The creature Gothmog at the Siege of Minas Tirith

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Here is the case when he is called Angmar:

So, why not Morgul?

It appears to me 'Angmar' simply refers to the region.

For at that time the realm of Angmar arose in the North beyond the Ettenmoors. ........ [The lord of that land was known as the Witch-king, but it was not known until later that he was indeed the chief of the Ring-wraiths, who came north with the purpose of destroying the Dúnedain in Arnor, seeing hope in their disunion, while Gondor was strong].

Appendix A ROTK

If he was 'the lord of that land', and himself called Angmar, why was he known as 'the Witch-king?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It appears to me 'Angmar' simply refers to the region.

Not in this quote, speaking of events of TA 3018 following the disaster at the ford of Bruinen. Here is the fuller quote:

Only the bodies of 8 horses were discovered; but also the raiment of the Captain. It is probable that the Captain took the one horse that remained (he may have had strength to withdraw it from the flood) and unclad, naked, invisible, rode as swift as he could back to Mordor. At swiftest he could not accomplish that (for his horse at least would need some food and rest, though he needed none) ere November had passed. The wrath and fear of Sauron then may be guessed; yet if there was any in the world in whom he trusted it was the Lord of Angmar; and if his wrath were lessened by perceiving that his great servant had defeated by ill chance (and the craft of the Wise) rather than by faults of his own, his fear would be the more – seeing what power was yet in his Enemies, and how sharply fortune favoured them at each turn when all seemed lost. Help no doubt was sent out to the other Ringwraiths as they made their way back, and they were bidden to remain secret again. It was no doubt at the end of 1418 that Sauron (S. likely aided by Angmar) bethought him of the winged mounts; and yet withheld them, until things became almost desperate and he was forced to launch his war in haste. RC p.262-3

[Inziladun]

I don't have the Reader's Companion, nor have I read it. Is it considered 'canon'?
And why' The Lord of Angmar, and not the Lord Angmar?

[Gordis]

The Hunt for the Ring in UT and RC is as uncanonic or canonic as all the unpublished Tolkien writings...

But the RC quote is indeed the single case in all the Legendarium where Tolkien calls the WK simply "Angmar", likely for shortness sake.


As for Morgul, I believe in many cases "Morgul" might mean the "Lord of Morgul", not "Minas Morgul":

By our valour the wild folk of the East are still restrained, and the terror of Morgul kept at bay...

the Rammas is breached far and wide, soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points

The lines of fire became flowing torrents, file upon file of Orcs bearing flames, and wild Southron men with red banners, shouting with harsh tongues, surging up, overtaking the retreat. […]The hosts of Morgul intent on their prey, taken at unawares in wild career, broke, scattering like sparks in a gale.

New forces of the enemy were hastening up the road from the River; and from under the walls came the legions of Morgul

Under the south walls of the City the footmen of Gondor now drove against the legions of Morgul that were still gathered there in strength.

but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray;

After all, can you find a single quote where "Minas Tirith" is called simply "Tirith"? There is not a single case. Why would Minas Morgul be different? Why would it be called simply "Morgul" so many times?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Gordis

After all, can you find a single quote where "Minas Tirith" is called simply "Tirith"? There is not a single case. Why would Minas Morgul be different? Why would it be called simply "Morgul" so many times?

That's an interesting comparison, and it's got me thinking about the meaning of both "Tirith" and "Morgûl." In neither case, if you consider the meaning, does it make any sense to say "Tirith's defences" or "Morgûl's armies." At least, it doesn't make much sense to me, since, literally, you'd be saying "the guard's defences" or "black sorcery's armies"--assuming you were referring to the cities, anyway. And, as both the progenitor of Sindarin and a linguist by trade, it seems unlikely--to me--that Tolkien would have used the Sindarin words and not considered their meaning simultaneously.

That being said, though...

I don't know that that actually proves that "Morgûl" on its own can be taken, therefore, as a marker of the Witch-king--at least not on a straight parallel to Minas Tirith, since if one refers to a ruler by the place he is ruler of, then it would follow here that, to parallel the use of "Angmar" as signifying the Witch-king, you should really be using "Minas Morgûl" to signify the Witch-king--unless, perhaps, you want to make the argument that "Black Sorcery" is being used, not to signify a place the Witch-king is lord over and identified with, but a thing or idea he is being identified with as the public body--the embodiment of. Which is an argument you can make... but I don't think the parallel with Minas Tirith entails it.

[Boromir88]

I don't know that that actually proves that "Morgûl" on its own can be taken, therefore, as a marker of the Witch-king~Formendacil

Well it wasn't changed from Minas Ithil to Minas Morgul until after the Nazgul took possession.

However, it does lie in the Morgul vale, or Imlad Morgul, which as far as I know was always the name of the area surrounding Minas Ithil/Morgul.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well it wasn't changed from Minas Ithil to Minas Morgul until after the Nazgul took possession.

However, it does lie in the Morgul vale, or Imlad Morgul, which as far as I know was always the name of the area surrounding Minas Ithil/Morgul.

I am pretty sure Imlad Morgul was formerly known as Imlad Ithil and Morgulduin likely was Ithilduin...

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I don't have the Reader's Companion, nor have I read it. Is it considered 'canon'?

Tsk tsk! Opening that can(on) of worms?

No one I know what call it such, as it's merely someone else's (Robert Foster's, if memory serves) index and brief explanation of people and places in the LotR--not bad, given when it was published (pre-Silm, or at least pre-Unfinished Tales), but not fully accurate, as it gets speculative in places and is directly contradicted by later, more authoritative (dare I say "canonical"? ) sources.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And why' The Lord of Angmar, and not the Lord Angmar?

The same reason the King of England can be called England, or the King of France called France. Of course, barring the obvious problem that France no longer has a monarch, we obviously don't use this type of language much anymore, mostly because we no longer have a view of the monarch wherein he is both the private person (himself) and the public person (the state = England/France/Angmar).

I don't want to say for certain, because my memory can't site any cases, but I think this type of usage is used in Shakespeare, possibly for monarchs, possibly (in the History places) for the Dukes (not saying these are Shakespearian examples, but they would be ducal examples: York, Lancaster, Norfolk). When you are referring to a monarch/lord as the body public, it is eminently properly to say "England," "Norfolk," or "Angmar." The "of" comes in when you use, additionally, his title, but the title is implied in the use of the place, since "Angmar" means, really, "the person who, by right of his office, is the body public of Angmar."

Gordis is not arguing at all, as I understand it, that the Witch-king's personal name was Angmar, but merely demonstrating that this type of usage is made use of by Tolkien in reference to the Witch-king: that is, he is referred to by the land he is identified with as lord. In the case of the Kingdom of Angmar, this is incontrovertible. Personally, I find Gordis's reasoning for a like reference where "Morgûl" is made use of in the text to be convincing.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Tsk tsk! Opening that can(on) of worms?

No one I know what call it such, as it's merely someone else's (Robert Foster's, if memory serves) index and brief explanation of people and places in the LotR--not bad, given when it was published (pre-Silm, or at least pre-Unfinished Tales), but not fully accurate, as it gets speculative in places and is directly contradicted by later, more authoritative (dare I say "canonical"? ) sources.

Sorry, the quote from Reader's Companion is written by Tolkien himself, it is a part of several manusripts of the "Hunt for the Ring". Partly these texts were published in the Unfinished Tales, partly in the Reader's companion and a large part remains yet unpablished, kept in the Marquette University.

The same reason the King of England can be called England, or the King of France called France. Of course, barring the obvious problem that France no longer has a monarch, we obviously don't use this type of language much anymore, mostly because we no longer have a view of the monarch wherein he is both the private person (himself) and the public person (the state = England/France/Angmar).

I don't want to say for certain, because my memory can't site any cases, but I think this type of usage is used in Shakespeare, possibly for monarchs, possibly (in the History places) for the Dukes (not saying these are Shakespearian examples, but they would be ducal examples: York, Lancaster, Norfolk). When you are referring to a monarch/lord as the body public, it is eminently properly to say "England," "Norfolk," or "Angmar." The "of" comes in when you use, additionally, his title, but the title is implied in the use of the place, since "Angmar" means, really, "the person who, by right of his office, is the body public of Angmar."

Exactly. Shakespeare uses that a lot. We also use it just for shortness' sake, like calling Arthur Wellesley "Wellington" instead of "Duke of Wellington"

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Gordis is not arguing at all, as I understand it, that the Witch-king's personal name was Angmar, but merely demonstrating that this type of usage is made use of by Tolkien in reference to the Witch-king: that is, he is referred to by the land he is identified with as lord. In the case of the Kingdom of Angmar, this is incontrovertible. Personally, I find Gordis's reasoning for a like reference where "Morgûl" is made use of in the text to be convincing.

That is correct, and thank you!

Actually I am arguing that the WK likely used the Sindarin name Aran Morgul= "Lord of Black Sorcery" for most of the Third Age. This translates both as the Witch-King and as Morgul-King