The creature Gothmog at the Siege of Minas Tirith

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by obloquy

In fact, why was neither Morgul nor Angmar ever used as a personal name in anything Tolkien wrote, even when it would have been convenient or apposite, apart from this one instance Gordis has uncovered? Speaking of that, what is this excerpt from, Gordis? What is RC? I've never seen the quotation before, but you appear to be basing your claim on a shorthand note in a commentary piece. I see just as much evidence here for the position that Sauron sometimes went by "S."

That's my thought. If Tolkien meant for 'Morgul' to be the name of the WK, he certainly seems to have gone out of his way to be oblique about it.
Other rulers are referred to as 'King Théoden', ' King Eärnur', and 'King Brand'. Why is WK not once called 'King Morgul'?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

That's my thought. If Tolkien meant for 'Morgul' to be the name of the WK, he certainly seems to have gone out of his way to be oblique about it.
Other rulers are referred to as 'King Théoden', ' King Eärnur', and 'King Brand'. Why is WK not once called 'King Morgul'?

Perhaps because Théoden, Eärnur, and Brand all have names--and predecessors and successors. The latter is the weaker argument, but it is worth noting, that the Witch-king is the one-and-only King of Angmar and King of Minas Morgûl. Théoden followed Thengel and preceded Éomer. Eärnur followed Eärnil and preceded Elessar. Brand followed Girion and preceded Bain. Granted, this wouldn't prevent the use of a character, at a given moment, referring to the King as "Rohan," but it would contribute greatly to why, in the context of the Appendices and other extra-narrative material, Angmar is referred to as such and no one else is--no one else ever was King of Angmar.

Within the tale, I think it's fair enough to note that this is not a particularly common way of referring to other people, past and present, and my general impression is that it's more literary than spoken--but, that being said, it's also a rather familiar way to speak of a king or lord, the sort of way, perhaps, that would be most likely to come from a peer. Hence, the King of England might refer to Louis N as "France" but it is less likely that an English or French peasant would. A peasant being derogatory would be more like to play off a knock-off of his title or address, as in "His Nibs," and a peasant being respectful would say "the King"--especially a French peasant, whose world would scarce have room for another king.

However, that's a rather long and not particularly well-grounded rambling. Don't take it as a serious argument.

You can take this as more serious, however: my first point in this post about Eärnur, Théoden, and Brand all actually having names, and the implicit point that the Witch-king has no name. This harkens back to a suggestion of mine earlier in the thread, when I pointed out that "Gothmog" need not be the actual name of the Lieutenant of Morgûl, but a mark of the namelessness of the servants of the Enemy. In the same way, the Witch-king has no real name. Presumably he did once, when he was a Second Age lord among lesser men... but he doesn't anymore. Calling him "the Witch-king" is, as the thrust of Gordis's general argument will agree, not giving him a name at all, but a title.

It is perfectly consistent with this treatment to call him, variously, "the Witch-king," "Angmar," or "the Morgûl-king." Each one only individuates him to the extent he needs to be individuated--as the particular Nazgûl in charge. It's notable on that note that there is no name given to the King of the Nazgûl in the Fellowship. Granted, Frodo wouldn't likely have known it--but the Nazgûl never give one out, nor does Aragorn see the need for one beyond "the Nine" or "the Riders." The personalities of the Nazgûl are so far gone, butter stretched over so many vast years of bread.

In this respect, it also strikes me that, as far as this goes, the Orks are less evil than the Nazgûl--which would seem a fair statement in any case--insofar as they still have names: Grishnákh, Uglúk, Gorbag, Shagrat, etc. Of course, they're hardly praiseworthy--they deny any name to those under them, lumping them all as "Snaga"... but I'm not really expecting much.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In the same way, the Witch-king has no real name. Presumably he did once, when he was a Second Age lord among lesser men... but he doesn't anymore. Calling him "the Witch-king" is, as the thrust of Gordis's general argument will agree, not giving him a name at all, but a title..

I have no issue with that statement. I'm just not buying into his name being 'Morgul', that's all. Isn't that the gist of Gordis's hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It is perfectly consistent with this treatment to call him, variously, "the Witch-king," "Angmar," or "the Morgûl-king." Each one only individuates him to the extent he needs to be individuated--as the particular Nazgûl in charge. It's notable on that note that there is no name given to the King of the Nazgûl in the Fellowship. Granted, Frodo wouldn't likely have known it--but the Nazgûl never give one out, nor does Aragorn see the need for one beyond "the Nine" or "the Riders." The personalities of the Nazgûl are so far gone, butter stretched over so many vast years of bread...

There is Khamûl the Shadow of the East mentioned in UT. I'm inclined to think that if the Lord of Morgul had a personal name, it would have gotten a direct mention somewhere along the line, at least peripherally.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

In this respect, it also strikes me that, as far as this goes, the Orks are less evil than the Nazgûl--which would seem a fair statement in any case--insofar as they still have names: Grishnákh, Uglúk, Gorbag, Shagrat, etc.

I can see the logic of this also. They had not surrendered their identities and wills as the Nazgûl and the Mouth of Sauron had. That reminds me- the Mouth had given so much of himself to Sauron that he could no longer conceive of an identity for himself apart from his Master. The Mouth was a living Man, having only been in the service of Sauron for some decades at most. The Witch-king had been in thrall to Sauron much longer, since the Second Age, and it is made clear that as powerful as he was, his will was entirely in the keeping of Sauron. By the time of the sack of Minas Ithil in the Third Age, would he have still retained enough of his original identity to have a real name, or to remember it?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I have no issue with that statement. I'm just not buying into his name being 'Morgul', that's all. Isn't that the gist of Gordis's hypothesis?

I suppose that's more for Gordis to answer than me, but my read of him was that the cognomen the WK went under in the Third Age was, given in full, "Aran Morgûl"--and I have to say, I find the structure of the argument compelling, insofar as it DOES seem like something "witch-king" could be an English/Westron translation of, AND it would fit. Even so, whether I'm sold or not, and whether Gordis is right or not, even if "Aran Morgûl" is what the WK went by throughout the Third Age, this is still not a name, but a title. "Morgûl" presented in this manner is not analogous to "Elizabeth" in "Queen Elizabeth" but is analogous to "of England" in "Queen of England." Granted, I don't know enough Sindarin (or anywhere near) to know if Morgûl would have a different genitive (or possessive) form, but Gordis's hypothesis seems to be that "Aran Morgûl"--half translated, by his theory, in one spot, as "the Morgûl-king"--is "King of Black Sorcery" not "King Black Sorcery." That little word "of" makes a lot of difference in English.

The analogy that comes to mind, with the whole Michael Jackson death thing in the news is the title "King of Pop," which is every bit as much a title as "King" on its own, or "King of England." My understanding of Gordis's thesis is that the WK is basically an evil Elvis that has forgotten Presley, and been called nought but the King of Rock for 3000 years.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

There is Khamûl the Shadow of the East mentioned in UT. I'm inclined to think that if the Lord of Morgul had a personal name, it would have gotten a direct mention somewhere along the line, at least peripherally.

Ah, Khamûl... the fact that you bring him up edges me dangerously close to the whole Canon debate, since "Khamûl" is not a name that is found in LotR anywhere, but--using my spurious idea of tiered Canonology--is from Unfinished Tales. Admittedly, though, it's not a directly contradictory work to the LotR--at least as far as the name goes, which is all that's relevant. However, here's the note from UT ("The Hunt for the Ring"), right after the first mention of Khamûl's name:

Originally Posted by Note 1, The Hunt for the Ring

I think it more likely that the present text was superseded when the Tales of the Years was compiled; and it may be noted that in a rejected version of the present passage there was only one Nazgûl in Dol Guldur (not named Khamûl, but referred to as 'the Second Chief (the Black Easterling)')...

Clearly, Christopher Tolkien's notation--presumably correct, for all we'll ever know--that this was superseded by the Tale of the Years means that I'll reject it as less canonical than the published, LotR Tale of the Years. But I don't even need to go that far, I think. Here's the actual passage where Khamûl's name first appears:

Originally Posted by The Hunt for the Ring

Now at that time the Chieftain of the Ringwraiths dwelt in Minas Morgul with six companions, while the second to the Chief, Khamûl the Shadow of the East, abode in Dol Guldur as Sauron's lieutenant, with one other as his messenger.

What I'd like to draw to attention here is that, if one were to place a single comma into the text, right after the name "Khamûl," then the phrase "the Shadow of the East" wouldn't be merely a descriptor of Khamûl, but a possible explanation. Even without the comma to make this a clear apposition, it's still a possible interpretation--one that would be in keeping with my general idea that the Nazgûl haven't retained actual names, but--alas!--no more than cool, unprovable, supposition on my part.

[Pitchwife]

Interesting discussion, everybody! Just a few notes, chiefly linguistic:

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Gordis's hypothesis seems to be that "Aran Morgûl"--half translated, by his theory, in one spot, as "the Morgûl-king"--is "King of Black Sorcery" not "King Black Sorcery." That little word "of" makes a lot of difference in English.

In English, yes. However, there seems to be no such thing as that little word in Sindarin, nor an inflected genitive like the English -'s-forms. Sindarin (like Welsh) expressed possession by word order only, the possessed following the possessor (cf Minas Tirith "Tower [of] Guard", the "of" merely implied). So Aran Morgûl does (or can) indeed mean "King of Black Sorcery".
I'm not sure how "King Morgûl" - Morgûl taken as a personal name - would be phrased correctly in Sindarin. (I have a hunch it might be Morgûl Aran - word order reversed, as in "Théoden King" - , but that's mere speculation.) Anyway, Aran Morgûl may well be ambiguous, especially for non-native speakers of Sindarin, and possibly translate as "King of Black Sorcery" or "King M.", depending on context.

Gordis wrote:

Otherwhise how come both the Gondorians and the Mordorians started to use the same name "Minas Morgul" after 2002? It is unlikely they have agreed on it. So, who was the first to call it "Minas Morgul" and why?

Do we actually know that Sauron's people called Minas Morgûl by this name? The Dark Tower was called Lugbúrz by the Orcs, not Barad-dûr. Likely they would have used a Black Speech name for Minas M. as well.

JeffF wrote:

There is also the possibility that the Kingdom of Angmar was named after the individual whose name was Angmar.

I don't think so. Angmar seems to be a Sindarin place name meaning something like "Iron Dwelling" or "Iron Land" (bar/mar "home, dwelling", from older *mbar, could refer to a house, a town or even a whole region, cf Eldamar "Elvenhome"). Unlikely name for an individual.