mandos):

"... some are filled with bitterness, grievance, and envy. Some were enslaved by the Dark Lord and do his work still, though he himself is gone. They will not speak truth or wisdom. To call on them is folly."

To be enslaved by the Dark Lord is different from entering his service, but these "some" are not nice Elven spirits obviously, and can be dangerous. I think this was Tolkien's way of "explaining" (in a sense) some of the more modern tales about wicked "fairies" or "elves" coming into contact with Men, spirits "... haunting trees or springs or hidden places that once they knew."

And Maeglin wasn't the best of Elves, for example, in any case :)
 

CirdanLinweilin

The Wandering Wastrel
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
958
Reaction score
510
Location
Mission Viejo, California
The Elvish words fea, plural fear, roughly translate to "spirit(s)", while hroa plural hroar roughly translate to "body/bodies"

"But by nature the fear of Men were in much less strong control of their hroar than was the case of Elves. Individual Elves might be seduced to a minor "Melkorism": desiring to be their own masters in Arda, and to have things their own way, leading in extreme cases to rebellion against the tutelage of the Valar; but not one had ever entered the service or allegiance of Melkor himself, nor ever denied the existence and absolute supremacy of Eru."

JRRT, commentary to The Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth ("Converse of Finrod and Andreth"), Morgoth's Ring

And in the same general "phase" of writing (this time in Laws and Customs of the Eldar), it's said that some Elves without bodies (Elvish spirits who refused the summons to Mandos):

"... some are filled with bitterness, grievance, and envy. Some were enslaved by the Dark Lord and do his work still, though he himself is gone. They will not speak truth or wisdom. To call on them is folly."

To be enslaved by the Dark Lord is different from entering his service, but these "some" are not nice Elven spirits obviously, and can be dangerous. I think this was Tolkien's way of "explaining" (in a sense) some of the more modern tales about wicked "fairies" or "elves" coming into contact with Men, spirits "... haunting trees or springs or hidden places that once they knew."

And Maeglin wasn't the best of Elves, for example, in any case :)

There's also Eöl, And Celegorm and Curufin, who captured, and tried to forcefully marry Lúthien to Celegorm...Curufin tried to kill Lúthien too....

Yeah..bad apples ruin the bunch.

:eek::eek::eek:o_O:confused:

CL
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
In contrast to my approach, some folks (at least seem to) take whatever Tolkien wrote at any point in time and call it internal (well it's not that simple or random of course, but very generally speaking here, for brevity), sometimes even accepting wholly different draft histories as internal variants.

No offense to such folks, they seem bright and shiny, but I think this approach turns a blind eye to the natural process of writing, and undermines Tolkien's art of world building -- in other words, fans doing this create inconsistencies where none really exist, in an internal sense, and from Tolkien's perspective.

No doubt (I think) Tolkien was going to inject a measure of purposed inconsistency to echo real world texts, but in my opinion, all the more reason to be wary of disrupting his balance. I would say it's an art Tolkien took seriously, even though at times he gave into his penchant for revision even with respect to already published (!) accounts...

... something I'm not sure he would have done had he foreseen the future of the internet, and Tolkien scholarship.


Anyway I'll try to get around to explaining the Chosen-name if no one else beats me to it... just in case it wasn't abandoned, despite Christopher Tolkien's brief commentary about its lack of mention in a later account about Elven naming.

Chosen-name

In which point, maybe, the Noldor differed from the other Eldar. It is said that the Elf-child had the right to name himself or herself, but the ceremony of "Name-choosing" could not take place before the child was deemed ready and capable of lámatyáve, as the Noldor called it: that is, of individal pleasure in the sounds and forms of words.

In elder times the Chosen-name or second name was usually freshly devised. In later ages, when there was a great abundance of names already in existence "...it was more often selected from names that were known. But even so some modification of the old name might be made."

The "true-names" are here [Laws and Customs of the Eldar] said to be the Father-name and the Chosen-name, and the Chosen-names were said to be regarded by the Noldor as part of their personal property. New chosen names could be added.

Also there's a statement concerning the private nature of the Chosen Name: "The use of the chosen name, except by members of the same house (parents, sisters, and brothers), was a token of closest intimacy and love, when permitted. It was, therefore, presumptious or insulting to use it without permission."

But as I noted earlier in the thread, there's a later, briefer account of Elvish naming, in which this type of name is not mentioned, so Christopher Tolkien noted...

"[The wholly different account of "Chosen Names" in Laws And Customs among the Eldar (X. 214-15) appears to have been abandoned.]" Christopher Tolkien, note 16, The Shibboleth of Feanor

Whether abandoned or not might be arguable though, since the custom of Chosen Names had been implied to be specifically Noldorin in any event, and it seems at least possible that this custom was not noted in a later, shorter account, concerning names among the Eldar in general.

My brief summary :) turns out I had most of it written out in various posts already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
The Elvish words fea, plural fear, roughly translate to "spirit(s)", while hroa plural hroar roughly translate to "body/bodies"

"But by nature the fear of Men were in much less strong control of their hroar than was the case of Elves. Individual Elves might be seduced to a minor "Melkorism": desiring to be their own masters in Arda, and to have things their own way, leading in extreme cases to rebellion against the tutelage of the Valar; but not one had ever entered the service or allegiance of Melkor himself, nor ever denied the existence and absolute supremacy of Eru."

JRRT, commentary to The Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth ("Converse of Finrod and Andreth"), Morgoth's Ring

And in the same general "phase" of writing (this time in Laws and Customs of the Eldar), it's said that some Elves without bodies (Elvish spirits who refused the summons to Mandos):

"... some are filled with bitterness, grievance, and envy. Some were enslaved by the Dark Lord and do his work still, though he himself is gone. They will not speak truth or wisdom. To call on them is folly."

To be enslaved by the Dark Lord is different from entering his service, but these "some" are not nice Elven spirits obviously, and can be dangerous. I think this was Tolkien's way of "explaining" (in a sense) some of the more modern tales about wicked "fairies" or "elves" coming into contact with Men, spirits "... haunting trees or springs or hidden places that once they knew."

And Maeglin wasn't the best of Elves, for example, in any case :)
Wow. So, if an elf lived individually, or alone, he could possibly be a bit wicked.

Like Eöl maybe? What about him?

What do you mean elves without bodies? The fade away? Or they died but refused the call of Mandos?

And I totally agree with you about Maeglin.
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
"What do you mean elves without bodies? The fade away? Or they died but refused the call of Mandos?"

Elves who die but refuse the summons to Mandos are called the Houseless, and some of these bodiless spirits could be dangerous to Men, as I say above.

Elves whose bodies fade and can no longer (normally) be seen by Men are called the Lingerers... they are generally awesome.
 

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
"What do you mean elves without bodies? The fade away? Or they died but refused the call of Mandos?"

Elves who die but refuse the summons to Mandos are called the Houseless, and some of these bodiless spirits could be dangerous to Men, as I say above.

Elves whose bodies fade and can no longer (normally) be seen by Men are called the Lingerers... they are generally awesome.
O I see. Cool!

So the HOUSELESS, are elves who died while LINGERERS are elves who faded. I see.

Why the Houselesses are dangerous to men? Because maybe the houseless can be corrupted by the dark?

Are they only dangerous to men? What about other creatures?

What do the Lingerers do?
Are they dangerous too?
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
"Why the Houselesses are dangerous to men?"

Some say the Houseless desire bodies, and the wicked among them will take bodies unlawfully, if they can. The peril of communing with them includes being deluded by fantasies and lies, but some may also try to take over living bodies in various ways.

"Are they only dangerous to men? What about other creatures?"

The essay is written from a Man's perspective (possibly Elfwine the Mariner, at least in part) and states that it's perilous for the "Living" to seek to commune with the Houseless.

A specific note by Elfwine relates: "[Thus it may be seen that those who in latter days hold that the Elves are dangerous to Men and that it is folly or wickedness to seek converse with them do not speak without reason. (...)]" So that's why I said Men I guess, but the more general "Living" appears in the account too. In my opinion Men are the "target readers" anyway.

"What do the Lingerers do?"

Linger in Middle-earth :D

"Are they dangerous too?"

Well, a cute little wolf-pup could be dangerous in a given situation ;)

But my silly remark aside, the Lingerers are not Houseless, do not desire bodies, nor strive for mastery over body or mind. They do not seek converse with Men, save maybe rarely, either for the doing of some good, or because they perceive in a Man's spirit some love of things ancient and fair.

As said: awesome.
 
Last edited:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
"Why the Houselesses are dangerous to men?"

Some say the Houseless desire bodies, and the wicked among them will take bodies unlawfully, if they can. The peril of communing with them includes being deluded by fantasies and lies, but some may also try to take over living bodies in various ways.

"Are they only dangerous to men? What about other creatures?"

The essay is written from a Man's perspective (possibly Elfwine the Mariner, at least in part) and states that it's perilous for the "Living" to seek to commune with the Houseless.

A specific note by Elfwine relates: "[Thus it may be seen that those who in latter days hold that the Elves are dangerous to Men and that it is folly or wickedness to seek converse with them do not speak without reason. (...)]" So that's why I said Men I guess, but the more general "Living" appears in the account too. In my opinion Men are the "target readers" anyway.

"What do the Lingerers do?"

Linger in Middle-earth :D

"Are they dangerous too?"

Well, a cute little wolf-pup could be dangerous in a given situation ;)

But my silly remark aside, the Lingerers are not Houseless, do not desire bodies, nor strive for mastery over body or mind. They do not seek converse with Men, save maybe rarely, either for the doing of some good, or because they perceive in a Man's spirit some love of things ancient and fair.

As said: awesome.
Can the Houselesses spirits finally go to Mandos? Maybe they finally regret their decision to refuse Mandos.

And , can the Lingerers do the same? I mean, they dont have a particular desire like the Houselesses who take bodies. You said they only linger there.

Where do elves plant their vegetables? Do they have a small garden or what? For example, Rivendell elves. There are salads, but where do they come from?

Another question, Mirkwood elves drink wine. Where do they get the wine? As I recall from the movies, there are several barrels that are sent to Bard. Do Esgaroth have wine field or wine brewery? Because its unlikely.

Anddd another question again, I have ever read in one of a text of Thingol's feast that they ear meats. Do they have a butchery or at least just a butcher?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Starbrow

Tolkien Fan
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
164
Location
Wootton Major
The Hobbit talks about wines from the region of Dorwinion, which I believe is to the east of Mirkwood and the Long Lake.
 

Elthir

Registered User
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
1,002
Reaction score
467
"Where do elves plant their vegetables?"

In the ground. After trying the clouds and the ocean, of course, which didn't work well.

:p;):p

Be careful basing anything on what you see in Jackson's films. Elves eat meat and can live for thousands of years, and I'm guessing plenty of them knew how to butcher animals for food.

I also note a scene in one film (in Rivendell, which doesn't look like Tolkien's depiction of Rivendell by the way) in which a Dwarf mistakes a male Elf for a female Elf -- rather odd I would say, since this never happens in any of Tolkien's books, and it's actually the Dwarves who cannot be told apart -- male from female -- by other races, in Middle-earth...

... the films do hint at this, granted, although in the books it's not simply because Dwarf women are bearded, which might be the suggestion from a scene in Jackson's second film of six, and any brief scene in Jackson's Hobbit series where he includes Dwarf women.

Interestingly, in at least two of Tolkien's earlier depictions of Rivendell (his own artwork), there seems to be more land surrounding the house, and the vale appears wider -- compared to the final version. Though in any case, his final depiction leaves imaginative room for more (than can be seen from the vantage point of the artist) level-ish ground on/in which to plant things, along with wooded areas.
 
Last edited:

Mithrellas.Dagoranna

Heiress of Ecthelion of the Fountain
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
Imládris
"Where do elves plant their vegetables?"

In the ground. After trying the clouds and the ocean, of course, which didn't work well.

:p;):p

Be careful basing anything on what you see in Jackson's films. Elves eat meat and can live for thousands of years, and I'm guessing plenty of them knew how to butcher animals for food.

I also note a scene in one film (in Rivendell, which doesn't look like Tolkien's depiction of Rivendell by the way) in which a Dwarf mistakes a male Elf for a female Elf -- rather odd I would say, since this never happens in any of Tolkien's books, and it's actually the Dwarves who cannot be told apart -- male from female -- by other races, in Middle-earth...

... the films do hint at this, granted, although in the books it's not simply because Dwarf women are bearded, which might be the suggestion from a scene in Jackson's second film of six.

Interestingly, in at least two of Tolkien's earlier depictions of Rivendell (his own artwork), there seems to be more land surrounding the house, and the vale appears wider -- compared to the final version. Though in any case, his final depiction leaves imaginative room for more (than can be seen from the vantage point of the artist) level-ish ground on/in which to plant things, along with wooded areas.
Wowww!!! Thankssss!!!

My mind wasn't thinking that far atm. So, I asked. And after I read your answer, I feel stupid. Why I even asked such question???? But nevermindI. Thanksss again....
 

Thread suggestions

Top