[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There are lots of things in Tolkien’s text that “we do not know and can never know” unless some further unpublished evidence turns up.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...