# Talk:Glorfindel

Where does the curious "predecessor to the Istari" idea come from?  I don't see it on the page that I reference. Stan 05:31 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it in vol. 12.  Should finish reading HoME before shooting my mouth off, even though that's not the "Wiki way". :-) Stan 05:56 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Indeed.  I said I thought it was in Peoples of Middle Earth in the changes summary, you'll note.  But seeing as you figured it out yourself before I responded, it's no matter.  john 06:41 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I phrased my prev comment poorly - your hint in the changes summary was crucial to me finding the extended discussion. Thank you! Stan 12:32 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have added a discussion of the two Glorfindels which seeks a deeper understanding of the situation to the brief summary already given

I don't understand why Tolkien thought it was such a big deal that the Glorfindel in The Lord of the Rings has the same name as a First Age Elf. There are other characters who have named reused, such as Denethor and Húrin. Eric119 03:02, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

But Elves are immortal (within Arda). Glorfindel was a major character from the Gondolin legend, and therefore would have been very well known to later Elves—some of whom would have known him personally, or had known those who would have known him. Elrond, as son of Ëarendil, grew up in a community of refugees who for a large part owed their lives to Glorfindel, and since he was a hero of the Noldor even Maglor (Elrond's foster-father) would probably have told the tales. Certainly the tales were recounted during the Second Age in Lindon. Since the Gondolin Glorfindel would be alife in Valinor, no other Eldar would be named such: Elves apparently did not re-use names outside of their own family. Men have no such restriction, and many Gondorians were named after heroes from the First Age — Men and Elves. Glorfindel as a name was inherently tied in with the character, and therefore there could never have been two with the same name, and Tolkien would not have changed the name if he had ever been able to publish the Silmarillion. — Jor (Talk) 03:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And yes, I am aware of Legolas Greenleaf in the Gondolin legend and Rúmil the march-warden of Lórien. In the case of Legolas it can't be doubted that he would have been removed from the eventual final Gondolin story (he would have had to be renamed: his name is not Sindarin), and Rúmil as a name had never occured in published writing, and the character Rúmil the sage was being supplanted with Pengolodh. Had Tolkien published the Silmarillion, this Rúmil would probably have been renamed as well. — Jor (Talk) 03:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Rúmil the inventor of writing appears in Appendix F to The Lord of the Rings. Invention of writing is all that is ever said of Rúmil after the Unfinished Tales stage and certainly Pengolod, an Elf born after the return of the Noldor, would not be given that role. Tolkien probably quite understandabily misremembered that case. But the Lothlórien Rúmil's name would have been Sindarin or even Nandorinish in origin and so have been etymologically different from the name of the sage Rúmil. jallan 03:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would dispute that the prophecy was fulfilled.  It says "not by the hand of Man", which is quite a different meaning from "not by the hand of a man".  I think it's referring to the race of Men, of which Eowyn was a member.
Lianachan 12:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't say I agree.  Besides the fact that grammar was a specialty in Rivendell, "by the hand of man" could mean (on the level of 'poetical' discourse) "by the hand of a man."  Does Tolkien ever use "man" in the sense of Mankind?  I think it's always "Men" with him.  72.45.74.56 11:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it ment both so an elf or a female man or even gandalf could have killed witchking anything could have except a human man
Sorry, i have to add here, that the Witch-king was actually killed by Merry, who in fact is no Man, nor a man.

Whoever wrote the above didn't sign in, but that's patently false.  The Witch-King was killed by Eowyn.  Merry only stabbed him in the knee, not a fatal blow. 68.19.1.124 (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is probably open to interpretation.  Merry was wielding one of the daggers from the barrows, which had been created to battle the Witch-King of Angmar.  This unknit his sinews, and since Eowyn's sword  shattered, it is not clear that she was able to damage the wraith, let alone kill him.  I have always liked the ambiguity.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC).
However, according to Tolkien, hobbits were men.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I've seen both these arguments before but find them both unconvincing.  (a) Tolkien clearly means that Merry's sword unknit the sinews of the Witch-king's leg so that he stumbled, bringing him in range of Eowyn's sword, which dealt the fatal blow directly through the head. (b) While hobbits are clearly human (there being no evidence of separate creation) and therefore (like the Druedain) a category of men, it is also clear that they were considered to lie outside the traditional definition of Men, as witness everyone's unfamiliarity with them, and Treebeard's adding them to the list of living things.  That's the nature of mysterious prophecies: they are not logical syllogisms, but play on ambiguity, which we have here in spades. My reading of the prophecy is that both Merry and Eowyn were necessary to get the deed done. It required people we don't think of as men, and it required not "the hand" of a man but "the hands" (plural) of two "men". But your mileage may vary! -- Elphion (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The explanation of Glorfindel's name meaning "blonde hair" is false and should be corrected.
Glor-fin-del are each structural phonemes,  composing a name which describing the individual's spiritual/character qualities as well as reference to his lineage.  
The name "Glorfindel" is an amalgamation of elvish phonemes sourced in Welsh and Gaelic

                     glór- Gaelic for voice
                     fin- Quenya for prince/lord in the ancestral line of Finwe (Noldor) and Indis (Vanyar)  
                     del- Welsh for 'Fair' as in the 'Fair Elves', the Vanyar, the blonde ones

His name denotes a marriage between the Fair elves, the blonde Vanyar of Indis matriarchal line and the the House of Finwe from whom all Noldor descend. 
Yes, he is fair-haired but that does not explain his name sufficiently in terms of linguistics.   
In LOTR, Glorfindel displays a great talent and skill for music and he sings for the Hobbits
In Simarillion, he is called 'yellow-haired Glorfindel' when he enters to face the Balrog in defense of the folk of Gondolin at Cirith Thoronath and his battle is recorded in song; but "yellow hair" is hardly an admissible suggestion for the name's etymology.  His name means something more like "Fair Voiced Lord" or "Golden Voiced Lord" something like that referring to his Quenya heritage among the Noldor of Valinor.  Compare his name to Maglor (ma- glor), Son of Feanor, the "Mighty Singer".  EricVarn 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)EricVarEric

No, I'm afraid you misunderstand this part. "Glorfindel" is Sindarin (Grey-Elven) and means, broken down:
Glor (or. glaur): golden, light
Findel (finnel): braided hair
So, in short: Glorfindel means "golden hair", hence his epitaph, "yellow-haired Glorfindel". Tolkien does the same with Legolas btw, Legolas Greenleaf. Legolas means Greenleaf, just like "yellow-haired" means Glorfindel (and vice versa). Hackeru (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(Coming very late to this game:) -- The index of the Silmarillion says "The name means 'Golden-haired'." -- Elphion (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"...where they [the nazgûl] are swept away by a wave of water resembling charging horses (an enchantment of Elrond and Gandalf's)."
I remember reading somewhere (probably The Silmarillion) that Ulmo was the one causing that wave.
Ulmo is a guardian of all elves and certainly plays a role in this event, though it may not be explicitly stated.EricVarn 04:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Gandalf clearly states (and I am paraphrasing) "I added the horses. Nice touch, but I think we overdid it, as we nearly drowned you in the process" -Ben

Alright, I'm changing this section for the following reasons:
It is completely and utterly wrong.
BfME2 is clearly states as starting shortly after the Fellowship leaves (perhaps you should watch the campaign introduction)
Glorfindel and Gloin are the two primary characters of the good campaign, journeying West to the Gray Havens, slaughtering goblins, one dragon, and a large naval invasion force along the way. Then, they march east to arrive in time to help destroy Dol Guldur with the Lorien and Lonely Mountain forces.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.46.197.59 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC) 

well is he a wood elf anywhere? i understood though his father thranduil ruled the sylvan elves, he wasn't of them, so to speak--Mongreilf (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article state that Glorfindel of the First Age is the same as Glorfindel of the Third Age when Tolkien himself stated that explicitly? Carissimi (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tolkien did not explicitly state it. He wrote some letters giving his opinion but was constantly renewing and changing his mind on this and other issues. We don't have a definitive answer. GimliDotNet (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glorfindel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Notes below... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
...decided that it was a "somewhat random use" of a name.... - do you think he means that the name was inadvertently used twice? Is that clear in the source?
Yes. Reworded.
...Anger took the view that Tolkien's idea of an improved story for the character.. - is "improved" the right word here? More "explained"?
Reworded.
The last line of the Analysis should probably be further up in the section (maybe even touched on in the lead) - i.e. conjecture raised in section and then explained.
Moved, it fits well with the Don Anger material.
Try and avoid/minimise one-sentence paragraphs
Done.
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)