Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"
Quote:
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