The creature Gothmog at the Siege of Minas Tirith

[JeffF.]

I never imagined that Gothmog, Lieutenant of Minas Morgul as he is called in RotK, was an orc. Given the hierarchy of Sauron's forces his Nazgul seem to be the leaders of his forces particularly in Minas Morgul the city of the ringwraiths. The Nazgul are described as great kings, sorcerers and warriors; most if not all were great leaders so I always thought of Gothmog as a Nazgul, the second-in-command at Minas Morgul. Unifinished Tales describes Khamul the Black Easterling as the second highest ranking Nazgul but he is also Sauron's lord over Dol Guldor during the War of the Ring. Some might say that once the High Nazgul was killed at the Battle of Pelennor that Khamul would have taken over but in UT it says that Khamul's power was the most diminished in daylight and this might explain why Gothmog, in my view the third ranking of all the Nazgul, would take over command since Sauron's artificial darkness was broken just before Theoden charges with the Rohirrim. I just don't see the eight remaining Nazgul falling under the command of some orc chieftain or brigand after the fall of the High Nazgul.

Any thoughts on Gothmog?

[Mithadan]

Gothmog was the name of the chief of the Balrogs in the First Age. I think Tolkien's use of this name was intentional and signifies that the Third Age Gothmog is not a mere Orc chieftain but rather an entity of significant power. When I first read LoTR, or at least before I made any connection between the names, I assumed that Gothmog (TA) was a Nazgul. I also note that the actual quote from LoTR is "Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul" which also strongly suggests a Nazgul. Making Gothmog second in command for the Battle of the Pelennor is not necessarily inconsistent with Khamul being "second to the Chief [Nazgul]". Khamul may simply have had other duties in the battle. Also, as Khamul was resident in charge of Dol Guldur, the legions of Morgul may have been better inclined to follow a leader they were familiar with, the lieutenant of that city.

While Khamul may have been the second "highest ranking" of the Nazgul at least per Unfinished Tales, we must keep also in mind that The Hunt for the Ring is truly unfinished. Christopher Tolkien comments that portions of the draft were superseded by The Tale of Years and JRRT had not prepared this excerpt for publication. While I hate to raise the issue of canon, I wonder if Tolkien would have modified his description of Khamul if he compared this draft with LoTR or perhaps clarified his "ranking" with regards to Gothmog.

As an aside, Tolkien was notorious for not reusing names (there are some exceptions such as Glorfindel, who was apparently the same Elf in the First and Third Ages notwithstanding his death). Yet he had no problem reusing the name Grond so perhaps it is not surprising that he chose to reuse Gothmog.

[narfforc]

Readers suggestions that the later Gothmog was a Nazgul or a Black Numenorean are no more than speculation; in the absence of further detail by Tolkien.
It is not clear if lieutenant here means the second-in-command of Minas Morgul or, more likely, second-in-command to the Witch-king, who is sometimes called the Morgul-lord. (Hammond/Scull)

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

When I first read LoTR, or at least before I made any connection between the names, I assumed that Gothmog (TA) was a Nazgul. I also note that the actual quote from LoTR is "Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul" which also strongly suggests a Nazgul. Making Gothmog second in command for the Battle of the Pelennor is not necessarily inconsistent with Khamul being "second to the Chief [Nazgul]". Khamul may simply have had other duties in the battle. Also, as Khamul was resident in charge of Dol Guldur, the legions of Morgul may have been better inclined to follow a leader they were familiar with, the lieutenant of that city.

In fact, you could make a connection with the original Gothmog and Sauron in the First Age. For example, Sauron is second in command to Morgoth, but Gothmog is in charge of the armies. Maybe it is a similar case here, except that here the Witch-King actually participates in the fighting, unlike Morgoth most of the time.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

As an aside, Tolkien was notorious for not reusing names (there are some exceptions such as Glorfindel, who was apparently the same Elf in the First and Third Ages notwithstanding his death). Yet he had no problem reusing the name Grond so perhaps it is not surprising that he chose to reuse Gothmog.

Perhaps, given that naming is a creative act, and given that Tolkien denies that evil can create, there is a point being made here? Elves, the paragons of creativity, are expected to come up with new and original names, whereas Orks/Evil generally are not.

Also, even more speculatively, naming something is part of what we do to individualise people or things, part of what we do to give them unique worth. It strikes me as typical of Melkor and his ilk to not, for those very reasons, name anything. And, on that note, "Gothmog" is Sindarin, not Black Speech, so it's almost certainly a name given by either the Elves or the Dúnedain--unless Sauron was deliberately evoking the Balrog when he or the Witch-king gave Gothmog II his name.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps, given that naming is a creative act, and given that Tolkien denies that evil can create, there is a point being made here? Elves, the paragons of creativity, are expected to come up with new and original names, whereas Orks/Evil generally are not.

Also, even more speculatively, naming something is part of what we do to individualise people or things, part of what we do to give them unique worth. It strikes me as typical of Melkor and his ilk to not, for those very reasons, name anything. And, on that note, "Gothmog" is Sindarin, not Black Speech, so it's almost certainly a name given by either the Elves or the Dúnedain--unless Sauron was deliberately evoking the Balrog when he or the Witch-king gave Gothmog II his name.

Men seem to like to reuse names too in JRRT's work; both Aragon and Denethor are technically the second members of their lines to bear those names, though to my knowedge no one in the stories seems to call them the Second (as a bonus Denethor's father, Ecthelion is the second Ecthelion in the steward line as well). We're used to kings bearing the same names for many generations in our own real world history, so it doesn't really jump out at one as much as the Gothmog naming does. Now that I think of it, wasnt there also a Minas Tirith in the first age as well, wasn't that the name of the fortress on Tol Sirion?

[narfforc]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

wasnt there also a Minas Tirith in the first age as well, wasn't that the name of the fortress on Tol Sirion?

Yes it was built by Finrod and where he died defending Beren, Tol-in-Gaurhoth was the island when Sauron inhabited it.

[Boromir88]

Alfirin, and Fellowship Boromir was actually Boromir II. There was the Steward Boromir, who was also a famed 'warrior,' but life was ended too soon suffering a fatal blow from the Witch-King.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Alfirin, and Fellowship Boromir was actually Boromir II. There was the Steward Boromir, who was also a famed 'warrior,' but life was ended too soon suffering a fatal blow from the Witch-King.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one. What's a bit creepy is that Boromir I is the son of Denethor I son of Ecthelion I and Boromir II is the son Of Denthethor II son of Ecthelion II. Actually Faramir's a II as well, there was a Farmir I according to the ROTK appendix (youngest son of King Ondoher, was supposed by law to stay in Gondor when his father and older brother Artamir rode off to war, but followed them in secret and was slain in battle (as were they))

[LadyBrooke]

Also Denethor and Ecthelion were elves in the first age and there was Boromir son of Boron, also in the first age. Now what did Tolkien mean about not reusing names?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Actually Faramir's a II as well, there was a Farmir I according to the ROTK appendix (youngest son of King Ondoher, was supposed by law to stay in Gondor when his father and older brother Artamir rode off to war, but followed them in secret and was slain in battle (as were they))

At least Faramir II was wise enough not to follow in his predecessor's footsteps- who knows what would have happened if he had tried to go to Rivendell too?

[Galin]

Well, for clarity perhaps, Tolkien himself did not say that Elves or Men did not reuse names, and in general they did reuse them.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Readers suggestions that the later Gothmog was a Nazgul or a Black Numenorean are no more than speculation; in the absence of further detail by Tolkien.
It is not clear if lieutenant here means the second-in-command of Minas Morgul or, more likely, second-in-command to the Witch-king, who is sometimes called the Morgul-lord. (Hammond/Scull)

Why is the latter more likely? The Witch-King was never called Morgul. It seems more likely to me that lieutenant of Morgul should be taken to mean lieutenant of Morgul. Actually, why does it matter which is intended? Both would almost certainly be positions reserved for Nazgul.

The assumption that the second-in-command on the Pelennor was a Nazgul is a fairly reasonable one.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The assumption that the second-in-command on the Pelennor was a Nazgul is a fairly reasonable one.

I'd agree.

Otherwise the lieutenant of Morgul had to be something like a really special creature and sure Tolkien would have described that kind of an "one more interesting weirdo" more closely - whether it be a very accomplished troll, a great werewolf, a Balrog (like the name suggests) or something else. The fact that he is just named as the second in command would suggest there is nothing unusual in it ie. it would be another Nazgûl just second in command?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The fact that he is just named as the second in command would suggest there is nothing unusual in it ie. it would be another Nazgûl just second in command?

I agree.

Moreover, let us look at the history of the sentence about Gothmog:

In an immediately rejected version of the passage in which the new hosts streaming out of Osgiliath are described, it was said of the Black Captain: 'He was gone, and the Nazgul in fear had fled to Mordor bearing ill tidings'; but this was lost in the rewriting of the passage where appears Gothmog lieutenant of Morgul - HOME 8

If Gothmog were meant to be a nazgul, then the rejection of the sentence about all the remaining Nazgul fleeing seems explained: one (Gothmog) remained on the field and took command. Also as Tolkien put Gothmog in while editing out the sentence about the nazgul, it explains why he failed to mention that Gothmog was one of them: at the moment it seemed quite obvious to Tolkien.

[narfforc]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Why is the latter more likely? The Witch-King was never called Morgul. It seems more likely to me that lieutenant of Morgul should be taken to mean lieutenant of Morgul. Actually, why does it matter which is intended? Both would almost certainly be positions reserved for Nazgul.

The assumption that the second-in-command on the Pelennor was a Nazgul is a fairly reasonable one.

Yes I agree and I was merely quoting from A Readers Companion. However my own view is very similar. All the Nazgul were Kings of Men and probably at sometime in their life had military training of a degree far beyond the normal generals found within an army. There is the misconception that the Nazgul were just mindless automatons, without any memory of their previous lives. There is also The Will of Sauron to consider, once The Witch-king was nullified on the battlefield, the next best point of control over the Army would naturally be another Nazgul, due to their stronger link with him. Seniority on the battlefield was something that Lieutenant Tolkien would have understood, once The Commanding Officer is killed, The Senior Major takes over. I think that Tolkien calls Gothmog 'Lieutenant of Morgul', because he sees him as The Morgul-lords second-in-command.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The Witch-King was never called Morgul.

Well, yes and no...

As a matter of fact it is the name "Witch-King" which is rarely used in LOTR: only once in the text itself (and it refers to the Angmar period) and several times in the Appendices, most of the cases also refer to the Angmar period.

In other cases in LOTR he is called "The Morgul-lord" (Many meetings), "the Morgul-king" (the Stairs of Cirith Ungol) "Lord of Morgul"(App. A), and only once "King of Minas Morgul" (App. A.).

The sentence about Gothmog II looks like one of the occasions where the WK seems to be called simply "Morgul". (I believe that all the mentions of "legions of Morgul" in LOTR mean the "Witch-King's legions", not "the host of Minas Morgul", because the host of the Minas Morgul fortress constituted only about a third of the army assembled at the Pelennor).
There is another sentence in the "Hunt for the Ring" published in Reader's Companion, where the WK is called simply "Angmar".

As to the the WK' names I have my own little theory:

In Sindarin "King (Lord) of Morgul" would most likely sound as "Aran Morgul". It sounds like a name given by enemies, yet flattering, one that he would accept and use. "Lord of Black Magic!" A title more befitting Sauron himself, I would say. Not bad for he who had been a mere Man once...

And if we go a tad further and consider how "Aran Morgul" would translate into Westron by a person from the "good side" - what do we get?
The Witch-King! King of bad, Dark Sorcery = witchcraft.
Translate both parts of the name and you get the Witch-King, translate only the title and you get Lord/King of Morgul.

I believe the Nazgul Lord never changed his name: Aran Morgul he had been in Angmar, Aran Morgul he remained in Minas Morgul, the city named after him. Likely the Minas Morgul fortress, the former Minas Ithil, took its new name from its new ruler, not the other way round: it may simply mean "Morgul's Tower."

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Well, yes and no...

No and no. The Witch-King was never called Morgul or Angmar, regardless of your theories or what the notorious Tolkien Companion says.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by obloquy

No and no. The Witch-King was never called Morgul or Angmar, regardless of your theories or what the notorious Tolkien Companion says.

Here is the case when he is called Angmar:

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.263

So, why not Morgul?

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Gordis

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

Hmm...I thought Imlad Morgul was the original name, or in the very least the original name was never given and when the Nazgul came to town it is called Imlad Morgul. Given Minas Ithil (to Minas Morgul) and Ithilduin (to Morgulduin), Imlad Ithil would make sense, but I haven't come across Imlad Ithil before.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Hmm...I thought Imlad Morgul was the original name, or in the very least the original name was never given and when the Nazgul came to town it is called Imlad Morgul. Given Minas Ithil (to Minas Morgul) and Ithilduin (to Morgulduin), Imlad Ithil would make sense, but I haven't come across Imlad Ithil before.

Well, it would have to be a complete interpolation, but I think it's a perfectly valid one, myself. It would make no sense to have the early Gondorians building a city in the "Vale of Black Sorcery" or drinking from the headwaters of the "Black Sorcery River." Indeed, it would almost make the takeover of Minas Ithil by the Witch-king not at all an act of Sauron's evil, but a natural restoration of the proper order in the valley--and the (to me obvious) inference that it was named Morgûl, Black Sorcery, because of the Black Sorceror that moved there would be lost completely.

Whether or not the Gondorians previously used Ithil in all cases where Morgûl later sufficed is impossible to be certain--though not unreasonable. It's quite possible, though, that they had "Minas Ithil," "Imlad Isildur," and "Duathduin" for all we know. All that we know is that, in 3018-3019, they all used "Morgûl" and that it seems to be inferential that the names in all three cases followed from the capture of the tower and city.

[Gordis]

Note also that Minas Ithil reflects the name of Isildur and Minas Anor reflects the name of Anarion.
Likely Minas Morgul reflects the name of the Witch-King.

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?

[Inziladun]

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.

I am aware of that usage. The fact that he was the 'Lord of Angmar' because he ruled that region would seem to weaken the case for Minas Morgul being his later eponymous capital city rather than strengthening it.

As to who used the name 'Minas Morgul' first, Gandalf called the Black Captain 'a great king and sorceror of old'. I see no problem with the view that it was so named by the Gondorians, who were well aware of the nature of the creatures in command there.

Another question, having to do with this passage:

(Frodo) knew that the Ring would only betray him, and that he had not, even if he put it on, the power to face the Morgul-king-- not yet.

TTT The Stairs of Cirith Ungol

The Morgul-king? Why not 'face King Morgul'?

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I am aware of that usage. The fact that he was the 'Lord of Angmar' because he ruled that region would seem to weaken the case for Minas Morgul being his later eponymous capital city rather than strenghtening it.

As to who used the name 'Minas Morgul' first, Gandalf called the Black Captain 'a great king and sorceror of old'. I see no problem with the view that it was so named by the Gondorians, who were well aware of the nature of the creatures in command there.

Another question, having to do with this passage:


TTT The Stairs of Cirith Ungol

The Morgul-king? Why not 'face King Morgul'?

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."

But I guess you can call him whatever you like.

[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.

[Gordis]

Thank you, Formendacil, you have brilliantly answered the questions for me! In fact you answered better than I could do it myself

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As to who used the name 'Minas Morgul' first, Gandalf called the Black Captain 'a great king and sorceror of old'. I see no problem with the view that it was so named by the Gondorians, who were well aware of the nature of the creatures in command there.

I think the Gondorians were well aware of the fact that the person who captured Minas Ithil and ruled it now was the very same Witch-King whom they have defeated in the North. If they had any doubts, the challenges sent by the WK to Earnur would make it abundantly clear. So, the first choice for a new name for Minas Ithil would be to name it simply "the tower of the Witch-King"

Gondorians spoke Sindarin and named places in this language. Morgul means Black Sorcery, Witchcraft.

If the Witch-King, the King of Witchcraft, the king of Black Sorcery, was known in Sindarin as "Aran Morgul", the King of Morgul, then the new place name would be "Minas Morgul" automatically. And both sides, Gondorians ad nazgul alike, could have started to use it independently.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The Morgul-king? Why not 'face King Morgul'?

Formendacil has answered that one.
Because he was the King of Black Sorcery, the Witch-king, not a person whose name translates as "Black Sorcery". Morgul was never a simple personal name, it was more like translation of the"Witch"-part in "the Witch-King" or the "sorcerer king"
(But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king..)

Originally Posted by obloquy

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."

RC is a book by Wayne G. Hammond & Christina Scull, published by HarperCollins. Its full title is "The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion". You can see it here on Amazon.com: RC
What is interesting in this book is that the authors have quoted parts of previously unpublished Tolkien's "the Hunt for the Ring" manuscripts kept in the Marquette University. You must be familiar with other parts of these texts if you have Unfinished Tales. These new Tolkien texts constitute only a small part of the RC book, about 10 pages in whole, I believe, but they are very interesting. There are also excerpts from the unpublished Tolkien's "Time-Schemes" and "Nomenclature". I advise you to buy the book: two-three years ago I have bought a used RC book on Amazon UK for only 3 euros.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Khamûl the Shadow of the East

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.

I think "Khamûl" is not a real personal name either.

A good guess would be that Khamûl is a Black Tongue word.
If so, please compare the words "nazgûl" and "Khamûl". The first Black Tongue word is no mystery:
"nazgûl"= "ringwraith"
"nazg"="ring"
"gûl" or "ûl"="wraith"

My guess that "ûl" in "Khamûl" also means "wraith", "shadow".

And then it becomes obvious that it was the nickname given to the nazgûl after he had become a wraith, not at his birth.

The "Shadow of the East" that goes after "ûl" (UT) may be a simple translation of the name. Especially considering that in the East there is a realm called "Khand", which quite probably means "Eastern land".

So basically we have two nazgul, known in the Third Age as "The King of Black Sorcery/Witchcraft" and "The Wraith/Shadow of the East" respectively. Both nicknames have nothing to do with their original names as living Men and their original identities. There could have been other nazgul called "the Shadow of the South" or "the Shadow of Rhun" etc. Some may have got new names from Sauron in memory of the First Age evil heroes as "Gothmog" or well...Glaurung or Ancalagon

Why new names for the nazgul?- because they have left their old identities behind. I don't think they have forgotten who they used to be, but this page in their lives is shut forever. Come on, it happens not only with nazgul. King Elessar had been called Estel in his youth, Thorongil and Aragorn later, but the name he will be remembered by in history is King Elessar.

Moreover in ME a real name is a powerful thing, letting it be generally known makes one vulnerable. Remember Treebeard's reaction?

An Ent?' said Merry. 'What's that? But what do you call yourself? What's your real name?'
'Hoo now!' replied Treebeard. 'Hoo! Now that would be telling! Not so hasty.
[...]
'Nobody else calls us hobbits; we call ourselves that,' said Pippin.
'Hoom, hmm! Come now! Not so hasty! You call yourselves hobbits? But you should not go telling just anybody. You'll be letting out your own right names if you're not careful.'

I guess in Mordor the real original names of the nazgul was top secret classified info, much like the real name of Sauron himself. What was it, really? Nobody knows. Not Sauron= "the Abhorred" certainly.

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps, given that naming is a creative act, and given that Tolkien denies that evil can create, there is a point being made here? Elves, the paragons of creativity, are expected to come up with new and original names, whereas Orks/Evil generally are not.

Also, even more speculatively, naming something is part of what we do to individualise people or things, part of what we do to give them unique worth. It strikes me as typical of Melkor and his ilk to not, for those very reasons, name anything. And, on that note, "Gothmog" is Sindarin, not Black Speech, so it's almost certainly a name given by either the Elves or the Dúnedain--unless Sauron was deliberately evoking the Balrog when he or the Witch-king gave Gothmog II his name.

i agree

[JeffF.]

There is also the possibility that the Kingdom of Angmar was named after the inidvidual whose name was Angmar. The name has no previous affiliation with any region in the North and appears only after the Witch King forms it there.

Just an opinion but i haven't noticed if anyone has raised the possibility.