Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuruharan
Another idea that maybe needs its own topic...
Tolkien was not systematic at all in his use of the term "lord." He used it indiscriminately to refer to any and all authority figures from high to low. Théoden was referred to as "Lord of Rohan" even though we know he was king. Durin the whichever was referred to as "Lord of Moria" (translating the word "Aran" from the West Gate) and we know that the Durins were kings. In fact, it is my belief that "aran" usually translates as "king."
Tolkien was so erratic in his use of the word that I don't think it can be used to build much of a case for anything.
|
No more erratic than Shakespeare, who freely used "lord" for kings; more fairly stated, though, is simply that in the Early Modern English usage Tolkien employed, "lord" as a category included "king." Even on Sunday, the Eternal King of Kings is called Lord!
I'm not however trying to split so fine a hair; I'm just saying that nothing in what Tolkien wrote says necessarily that the recipients of the Seven all had to be kings, some could, at least grammatically, have been lesser Dwarven nobles. (Balin claimed the title Lord of Moria, too; unfortunately Tolkien never defined the title
uzbad for us!)
----------------
Yes,
aran = "king." It is the title Elessar uses in the Sindarin translation of the King's Letter to Sam (
Elessar Telcontar: Aragorn Arathornion Edhelharn, aran Gondor); cf.
Fornost Erain "Norbury of the kings" and
Ereinion "scion of kings." Gandalf was a loose translator! (The usual Sindarin for "lord" was
hîr , as in Rohirrim "horse-lords" and our stubby Durinian friends
Gonhirrim "stone-lords." Elessar's titles go on "
... aran Gondor ar Arnor ar Hîr iMbair Annui", Lord of the Westlands.)