[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It wouldn't have been as simple as that. Tolkien's languages aren't just sounds picked out of the air. They follow the same rules of development as natural languages, so that to change the form of one word would be to demand a re-think not only of that word's morphological and phonological history, but also those of all related words and forms. It may seem obvious to change nazgûl to nascûl (although that does encourage a theory that his book is about NASCAR), but this affects the sound of the word, which must be accounted for in the phonological development not only of nazg -> nasc but also of all related forms and like sounds.

What worries me about this theory is that it's not one which I can find to have been addressed by any of Tolkien's correspondants in the 1950s, which suggests to me that this link is one deriving from what appears to be an obsession in English-speaking countries with Nazi Germany; a morbid curiosity that seems to be growing when time ought to have set it on the wane. Unbelievable though it may be, it's possible that the word 'Nazi' is used more nowadays than it was in the 1940s: at school almost the first thing British children ever learn about Germany is that malevolent Austrian dwarf and his disastrous chancellorship; the most over-subscribed history special subjects at my university were Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, which weren't even on the curriculum in the 1950s. What we have is a situation in which events sixty and seventy years ago are more present in the collective consciousness than they were half a century in the past, which is unhealthy in the extreme. We have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the 1950s ever noticed this similarity of form, but I notice from a brief trawl of Google that it's referred to fairly regularly now.

Far more interesting to me than twentieth-century totalitarianism is the following extract from an article about the Topkapi Palace Harem.

The passion for garden flowers became evident everywhere, on clothing, furnishings and in architectural decoration, and extending even to the names of the harem women, who began to be given melodious Persian names like Laligül (Ruby Rose) and Nazgül (Shy Rose) that suggested they were as beautiful and graceful as flowers.

I also note that in Kazakh ghul, gul, goul means 'flower'. Did Tolkien mean to suggest that Kazakh is an evil and degraded language? Probably not, but I've just noticed a similarity, so obviously he must have too. Perhaps the whole thing is a Times crossword clue and 'flower' really means 'river', ironically referring back to the Ringwraiths' dislike of running water. It's not long before this sort of reasoning leads to insanity, and it needs to be nipped in the bud. Tolkien was not omniscient, and what seems obvious to us may not have been so to him. In fact this particular link is so erroneous that he might have needed it repeated to him before he could even credit it.

Now, clearly I do think that this is a big deal, because it suggests a mindset for Tolkien that simply isn't supported by things that we know about him, and suggests links between his invented world and the primary world that just do not, did not and could not exist. Moreover it perpetuates the ridiculous notion that any crackpot theory deserves to be considered just because it was someone's honest reaction. What if someone's honest reaction to a history of the Boer War is that the relief of Mafeking actually happened in Mafeking Street, Whitley Bay? Are we to give that credence? There was actually more evidence behind Mr. Underhill's link between the One Ring and marriage than there is behind this fascist Nazgûl theory, but nobody is asking why Tolkien left that potential invitation to allegory in his book.

What would Tolkien have done if Black Speech had thrown up Jeezûl? Well, it's very unlikely that it would (the phonology is all wrong), but if it did, he would either have had to change the entire language to remove it or leave it in place. If he personally thought it looked to be connecting Christ and evil I think that he would have re-written the entire book rather than let the similarity stand, but that's a different matter. What worries me is the search for symbolism where none is required to understand something, followed by the suggestion that Tolkien must have had a reason for leaving in the supposed symbolism: it's a circular argument, and can be applied to any foolishness. For example, in the first edition of LR, the sixth line of Book VI, chapter 6 is the beginning of a speech by Aragorn, the sixth word of which is 'come'. Does this imply a satanic message that all should worship at the feet of the Great Beast? Or am I just indiscriminately reading meanings into arbitrary patterns? I really wish I didn't now expect some fundamentalist loony to use that as a reason not to read Tolkien.