Amrod or Amras: Which one died in Losgar?

[Breogán]

According to the Shibboleth of Fëanor (notes included), to me it is clear that it was Amras - the youngest - who died when his father set fire to the ships.
However, a team-member of our game project insists that it was Amrod, according to his interpretation of the Shibboleth and the relevant notes.
I have browsed the net searching for information on this topic and I have come across sites supporting both sides...
Any ideas?

[Tyrhael]

It was always the seventh (youngest) son who died, but after Tolkien decided that the seventh son died, his name was no longer Amras. They were originally Amrod (#6) and Amras (#7), but after JRRT came up with the storyline of #7 dying in the ship-burning, he decided that both would have the name Ambarussa, Sindarized as Amros.

A note in VT41:10 says "Amros Sindarin for Ambarussa. Had Amros Ambarto lived, it [i.e. the name Ambarto] would probably have been [Sindarized] as Amrod, but when[?encountered] at all in Sindarin form it was [?] Amarthan Fated One. S. ambart- > ammarth, amarth fate = Umbarto. Maedros, Maglor, Celegorm, Caranthir, Amros, Amarthan.

So, it was always the younger twin that died. His name was originally Amras — but that was before the idea that he died at Losgar. Later, they were (#6) Amros and (#7) Amarthan (who would have been called Amrod if he had lived).

So you can make a point that both and neither "Amrod" and "Amras" died in the ship-burning (because of the name changes, though it was always #7).

So you can't call him Amras if you're going to use the ship-burning idea and be consistent with the timeline, but he wouldn't be called Amrod either.

[Breogán]

Thanks

[Galin]

I have browsed the net searching for information on this topic and I have come across sites supporting both sides...

And it's still being confused on the interweb, but that's because of the factors Tyrhael has (in my opinion) correctly explained.


And not that anyone has challenged that explanation... ah... in years now, but I'll add my thoughts (below) to Tyrhael's. But also, since I know Voronwë still posts here, I wonder if Breogan asked (also) because she planned (at least) an illustration for AR and wanted to depict the son that lived, and give him a name.



_____________________
The story goes that Fëanor did not like that both sons had the same name, Ambarussa, and he called the 7th son Ambarto rather -- despite that Nerdanel had changed it to Umbarto. Anyway this son is slain in the burning, and Tolkien notes what he would have likely been called in Sindarin had he lived (and thus was not called, because he did not live), and that is -- Amrod. However, since he died he was referred to in Sindarin as Amarthan.


Why? keeping in mind that at the time of the burning the Noldor spoke Quenya, I think it all depended upon what name was considered rightly given, combined with what name would have prevailed in Middle-earth: Fëanor's Ambarto, or Nerdanel's Umbarto; and it was Nerdanel who proved ultimately correct, and Ambarto never got a chance to be rendered as Amrod in Middle-earth. And all the while Ambarussa remains a correct name too, in a sense and despite Fëanor's objections, and this would have become Amros in Sindarin. So we end up with:

6th son: Q. Ambarussa S. Amros

7th son: Q. Ambarussa S. Amros -- Ambarussa changed to either Umbarto (S. Amarthan) or Ambarto (S. Amrod) -- and with his death Umbarto/Amarthan was considered rightly given, given its fated meaning. And we arguably should add Telufinwe here as well, as that meaning goes with the youngest son.



So yes I agree it was Amrod, the youngest, who was burned at Losgar -- even though he was never called that (dying before he spoke Sindarin in any case), and there is no one named Amras in this new scenario -- but to Silmarillion readers the 7th and youngest son is named Amras!

And so the confusion lives on in corners of New Middle-earth

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this one of those questions that doesn't really have an answer, because of the constantly changing nature of the legendarium. The Shibboleth story of the death of Ambarussa Umbarto can't really be reconciled with the Quenta/Annals versions of the story that make up the bulk of the legendarium. Although it also true that in the text of the fairly late written chapter "Of the Coming of Men into the West" Bëor is stated to have settled in the lands of Diriol, the original name of Amras, with no mention of another twin, implying that Tolkien was incorporating the idea of one of the twins having died already into the text.

As for whether Breogan's question had anything to with the illustrations for AR, definitively not, since the question was asked long before there was any question of her preparing any illustrations for that book. In fact,

[Galin]

Ah I see -- concerning Breogan

Hmm, I think in The Problem of ROS JRRT noted his desire that this story be retained, and thus (I assume) he intended to reconcile it with older texts. And it doesn't seem like a very problematic reconciliation, at least with respect to later brief references to both Amrod and Amras... or have you unearthed something I'm not thinking of here?

If I imaginatively revise my Quenta Silmarillion, what's involved? I must admit I haven't yet thought much about how this tale might affect the existing story, as I've been focusing more on the confusion with respect to the changes in nomenclature.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, I don't think it would be that difficult. Every reference to them that I can think of to them are to both of them together; I can't think of a single occasion when they are referred to as separate individuals. So it would be just be a matter of changing all of those references to the single remaining twin.

And you are quite right that he specifically states in The Problem of Ros that the story should be retained. That is something that in hindsight I should have mentioned in AR. Oh well, there's always the 25th anniversary super extended version!

[elengil]

Just for the pure curious joy of it, I am replying to this thread to point out that it is the #1 result when you google "amrod amras which one died in the fire".

11 years later, this thread is the #1 result.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

How cool is that? But it does raise the question of what motivated you to google "amrod amras which one died in the fire?"

The other burning question is what I was going to say in the post above from November 11, 2011, when I wrote at the end: "In fact," and then didn't add anything else.

[Jude]

And do you remember?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not really, but if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that what I was going to say was something like, "In fact, each illustration in Arda Reconstructed was of a scene that was excluded from the published Silmarillion that I specifically requested Breogan to illustrate. Since I didn't mention in Arda Reconstructed that Tolkien specifically states in "The Problem of Ros" that the story of one of the twins perishing when the ships were burned as Losgar should be retained, I obviously wouldn't have requested an illustration of this scene."

[elengil]

How cool is that? But it does raise the question of what motivated you to google "amrod amras which one died in the fire?"

The other burning question is what I was going to say in the post above from November 11, 2011, when I wrote at the end: "In fact," and then didn't add anything else.

The motivation was that I was musing which of the 7 deadly sins the 7 sons of Fëanor would have been were we to attempt to assign them and I was thinking if we went with the version where one of the twins died at Losgar because he was sleeping on the ship then maybe that could be considered Sloth, so I was looking up which one that was.

This was what I had, I'm not sure that we ever actually get enough details on Ambarussa to make that association, and I'm not really happy with Maglor's either, but this is what I had... not really as serious attempt, just musing to pass the time.

Pride - Maedhros
Envy - Maglor
Lust - Celegorm
Greed - Caranthir
Wrath - Curufin
Gluttony/Sloth - Ambarussa

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Pretty interesting musing!

[Galin]

The other burning question is what I was going to say in the post above from November 11, 2011, when I wrote at the end: "In fact," and then didn't add anything else.

I think it's an excellent way to end a post.

I also think (speculation alert) that The Legend of Amarthan (as no one calls it) was itself to be a separate text, an Elvish text, wherein "night" and "morning" were to reflect a pre-existing sun, although the idea in general was to touch the mostly Mannish Silmarillion in any case . . . and yet, in a marginal note (see Morgoth's Ring, The Annals of Aman, commentary to section 162) we seem to have the two younger sons perishing in the fire!

Unless I read that wrongly.

But even if I do, see also The War of the Jewels, Maeglin, commentary on the Five Sons of Fëanor -- the five sons being mentioned three times!

In fact, . . .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hey Galin, great to see you here! Interesting speculation, as always! However, I do think you are reading that marginal note to AAm section 162 incorrectly. Christopher writes: "A marginal note at the end of the paragraph reads: 'Tragedy of the burning of one of Fëanor's [added: 2 younger] sons, who had returned to sleep in his ship.' I read that as saying simply that one of the two twins died in the fire. This is backed up by the Maeglin commentary that you reference, where Christopher writes of the three references to the five sons of Fëanor: "Possibly my father had come to believe that both
Amrod and Amras died in the burning ship," suggesting that Christopher had not come across the idea of both sons perishing before.

In fact ...

[Galin]

Thanks Voronwë . . . yes that reading (your reading above) makes more sense with the Maeglin commentary. It seems Tolkien was just narrowing down which son (in the marginal note found in the AAM section).

Galin? Oh yes I'm still Galin here!

[Eldy]

It's good to see you around, Galin!

[Galin]

Hi Eldy! Good to see you as well!

And if I may add my opinion, if indeed Tolkien had come to believe that both Amros and Amros died on the ship,
I prefer just the one. Something about the twin relationship being broken adds to the sorrow, I think.

I mean, if we're gonna "go there" in a tale . . .

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree, and since there is no narrative support for the idea of both twins dying on the ship I am comfortable with treating the references to the "five sons of Fëanor" in the Maeglin text as a slip of memory, even if the fact that Tolkien repeated it three times does suggest that it might have been an idea that he had gotten into his head. If so, however, I would treat it, to quote Christopher from a different contact, as an ephemeral idea.

[elengil]

I'm not sure how far back in time the '5 sons' references are, but it's possible he hadn't given Fëanor all 7 sons yet? It's fascinating how many iterations some of his stories went through and the way names jump genealogies here and there.