The Lesser Rings

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by blantyr

It seems clear to me that Gandalf knows the language and thus the meaning of the word.

It is clear to me also that Gandalf is supposed to know the meaning of the word. What is not clear is which possible meaning Gandalf intends when both suggested meanings may work.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

It is clear to me also that Gandalf is supposed to know the meaning of the word. What is not clear is which possible meaning Gandalf intends when both suggested meanings may work.

I don't know, this is something that is pretty clear to be both meanings. The blades being imbued with "black sorcery" but also being crafted in/around Minas Morgul. In The Siege of Gondor and Pelennor chapters, when necessary there are clear distinctions between the Morgul-host (ergo the host from Minas Morgul) and the other individual parts comprising the entire army (under the command of the Witch-King):

...from under the walls came the legions of Morgul and from the southward fields came footmen from Harad with horsemen behind them. ~The Battle of Pelennor Fields

"the legions of Morgul" meaning the host out of Minas Morgul, and to describe the movements of another individual part of the whole host, "footmen from Harad"

And towards the end of the same chapter:

Few ever came eastward to Morgul or Mordor...

Basically, "Morgul" is often used, and acceptable shorthand for "Minas Morgul" or in general the area surrounding Minas Morgul...Imlad Morgul, the Morgulduin..etc. And therefor, the Morgul-knives would, to me, mean the knives were made in Morgul, and they just happen to have a fitting double-meaning being blades enchanted with black sorcery.

[Morthoron]

As far as precedents, the knife that unbinds the WiKi's corporeal manifestation is referred to as a "Barrow-blade" (or "blade of Westernesse"), indicating a place name, and not an indication of the runes wound around it. "Morgul-blade" would seem to have the same connotation.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Yes, Gandalf could say that. But he said “Morgul”.

And that's why I'd say he meant the place rather than the sorcery. Because if he meant the sorcery, he could have used the word "sorcery" in common tongue. The placename of course does not have any synonym, so you have to use "Morgul". And, like Boro showed, the word is used also alone, without "Minas" or "Imlad", simply as a shortened version.

Whether morgul was a reasonably familiar word to Frodo in its basic meaning or not at the time is not clearly indicated one way of the other in The Lord of the Rings. And whether the place name Minas Morgul was known to Frodo before the Council of Elrond is not clearly indicated one way or the other in The Lord of the Rings.

Agreed. But think about it from Gandalf's perspective, as a person who is trying to convey a message to somebody else. We know Frodo knew Elvish, not so much about the placename (though he was well educated), but then again, elsewhere in the books, Gandalf has no problem with speaking about foreign places to people who never heard about them or do not know clearly what they are. But I do not recall any other situation where Gandalf would use a word in foreign language unless it lacked a synonym. And that would be the main reason. (Also, a sort of meta-reason would be that Tolkien does not do that either. He is not the person to throw around completely unintelligible words because it sounds "cool and fantasy", like many - usually cheap - fantasy books nowadays do. So even though I agree with your later conclusions about the usage of the words and the explanation of their meaning in the books etc., I think if Tolkien had written that sentence in that meaning, he would make Gandalf say something like "They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife, a sorcerous blade, which remains in the wound...")

And last of all, with your explanation of "Morgul", I wonder if the term "Morgul-spells" won't be a pleonasm of sorts: meaning "dark magic spells" (it would be enough to say just "dark magic" or "dark spells", I think... I think a linguist like Tolkien wouldn't necessary use that kind of words. But that's just my impression depending on the use of language, which is nothing definite).

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I think if Tolkien had written that sentence in that meaning, he would make Gandalf say something like "They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife, a sorcerous blade, which remains in the wound...")

This is the “if I were Tolkien, then I would ...” argument which doesn’t really work. Neither you or I are Tolkien and Tolkien himself changed his mind again and again on many matters. Tolkien loved the works of George MacDonald and then later in life tried reading him again and couldn’t stand him.

The word Morgul- is first introduced in the Lord of the Rings exactly like a piece of bafflegab in some modern fantasy of which no-one could possibly know the exact meaning. Of course Tolkien probably would, since he had invented Sindarin but the reader would not. And possibly at that time Tolkien would not yet have imagined Minas Morgul which only comes in later.

But then Tolkien changes his mind on many issues later, for example, the backstory of Galadriel including the meaning of Celeborn’s name.

In short, when the tale tells us that Gandalf uses the word Morgul-knife but does not tell exactly what he meant by it, either literally ‘black sorcery’ or the derived name applied in Gondor to Minas Ithil. Both work in the final account. I had at some point in my rereading automatically assumed the ‘black sorcery’ meaning. You at some point assumed the ‘Minas Morgul’ meaning.

Neither of was particularly aware that the other meaning might be applied here.

But once aware of both meanings, I find it impossible to choose between them. Both work.

Gandalf’s mention of the Morgul-knife appears to first arise in the Fourth Phase version of Frodo’s conversation with Gandalf at Rivendell, although Christopher Tolkien does not present that part of the story. Christopher Tolkien does say in The Treason of Isengard (HOME 7), page 82, that the text is then as in FR except for places where Christopher Tolkien indicates differences. But Minas Morgul is not mentioned in the Council of Elrond for two more versions of the Council. In the version of the Council written to go with this version of the conversation between Frodo and Gandalf even Minas Tirith only appears in a late pencilled change to the manuscript.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by jallanite

This is the “if I were Tolkien, then I would ...” argument which doesn’t really work. Neither you or I are Tolkien and Tolkien himself changed his mind again and again on many matters. Tolkien loved the works of George MacDonald and then later in life tried reading him again and couldn’t stand him.

Certainly, but still, there are certain patterns of how things are used. Of course you can never know 100%, but if that meant "what we cannot say for certain, we should not make assumptions about", you can resign on trying to make any conclusions whatsoever. There is no 100% telling Tolkien whether did not imagine Balrog having pink wings and blue-striped wig, but it is rather likely that he didn't, based on what we know about him. And that is an assumption made in the same way.

In short, when the tale tells us that Gandalf uses the word Morgul-knife but does not tell exactly what he meant by it, either literally ‘black sorcery’ or the derived name applied in Gondor to Minas Ithil. Both work in the final account. I had at some point in my rereading automatically assumed the ‘black sorcery’ meaning. You at some point assumed the ‘Minas Morgul’ meaning.

Neither of was particularly aware that the other meaning might be applied here.

But once aware of both meanings, I find it impossible to choose between them. Both work.

Agreed. Exactly. But what I believe is, that once you become aware of both the options, you can try to attempt to figure out which of them might be more likely, for one reason or the other. Like you say, it had never occured to me that "Morgul-knife" could mean "Black sorcery-knife" before I saw you propose that, that itself is good, because it challenges set ideas and "automatized" assumptions. But the next step after some new proposal is made is to try to figure out whether there is some evidence for or against both of them (because obviously, Tolkien had one meaning or the other on his mind) and which seems more logical. The final conclusions, again, may possibly differ. But I do not think we can just conclude with saying "we do not know and can never know", because that is rather, well, unconstructive.

Gandalf’s mention of the Morgul-knife appears to first arise in the Fourth Phase version of Frodo’s conversation with Gandalf at Rivendell, although Christopher Tolkien does not present that part of the story. Christopher Tolkien does say in The Treason of Isengard (HOME 7), page 82, that the text is then as in FR except for places where Christopher Tolkien indicates differences. But Minas Morgul is not mentioned in the Council of Elrond for two more versions of the Council. In the version of the Council written to go with this version of the conversation between Frodo and Gandalf even Minas Tirith only appears in a late pencilled change to the manuscript.

Well, and does this indicate anything?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

There is no 100% telling Tolkien whether did not imagine Balrog having pink wings and blue-striped wig, but it is rather likely that he didn't, based on what we know about him. And that is an assumption made in the same way.

Neither your assumption that Gandalf must have meant ‘Minas Morgul’ nor my belief that it is not clear whether Gandalf meant ‘black sorcery’ or ‘Minas Morgul’ is an absurd assumption like the one you suggest.

Your absurd assumption is irrelevant to guesses about Gandalf’s use of morgul. There is no such pattern as there is with your imaginary Balrog.

But I do not think we can just conclude with saying "we do not know and can never know", because that is rather, well, unconstructive.

There are lots of things in Tolkien’s text that “we do not know and can never know” unless some further unpublished evidence turns up. What colour is Legolas’ hair? What was Fredegar Bolger’s name in true Westron as opposed to translated Westron? What sort of creature was Tom Bombadil, or was he sui generis? Are most Orcs immortal as the Elves are immortal or at least very long-lived compared to Men? Why was Tuor allowed to join the Eldar despite his fully Mannish ancestry? It seems to me that exactly what Gandalf meant by Morgul-knife is one of those things. Discussing any of them is equally futile and unconstructive. It you think not, then discuss any of the other matters and come to a provable conclusion.

It is quite constructive to point out that Tolkien’s text does not contain data which provides a solution to a question.

Well, and does this indicate anything?

It indicates that, if Christopher Tolkien is not gliding over a difference between the manuscript and the published Fellowship of the Ring, that Tolkien included the word Morgul-knife in a text in which Minas Morgul did not occur and even Minas Tirirth had not yet been invented.

In an earlier text described on page 211 of The Return of the Shadow (HOME 6) Christopher Tolkien in his discussion of Gandalf and Frodo’s dialogue says that Gandalf called the weapon not Morgul-knife but:

… a deadly blade, the knife of the Necromancer which remains in the wound.

The text immediately following is close to that in the published text. In the next version of the text discussed on page 363 Christopher Tolkien remarks that the manuscript text is now very close to the published text and that only a few differences need be noticed. The first of these is:

The ‘Morgul-knife’ (FR p. 234) is still the ‘knife of the Necromancer’ (p. 211) …

Tolkien substituted ‘Morgul-knife’ for ‘knife of the Necromancer’ in the next text of this conversation in which ‘Minas Morgul’ is still unmentioned although the text runs past the place in the Council in which it occurs.

In short, in the first text in which ‘Morgul-knife’ occurs is almost certainly must mean ‘black-sorcery–knife’ as there is no Minas Morgul yet in existence.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Tolkien had already invented Minas Morgul at that time but had simply not written it down or that later, when Tolkien had written it down, he now reinterpreted ‘Morgul-knife’ in a new way. But when one is reduced to inventing such possibilities, then it is better to admit that one does not know which possibility is correct.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Neither your assumption that Gandalf must have meant ‘Minas Morgul’ nor my belief that it is not clear whether Gandalf meant ‘black sorcery’ or ‘Minas Morgul’ is an absurd assumption like the one you suggest.

Your absurd assumption is irrelevant to guesses about Gandalf’s use of morgul. There is no such pattern as there is with your imaginary Balrog.

Well, and now it seems to me you argue against your attitude by your own words. You say my balrog with a wig example is absurd (therefore, completely illogical to discuss, right?), yet you say our morgul-case or the other examples you cite are different from it - because they are not absurd - therefore, I would assume that unlike balrogs with wigs, they are worth discussing. Or not? Yet all the time you say how futile it is to discuss them. But unlike balrog with a wig, they have some sort of material to back them up - and that is what makes the difference.

There are lots of things in Tolkien’s text that “we do not know and can never know” unless some further unpublished evidence turns up. What colour is Legolas’ hair? What was Fredegar Bolger’s name in true Westron as opposed to translated Westron? What sort of creature was Tom Bombadil, or was he sui generis? Are most Orcs immortal as the Elves are immortal or at least very long-lived compared to Men? Why was Tuor allowed to join the Eldar despite his fully Mannish ancestry? It seems to me that exactly what Gandalf meant by Morgul-knife is one of those things. Discussing any of them is equally futile and unconstructive. It you think not, then discuss any of the other matters and come to a provable conclusion.

Well and absolutely this is the point where we seem to disagree, and that is what I have said. I am not going to delve now into what I think about those examples you cite, but in general I would say they have spawned rather long discussions among Tolkien readers, and while there may not be 100% certain conclusions, you can come at least to some conclusions based on probability. I am not saying that after finishing the discussion, you are supposed to know "this is how it was, and nothing else!", but I am saying that it is not "futile and unconstructive" to discuss them either. As long as you argued for the "dark sorcery" option, you were constructive - because it forced one to look for reasons for or against. But arguing for how unconstructive the debate is, well, the most unconstructive thing there can be.

For instance, using the popular example of Tom Bombadil, it seems doubtful that there can be a clear decision made on what exactly he was. But based on what is in the book, what Tolkien had said, also on the general way some things "work" in the story, one can give good cases for or against different possibilities. At least personally (using this as an example, let's not start about it here) I believe that some major Bombadil theories can be disproved. If you are left then with two or three plausible theories, it is still better than having ten of them.

And,

It is quite constructive to point out that Tolkien’s text does not contain data which provides a solution to a question.

I fail to see what is constructive about that. Or: it is very, hmm, probably "healthy" to point out (once) that we might not be able to get a definite answer. But repeating how useless it is kills the discussion, it does not add anything.

It indicates that, if Christopher Tolkien is not gliding over a difference between the manuscript and the published Fellowship of the Ring, that Tolkien included the word Morgul-knife in a text in which Minas Morgul did not occur and even Minas Tirirth had not yet been invented.

In an earlier text described on page 211 of The Return of the Shadow (HOME 6) Christopher Tolkien in his discussion of Gandalf and Frodo’s dialogue says that Gandalf called the weapon not Morgul-knife but:

… a deadly blade, the knife of the Necromancer which remains in the wound.

The text immediately following is close to that in the published text. In the next version of the text discussed on page 363 Christopher Tolkien remarks that the manuscript text is now very close to the published text and that only a few differences need be noticed. The first of these is:

The ‘Morgul-knife’ (FR p. 234) is still the ‘knife of the Necromancer’ (p. 211) …

Tolkien substituted ‘Morgul-knife’ for ‘knife of the Necromancer’ in the next text of this conversation in which ‘Minas Morgul’ is still unmentioned although the text runs past the place in the Council in which it occurs.

In short, in the first text in which ‘Morgul-knife’ occurs is almost certainly must mean ‘black-sorcery–knife’ as there is no Minas Morgul yet in existence.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Tolkien had already invented Minas Morgul at that time but had simply not written it down or that later, when Tolkien had written it down, he now reinterpreted ‘Morgul-knife’ in a new way. But when one is reduced to inventing such possibilities, then it is better to admit that one does not know which possibility is correct.

Nobody ever said that we know. But we are operating with possibilities, probabilities, trying to make cases for different conclusions. Making a case for no conclusion does not serve discussion, it ends the discussion (see above). It often happens to me that I stumble upon a topic where I don't really want to heavily support any predetermined conclusion, but if I really fail to see the purpose of the argument, I leave it to those who wish to discuss it. Once again: I fail to see the purpose of arguing for "no result". That said, this thread's main topic was something different originally anyway... though as if those things didn't happen...

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Nobody ever said that we know. But we are operating with possibilities, probabilities, trying to make cases for different conclusions. Making a case for no conclusion does not serve discussion, it ends the discussion (see above). It often happens to me that I stumble upon a topic where I don't really want to heavily support any predetermined conclusion, but if I really fail to see the purpose of the argument, I leave it to those who wish to discuss it. Once again: I fail to see the purpose of arguing for "no result". That said, this thread's main topic was something different originally anyway... though as if those things didn't happen...

Some questions can be answered. This bunch is pretty good at answering the questions that can be answered. Problem is, once the question is answered, the thread ends.

Then there the other sort of questions. The Balrog Wings sort of questions.

If Asimov's Multivac found "Insufficient data to provide a meaningful answer" to be a legitimate response to The Last Question, we might want to consider it for other questions.