The other day, I was reading a story about Maedhros and Maglor during the attack on the settlement at Sirion. Maedhros and Maglor search for the Silmaril. Together, they burst into a room and find not the jewel but the twin sons of Eärendil, Elrond and Elros. The twins try to defend themselves but they are too small. Maedhros lifts his sword to slay them and–

Then, suddenly, it occurred to me: That never happened.

The idea that Maedhros wished to slay the sons of Eärendil before his hand was stayed by Maglor is a popular fallacy in Silmarillion-based fiction. I was curious as to how many people thought that it was canon that Maedhros threatened to kill Eärendil’s sons at Sirion, so I posted a poll in my LiveJournal. As of collecting poll results on 17 November 2008, at 11 AM EST, just under 13% of respondents thought that “[d]uring the attack on the settlement at Sirion, Maedhros wanted to kill Elrond and Elros, but Maglor stopped him.” But, perhaps more intriguing than that, just over 28% of respondents weren’t sure if this was canon or not, which means that 41% of Tolkien fans who responded to the poll either thought that Maedhros’s threat to the boys at Sirion was either canon or possibly canon.

But this idea is a fanon, though I think the poll results underscore that it is a tenacious one. I remember encountering it in some of the first Silmarillion-based stories that I read. As attested by my recent experience, it is still making the rounds, and almost half of Tolkien readers don’t recognize it as AU (nor are authors writing stories based on this fanon particularly forthcoming about this fact, at least in my experience, which suggests that they likely believe its canonicity as well or believe that a fanon so deeply entrenched no longer warrants an “AU” designation … though tell that to Maedhros/Fingon authors!). This is intended in no way to reflect poorly on readers or authors who either believe this to be canon or who think there is a possibility that it might be. I would have to disparage myself as well, since at one point in my “career” as a student of Tolkien’s works I would have confidently checked the “Canon” option. When I first encountered this fanon, I was not well-versed in canon, so my mind adjusted what I read in Tolkien’s books to accommodate what enough authors wrote about that, surely, it must be true. Right?

Defining canon is difficult for any of Tolkien’s works, but that difficulty is compounded when trying to make sense of The Silmarillion. The Silmarillion was published posthumously. It was an incomplete and ever-evolving work that Tolkien had literally spent a lifetime writing. Christopher Tolkien took what drafts and scraps he could find and attempted to create from it a coherent history that he felt represented his father’s last word on many subjects that had never achieved anything near to finality in JRRT’s lifetime. With the publication of The History of Middle-earth series, fans and students of JRRT’s work were given access to the same materials with which Christopher Tolkien had worked–and then some–and the unique opportunity to Monday-morning-quarterback CT’s version of The Silmarillion. Hence, it is not at all uncommon to find Silmarillion authors who don’t use parts of The Silmarillion as their primary canon but prefer the “HoMe version” that they feel probably better represents JRRT’s final word on a subject. Therefore, when discussing matters of “canon” in The Silmarillion and how fanons evolve from the texts, it is important to consider not only The Silmarillion but the portions of The History of Middle-earth on which it is based.

What does The Silmarillion say about Maedhros and Maglor’s relationship with Elrond and Elros? It’s pretty straightforward:

For the sons of Fëanor that yet lived came down suddenly upon the exiles of Gondolin and the remnant of Doriath, and destroyed them. In that battle some of their people stood aside, and some few rebelled and were slain upon the other part aiding Elwing against their own lords (for such was the sorrow and confusion in the hearts of the Eldar in those days); but Maedhros and Maglor won the day, though they alone remained thereafter of the sons of Fëanor, for both Amrod and Amras were slain. Too late the ships of Círdan and Gil-galad the High King came hasting to the aid of the Elves of Sirion; and Elwing was gone, and her sons. Then such few of that people as did not perish in the assault joined themselves to Gil-galad, and went with him to Balar; and they told that Elros and Elrond were taken captive, but Elwing with the Silmaril upon her breast had cast herself into the sea. …

Great was the sorrow of Eärendil and Elwing for the ruin of the havens of Sirion, and the captivity of their sons, and they feared that they would be slain; but it was not so. For Maglor took pity upon Elros and Elrond, and he cherished them, and love grew after between them, as little might be thought; but Maglor’s heart was sick and weary with the burden of the dreadful oath. (1)

Nowhere in this account is Maedhros said to have wanted death for the young sons of Eärendil, much less that he tried to accomplish it.

However, there is one portion of this quote that I suspect is the basis of the fanon that Maedhros attempted to slay Elrond and Elros before being stopped by Maglor: “… [Elwing and Eärendil] feared that [their sons] would be slain; but it was not so. For Maglor took pity upon Elros and Elrond” (1). “Maglor took pity” … surely that implies a darker fate for the sons of Eärendil, does it not? Furthermore, Elwing and Eärendil had reason to fear that their sons would be killed by their captors.

To address the points out of order: of course Elwing and Eärendil thought the Fëanorians possessed the capacity and motivation to kill children. Elwing and Eärendil are certainly not partial to the Fëanorians, nor would they be particularly inclined to give them credit for mercy, much less justice. I think it’s important to distinguish between the point-of-view of The Silmarillion‘s narrator–who possesses some distance if not complete impartiality–and the points-of-view of the characters, who certainly held the considerable bias expected of anyone who survived two attacks from the same people and would have lacked the emotional distance to overcome this. To them, the Fëanorians would have been inhuman, barbarian, capable of slaughtering small children simply to exact vengeance. Elwing, also, lost both of her brothers to the “cruel servants of Celegorm” during the attack on Doriath; would she even have known of Celegorm’s death and Maedhros’s attempt to save her brothers? (2) Furthermore, it is unlikely for reasons of propaganda: When trying to convince the people of Sirion of the justice of their cause in withholding the Silmaril from the Fëanorians, it would not have behooved Elwing or Eärendil to acknowledge their foe’s capacity for mercy. Short of painting Elwing or Eärendil as liars (which I am not willing to do), this makes it very likely that they would have come to believe this themselves, a belief that likely would have strengthened the more they invoked it.

So Elwing and Eärendil’s belief that their sons’ lives were in danger is neither surprising nor a reliable statement about the Fëanorians’ intentions.

Maglor’s taking pity on the sons of Eärendil really does not say anything about Maedhros either. In light of the fanon that Maedhros wished to slay the boys, of course, it applies quite neatly. But that is hardly the only interpretation to which that statement fits. A council might have met to decide the boys’ fate, at which Maglor spoke of his pity for them and his intentions to foster them. Perhaps the children were to be held as captives but for Maglor’s pity. Perhaps they were to be left in their settlement with the few survivors, but Maglor feared that this might cause them hardship or death and, pitying them, wished to offer them a better chance. Maybe they were to be fostered to someone else–say a mother with several children already–but Maglor chose to raise them instead. The interpretations into which that passage will fit are endless.

And, in fact, I would argue that the popular fanon under discussion here is one of the least logical interpretations, given what we know about Maedhros.

What do we know of him in The Silmarillion? His detractors will be quick to point out his oath and his role in three kinslayings, as well as the fact that he sat at the head of the House of Fëanor through all of the First Age and, therefore, would have borne primary responsibility for the kinslayings at Doriath and Sirion, which could not have happened without his consent. These things are all true. But there are other equally valid facts that temper his characterization. Of his house, canon shows him to be most concerned with unity and peace. At the Fëanorians’ first landing on Beleriand, he stood up to his father and asked that the ships be sent back for the House of Fingolfin. He relinquished the high kingship to Fingolfin not long after. He, with Maglor, attended the Mereth Aderthad. Canon shows him maintaining friendship with both the Houses of Fingolfin and Finarfin. He orchestrated the Union of Maedhros, which might have been successful but for treachery. Prior to both the kinslayings at Doriath and Sirion, he attempted diplomacy and was turned away both times. If we place credit for the kinslayings most solidly on his shoulders as the head of his house, so we must place credit for the diplomacy that, had it been accepted, would have avoided need for the attacks.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence against the fanon in question is Maedhros’s action after he discovered that the sons of Dior had been left to starve in the woods by Celegorm’s servants: “Of this Maedhros indeed repented, and sought for them long in the woods of Doriath; but his search was unavailing, and of the fate of Eluréd and Elurín no tale tells” (2).

If he was indeed repentant and went so far as to search “for them long in the woods of Doriath,” why would he slay out-of-hand two other young innocents in an almost identical situation?

I’d go so far as to argue that, based on what we know of Maedhros, to depict him as willing to slaughter two children without cause is out-of-character. Yes, a writer can make a case for something happening between the kinslayings at Doriath and Sirion that would make what we know of him based on almost six hundred years’ (3) evidence of statesmanship and mercy no longer applicable. But that writer will have to make a strong case for that and, frankly–given that most stories employing this fanon plop us right into the room with the sons of Eärendil or, at best, the battle–most stories do not. The assumption is that Maedhros is nasty enough to contemplate such an act, which is terribly out-of-character.

But, as I noted earlier, not all authors consider The Silmarillion as their canon. I think, then, that it is also necessary to look at what The History of Middle-earth has to say about this event and Maedhros’s role in it.

Elwing’s choice to withhold the Silmaril from the sons of Fëanor is one of the oldest ideas that was maintained consistently through to The Silmarillion‘s publication and first appeared in the Nauglafring in The Book of Lost Tales 2. In fact, in Christopher Tolkien’s commentary on the next History of Middle-earth volume, he states, “The Sons of Fëanor have previously all been named only in the Tale the Nauglafring,” making their involvement with Elwing and her Silmaril as old as they are (4). At this point, however, The Book of Lost Tales lacks any mention of her children and the Fëanorians’ treatment of them.

But the idea did not proceed without changes. We see the story emerge again in The Shaping of Middle-earth (HoMe, vol. IV) in the summary “Sketch of the Mythology”:

Their son (Elrond) who is half-mortal and half-elfin, a child, was saved however by Maidros. When later the Elves return to the West, bound by his mortal half he elects to stay on earth. Through him the blood of Hurin (his great-uncle) and of the Elves is yet among Men, and is seen yet in valour and in beauty and in poetry” (5, boldface mine).

 

So, in the earliest version as this story takes shape, it is Maedhros who takes pity on Elrond, not Maglor.

“Sketch” was then expanded into the Quenta Noldorinwa, or simply Quenta. For the section of the story concerned, there existed two versions. In the first version (Q1), we see the continuation of the idea in “Sketch” that Maedhros rescued Elrond: “But Maidros took pity upon her child Elrond, and took him with him, and harboured and nurtured him, for his heart was sick and weary with the burden of the dreadful oath,” where we also see some of the language of the published Silmarillion taking shape (6). The second version (Q2) at first continues this idea of Maedhros-as-savior. However, revisions to Q2 introduce two important changes. Elrond is given a brother, Elros. And Maglor and Maedhros switch roles, with Maglor becoming the children’s savior. The Earliest Annals of Beleriand and The Later Annals of Beleriand, which are believed to be slightly later than the Quenta, echo the changes in roles between Maedhros and Maglor. (See Notes for a more detailed analysis of the addition of Elros and the likely sequence in which the primary source texts were written and revised.)

And this, so far as we know, was Tolkien’s final word on the subject (7).

“After the hasty ‘Sketch of the Mythology,’ … the Quenta Noldorinwa [Quenta] was in fact the only complete version of ‘The Silmarillion’ that my father ever made,” writes Christopher Tolkien in the Prefare to The Shaping of Middle-earth. JRRT was interrupted in his work on The Silmarillion to write The Lord of the Rings. He simply never got back to it in its entirety. The fact that the wording used in the Quenta is almost exactly what would be published in The Silmarillion for the account of Elrond and Elros makes sense, given this: It was the final version that CT would have taken as “canon” when putting together The Silmarillion. So, in the HoMe, there is no mysterious expansion on the account given in The Silmarillion of Elrond and Elros’s fostering by Maglor that shows Maedhros to be ruthless in excess of what we observe throughout the rest of the published Silmarillion. In fact, we see quite the opposite: JRRT’s original conception of Maedhros was as the twins’ rescuer, not potential murderer. The reassignment of this role to Maglor came rather late and was only repeated in the Annals of Beleriand before Tolkien ceased to write any further on the subject.

I think that this is significant, not so much in asserting that Maedhros and Maglor were mis-assigned roles in the published Silmarillion (because Maglor-as-savior does appear to be a final and reliable revision) but to lend further proof to the fact that Maedhros behaving without mercy towards the twins is terribly out-of-character. With few exceptions, JRRT established early the roles the Fëanorians would one day have in the published version. Maedhros and Maglor–just as in The Silmarillion–stood out for their guilt and capacity for mercy as compared to their brothers. In the several versions of the “Silmarillion” found in The Shaping of Middle-earth, these traits can almost be said to become these characters’ foundations. Not only are they involved early in the sparing of Eärendil’s sons, they go so far as to forswear their oath following the desertion of Dior’s sons. They attack Sirion only reluctantly and under pressure from Amrod and Amras, who earn their deaths in that battle much as “the 3Cs” earn their deaths at Doriath:

In annal 210 it is said that Maidros actually forswore his oath (although in the final annal he still strives to fulfil it); and this is clearly to be related to his revulsion at the killing of Dior’s sons in the annal for 206. Damrod and Diriel [Amrod and Amras] now emerge as the most ferocious of the surviving sons of Fëanor, and it is on them that the blame for the assault on the people of Sirion is primarily laid: Maidros and Maglor only ‘gave reluctant aid’. This develops further an increasing emphasis in these texts on the weariness and loathing felt by Maidros and Maglor for the duty they felt bound to. (8)

 

As a self-proclaimed “Fëanatic,” attempts to vilify the Fëanorians beyond what their canonical deeds already accomplish for them tends to annoy me because of the flat characterization it produces, if nothing else. And part of me wonders if this fanon has been seized so eagerly by authors who don’t like the Fëanorians and are quick to assume the truth behind any besmirching of their names that isn’t dismissed outright by the canon.

But, then, a more reasonable voice replies that fanon is fanon, and there really is no reason to assume bias much less maliciousness at work behind this particular fanon.

After all, as MithLuin remarked in a comment on my original LiveJournal post on this topic, this fanon does add tension to an event hastily sketched in the published Silmarillion:

But conflict makes for good drama, so in a story, it works better to have them argue over this before he agrees, rather than writing:
“I want to keep them!” ~ Maglor
“Okay.” ~ Maedhros :)

This is an event of enormous historical and symbolic significance to people who study and write about Tolkien’s works. Its cursory treatment in the text belies the enthusiasm people feel for writing about it, and with good reason. In this event there is an intersection of the three ages that receive the most treatment in fiction set in Tolkien’s world. There are Maedhros and Maglor of the First Age, committing some of their final acts before going to death and self-exile, respectively; this event, in many ways, represents the closing of the chapter on First Age history. There are Elrond and Elros, who in the Second Age will aid in developing their respective Elven and mortal communities, in many ways representing here the beginning of the chapter on Second Age history. And, of course, all of this will culminate in the Third Age, the epic events of that era being impossible without this moment in distant history, when Elrond’s house and especially the heir of Elros (Aragorn) will aid in banishing Sauron from Middle-earth. It comes as no surprise to me, in looking at stories about this topic, to see an enthusiasm for tales about Maedhros and Maglor’s relationship with Elrond and Elros among fans of both The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings. There are few better examples of the continuity and connectivity of Tolkien’s several works than this.

And, at the same time, there is emotional power there as well: two kinslayers at the ends of their lives who still have love and mercy enough in their hearts to aid two orphans. There is symbolism in the loss of their twin brothers Amrod and Amras in the same battle in which the twins Elrond and Elros are found; there is the deeper connection to those twins Eluréd and Elurín lost during the second kinslaying and the chance to make amends, especially for Maedhros, for that terrible deed. Perhaps this is the reason for my distaste for this fanon. In Maedhros and Maglor’s mercy toward Elrond and Elros, Tolkien has created an event that serves as the climax to one story at the same time as it acts as the preface to another, as well as providing an apt example of the complexity of character in The Silmarillion that makes writing about the book such a delight. Thrusting one of the characters undeservedly into the place of villain ruins this.

Works Cited

1. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, “Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath.” Return to first in-text reference

2. Ibid., “Of the Ruin of Doriath.” Return to first in-text reference

3. This figure was computed using the final dates in The Grey Annals and The Tale of Years, both found in Volume XI of The History of Middle-earth: The War of the Jewels. These are JRRT’s most up-to-date timelines and fit together without contradicting each other, so can be used in conjunction to get fairly accurate chronologies for the First Age. I measured between the burning at Losgar (4997 YV or 47,871 Sun Years after the arrival of the Valar in Arda) and the Fëanorian sack of the settlement at Sirion (531 FA or 48,432 Sun Years after the arrival of the Valar in Arda) for a total of 561 years. Return to first in-text reference

4. J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. III, The Lays of Beleriand, ed. Christopher Tolkien, “Commentary on Part III: ‘Failivrin.'” Return to first in-text reference

5. J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. IV, The Shaping of Middle-earth, ed. Christopher Tolkien, The Earliest ‘Silmarillion’: The ‘Sketch of the Mythology,’ §17. Return to first in-text reference

6. Ibid., The Quenta §17. Return to first in-text reference

7. Ibid., The Earliest Annals of Beleriand, introductory material. Return to first in-text reference

8. Ibid., The Earliest Annals of Beleriand, Commentary. Return to first in-text reference

Bibliography

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, ed. Christopher Tolkien.

J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. II, The Book of Lost Tales 2, ed. Christopher Tolkien.

J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. IV, The Shaping of Middle-earth, ed. Christopher Tolkien.

J.R.R. Tolkien, The History of Middle-earth. Vol. V, The Lost Road and Other Writings, ed. Christopher Tolkien.

Notes

Annal 329 of The Later Annals of Beleriand reads, “The folk of Sirion were taken into the people of Maidros, such as yet remained; and Elrond was taken to nurture by Maglor.” This seems almost a reversal on the addition of Elros in the Quenta, until one considers that the multiple sources under discussion here are believed to be written close in time to each other, and it is not always possible to accurately date the revisions made. CT’s Commentary on the Later Annals of Beleriand, in the commentary to Annal 325, makes note that, “The order was then inverted to ‘Elros and Elrond’. No doubt at the same time, in annal 329, ‘Elrond was taken’ was changed to ‘Elros and Elrond were taken.’ This isn’t entirely relevant to the topic under discussion but is more to satisfy the curiousity of astute readers who note that my conclusions do not match exactly with the text proper of The Later Annals of Beleriand. Given all of this, I consider the following timeline as far as the composition and revision of JRRT’s various primary sources:

• The ‘Sketch of the Mythology’: Maedhros as savior of Elrond
• Quenta Noldorinwa, version 1 (Q1): Maedhros as savior of Elrond
• Quenta Noldorinwa, version 2 (Q2): Maedhros as savior of Elrond
• Q2 revised to reverse Fëanorians’ roles: Maglor as savior of Elrond
• The Earlier Annals of Beleriand: Maglor as savior of Elrond
• The Later Annals of Beleriand: Maglor as savior of Elrond
• Q2 and The Later Annals of Beleriand revised to add Elros: Maglor is now the savior of Elrond and Elros, and the final version has taken shape