Talk:Glorfindel (Rivendell)

I recently found in The History of Middle-earth a definite proof (unless Tolkien changed his mind late in life) that the two Glorfindels are actually one. It was a library book that I recently returned, so I can't quote the exact words, but there was a whole chapter on it by Tolkien, and the point was this: "Elven names were almost sacred, and it would be ridiculous to think that a later elf took the name of an earlier great hero". I'm afraid I shall have to borrow it again for an exact quote (I think it was in The Peoples of Middle-earth), but at any rate, if you have the Histories, you will find that it is in there. I suggest the two articles merge. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:05, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Great find Narfil, though I do remember there being a debate on multiple Legolas' as well. If you can go into your Preferences and enable users to send you email I can assist you in finding the quote. --Hyarion 16:11, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

It's, indeed, in Vol. XII of The History of Middle-earth: The Peoples of Middle-earth, Part Two: 'Late writings', XIII: 'Last Writings. Of Glorfindel, Cirdan, and other matters'. As this touches upon the matter of canonicity, I think it's better to leave these two articles seperate. Perhaps the paragraph on Gl. of R. being the one and the same as Gl. of G. should be expanded (in this article; in the other onea link to here)? --Earendilyon 16:25, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Hmm, good question. Maybe the debate between the two would be better in simply Glorfindel? But as this article is the primary one then I would be fine with putting the debate here as well. --Hyarion 16:30, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

Well, it is rather annoying to have to divide articles between the two Glorfindels. I think they should be combined, and any objections to this combination listed at the bottom or the top introductory paragraph. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:56, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

I think it's a good idea to place the stuff on the two Glorfindels in the disambig article. I have objections to having the two articles fused to one, as the essay on the subject is in posthumously published writings of Tolkien. We don't know whether or not this were indeed Tolkien's final thoughts on the subject, nor whether or not he even would have wanted the essay to be published. --Earendilyon 02:19, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

• I'm putting a merge and redirect notice on both pages. Hopefully this should sort it out. Jasca Ducato 16:20, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

While I see good arguments for the two being the same, I don't think the question is so settled that the two articles should be merged into one. I'd just keep relevant links in each to the other and let the separate descriptions stand. --Ted C 12:10, 30 October 2006 (EST)

I thought I'd bring this up again. This is a good deal different than the combination of the Legolas article, where there is no evidence that they are the same. But Tolkien states pretty clearly, even if the article was not meant to be published, that they are the same. Also, Christopher Tolkien (I think, I don't have the book with me) accepts that this is final intent. The sum of the objections is that it wasn't a set thing in Tolkien's mind. He sure spent a lot of time on the article, and we do have that note in the earlier drafts of LotR, probably rejected as too distracting from the main plotline. It is, in my mind, more convenient anyway to combine the two articles, and to accept in general in articles that this is final intent. We can put a note or notes as to the small faction that doubts the validity of this idea, but overall it is far more convenient to combine them and far more likely than not that it is so. That is my opinion; though I agree in general with intricate detail, Glorfindel should have a main article as well. My suggestion is that we put all of Glorfindel's history on one page, then sum up the evidences and objections on Glorfindel disputes or Glorfindel controversy. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:24, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm also in favour of combining the Glorfindel articles. Whether something was published or not is rather by the by, since most of his thinking on Middle Earth was not published during his lifetime and came to light through postumous publications of his works. The fact is that Tolkien's last written word on the subject (that we are privy to at least) is pretty unequivocable in stating they are the same. Obviously it's worth pointing out that there is a debate on the matter in a section of the Glorfindel article but i think for the purposes of this encyclopedia the full life and death spanning 'saga' of Glorfindel should be presented as a whole. Dr Death 15:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)