|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Gondolin
Feb 17, 8:48pm
Post #76 of 203
(6876 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We watched "A Man for all Seasons" as a family
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
twice, somewhere in my young to middle teens the first time and the second time maybe four years later or so. That last part of your excerpt, about the winds that would blow, is my mother's favorite quote from the movie: and the entire scene has stuck with me, parts of it almost verbatim, for a lifetime even though I haven't seen it again since then.
Thank you for that Jacob Bronowski clip. So hard to watch, and so necessary. He puts that concept in rather a unique way in my opinion--managing to focus the spotlight on the often horrifying effects of dogmatism without becoming dogmatic himself. I find that incredibly rare, although maybe I'm just missing more nuanced responses out there.
(By not becoming dogmatic himself I mean, for instance, not categorically blaming, say, patriotism, idealism, or religion as such, but rather a particular mindset and it's effects, which he spells out with a kind of breathtaking clarity and brevity.) That video really ought to be shown in every high school and college, or the equivalent, everywhere.
And about the letter, thank you! Much appreciated. It's sometimes bothers me that those letters were lost until only about five years ago. It's seemed to me as if his voice that was present in them had been silenced during many decades when it should've been heard, if only by the family.
I think you've nailed it on the head. He was only about 22 years old, but he'd been forced to do an awful lot of thinking that wouldn't have happened otherwise. "Optimism despite and not defeated by a realism painfully gained." I'd say in a way that was his lifelong template; applied to almost every area of life. And myself, having grown up starting at just after 10 years postwar, I can say that that often was the mood of society in general, although almost equally it seemed to want to forget the whole thing and bathe everything in a glow of patriotic optimism. Of course I was too young to be much aware of the McCarthy hearings which shows the dark side of the mindset in those years.
I think your phrase there is another thing I will remember, and an awfully good way to get through things we'd really rather not have to.
(This post was edited by Ethel Duath on Feb 17, 8:50pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Feb 17, 9:26pm
Post #77 of 203
(6872 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for that Jacob Bronowski clip. So hard to watch, and so necessary. He puts that concept in rather a unique way in my opinion--managing to focus the spotlight on the often horrifying effects of dogmatism without becoming dogmatic himself. I find that incredibly rare, although maybe I'm just missing more nuanced responses out there. Thanks for giving us this observation, Ethel, and thanks to Wiz for that moving clip. I'm with you, Ethel: when someone gets emotional and starts to denounce one ideology, I tense up and wait for them to start spewing their replacement ideology with equal dogmatic zeal which usually promises its own special brand of social harm. So, he really swiped away at that by saying absolute certainty is the problem, a failure to question what you're doing or regard reality, because you're so irredeemably convinced you're right that you don't have to answer to your own conscience anymore, or if you don't have a conscience (let's not pretend everyone does), that you're not subject to others'.
What I've always found cool about scientific thinking is that it encourages humility. While scientists are certain of some things, they have to admit "We think X and Y, but we're really not sure" about others. And I remember during the early onset of COVID 5 years ago, a lot of rank and file people reacted angrily to official statements like that, preferring absolutist opinions and unverified dogma instead. Well, take your pick, I guess, but I think the smart people are the ones who admit they don't know things and thus remain open to learning something new. And let's hope they're less likely to turn 4 million people into ash. (That was indeed quite moving when a documentary narrator in a suit walked into a lake, stood there getting his dress shoes/feet all soggy, then reached into the mud. Just wow.)
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 17, 11:01pm
Post #78 of 203
(6860 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the Rings of Power as incidental to the fall of the Númenóreans
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The shadow that fell over Númenor was a shadow of their own making. It was the rebellion of the Númenóreans against the Valar and the limits that they imposed upon them. Sauron came later, though his influence upon those Númenóreans dwelling in Middle-earth might have been a factor.
Very much a key point you're making here, Otaku. The 'fall from grace' theme is central to Tolkien's conceptualisation of Númenor, its history and narrative function. It doesn't rely upon the introduction of a physical artefact, such as a Ring of Power (or three, in the case of the number of Númenóreans eventually ensnared in this way). It is a 'fall' that takes place over three distinct phases, as mapped out by the author in Letter 131 to Milton Waldman (c. 1951):
There are three phases in their fall from grace. first acquiescence, obedience that is free and willing, though without complete understanding. Then for long they obey unwillingly, murmuring more and more openly. Finally they rebel - and a rift appears between the King's men and rebels, and the small minority of persecuted Faithful.
I agree, the Númenóreans surely become more susceptible to the blandishments of one such as Sauron, from 'phase 2' onwards. And in a concession to Silvered-glass's theory, Tolkien doesn't explicitly say "A Ring of Power was not granted to a future King of Númenor". However, by the same token, there is no evidence that he wrote the opposite. And I reckon such a hypothesis goes against the grain of the wider 'operatic theme' that Tolkien was constructing here: Men were capable of 'falling from grace' on their own time. The Shadow predates Sauron, even as it ripens Númenor for the seduction to come. This plays out, also, in the form of the bitter debates about 'bliss denied' between the Messengers of Manwë and the Númenóreans during the reigns of Tar-Ciryatan and Tar-Atanamir, as set out in 'Akallabêth' and reproduced in The Silmarillion. Arguably, this is all a function of 'Arda Marred' and the hankering of humans for a 'Paradise Lost', or the belief in a previous deathlessness, goes back as far as the lore passed down to Andreth and (partially) shared in conversation with Finrod ('Athrabeth Finrod an Andreth', HoMe X). A Ring of Power was neither required for the effect, this rejection of Doom, nor integral to the overall tragedy of this journey.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Gondolin
Feb 17, 11:08pm
Post #79 of 203
(6877 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien faced it head-on, and Bronowski even more--of course he had more to face.
I'd love to have had them joining us in this discussion.
Yeah, that's funny about humility. My dad mentioned that in the letter, and although his profession was not at all in the sciences, he had a very scientific mind and was always giving us kids the science-based reasons for all sorts of things, even the simplest happenings around us. Among other things, it made us irredeemably curious (which apparently you share :) ).
(This post was edited by Ethel Duath on Feb 17, 11:11pm)
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 17, 11:39pm
Post #80 of 203
(6857 views)
Shortcut
|
|
dates that more or less match up don't necessarily make for good logistics
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The timeline matches but I'm not convinced of the logistics bit. Admiral Ciryatur arrives in II.1700 with an expeditionary force dedicated to the defeat of Sauron in Eriador. Three engagements by this force are recorded, with Númenóreans specifically coming into contact with Sauron's armies, with Sauron present ('The History of Galadriel and Celeborn', Unfinished Tales):
Sauron was driven away south-east after great slaughter at Sarn Ford.
In the Battle of the Gwathló Sauron was routed utterly and he himself only narrowly escaped. His small remaining force was assailed in the east of Calenardhon, and he with no more than a bodyguard fled...
Rolling with the theory that Prince Ciryatan was present at one or more of these engagements where contact with Sauron was possible, I can't easily see the circumstances in which he would have paused to accept a piece of jewellery from the head of the opposing army - who himself was largely preoccupied with fleeing. In an effort to anticipate where this might go next, I could sketch out a war booty scenario or one in which Sauron shapeshifted and tricked Ciryatan into accepting a Ring of Power. But both of those are building upon the already highly speculative proposition that Ciryatan was there in the first place and rely solely upon adding material to Tolkien's feigned history of this period.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 18, 1:05am
Post #81 of 203
(6845 views)
Shortcut
|
I've long enjoyed the theory that one of the three Númenóreans ensnared by Sauron with Rings of Power might be of the House of Elros. But I enjoy it in the knowledge, or at least in my knowledge of the text, that Tolkien did not explicitly write of any of these three wayward Númenóreans in this way.
We're aware, through 'Akallabêth' that three "great lords of Númenórean race" were won over by the gift of Rings of Power. In support of the theory that Tolkien did conceptualise the Witch-king as being one of these three, a draft of 'The Siege of Gondor' (HoMe VIII) includes reference to the 'Wizard King' being from Númenor - although in a sign that the text still had a long way to go to settling down, this antagonist is also described as being "a renegade of his [Gandalf's] own order". More definitively, Tolkien wrote in the manuscript of Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings that:
... the name and origin of the Witch-king is not recorded, but he was probably... of Númenórean descent.
So far, so plausible that at least the Witch-king was 'probably' Númenórean. However, does that mean he was a crown prince of Númenor?
The three Númenóreans in question are each described as "great lords of Númenórean race". There is nothing distinguishing one from the other in this phrasing and certainly nothing to suggest that one was a crown prince, elevated in status above the other two. The evolution of this phrasing is also interesting. In its first draft, we have instead: "great lords of Númenor" ('The History of the Akallabêth', HoMe XII)). I'll risk a bit of overinterpretation here by venturing that the original text provides a locus, specifically Númenor, which is lost from the final version with its attribution of descent rather than place. In the latter rendering, these three "great lords" could have been based in Middle-earth rather than Númenor, with their lordships being entirely divorced from their ancestral homeland. Admittedly, I'm stretching things here but it's possible that we're not talking about "great lords" who dropped in on Middle-earth at all (a travelling crown prince, for example) but resident overlords - perhaps colonial governors, as speculated by Otaku elsewhere in this thread.
A final thought. Although there isn't much to go on in the text, who actually constituted a 'great lord' in pre-Akallabêth Númenórean terminology? There were the Lords of Andúnië, themselves a cadet branch of the House of Elros. The tale of 'Aldarion and Erendis' contains a few other snippets, such as Hallatan, "the great lord" and "the sheep-lord of Hyarastorni"; and it may have been the case that Orchaldor "a descendant of the House of Hador" and Beregar, "of the House of Bëor by ancient descent" were thought of as lords of some description. The title 'lord' though is distinct from the title 'King's Heir', which is used repeatedly to describe Aldarion in that tale. I acknowledge that I'm using a very small sample size to make this point; however, if Tolkien meant a 'King's Heir' was amongst the three Númenóreans ensnared by Sauron, why not just write it so? Instead, what we have is three "great lords", which comfortably enough describes any number of aristocratic Númenóreans, including those of royal descent (eg. the Lords of Andúnië and Hallatan of Hyarastorni), but not as comfortably the 'King's Heir'.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 18, 1:09am
Post #82 of 203
(6837 views)
Shortcut
|
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Feb 18, 1:45am
Post #83 of 203
(6848 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, 'of Numenorean race' needn't imply residence in Numenor, much less of royal blood
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your point is how I've always read Tolkien's notes about some of the Nazgul being "Numenorean" in ancestry.
We know that Numenor had colonies and satrapies on the mainland, governed and led by colonial populations who'd returned to Middle-earth from their island homeland. They are "Numenorean" in heritage, but they are no longer "Numenorean" in residence. Surely this is the population that Sauron seduced and, in some cases, utterly corrupted with his gifts of nine Rings of Power.
Tolkien never suggests that the royal family or even its princely adjuncts were liable to contact with Sauron in a way that would result in a Ring and a descent into wraithdom. That's not in keeping with his conception of the Fall of Numenor, as noted elsewhere in this thread.
The 1940s Rings of Power narrative postdates the 1930s Tale of Numenor, to the point that Tolkien had to do backflips to include Sauron's own Ring in the later versions of the Akallabeth, when The Lord of the Rings had been added to the legendarium. He, I think, had no interest at all in complicating the Fall by including the secondary Rings in the story. Sauron, without use of his own Ring, simply completes the seduction of the Kings of Men in a disaster that they were already bringing upon themselves, with no Rings involved at all.
squire online:
Unfortunately my longtime internet service provider abandoned its hosting operations last year. I no longer have any online materials to share with the TORn community.
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Feb 18, 9:35am
Post #84 of 203
(6810 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe identity was complicated
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks Felagund, and squire. The impression I get is that it is highly arguable that a Numernorean identiy was a complex business.
Which is how it is in the Primary World (though of course what happens in the Primary World cannot necessarily be imported wholeale or willy-nilly into Tolkien's fantasy realms.)
Tolkien himself offers an example of the complications of identity:
- He was born in South Africa. But as far as I know he didn't consider himself South African, and is most usually considered as English.
- He was proud of his German ancestory, kept that up through the First World War, though seems to have become less proud of it due to disgust of Hitler.
- He - rather romanically or ecentrically - liked to call himself "A Mercian" sometimes, thus identifying with a long extinct and highly variable set of boundaries. Mercia expanded and contracted like a boa constrictor, depending on how it was faring in wars and treaties both with other kingdoms (Wessex especially) and with further waves of violent would-be settlers (who tended to be called 'Danes' not necessaily implying an origin in modern Denmark).
Similarly, I understand it's not uncommon for some Americans to describe themselves as, say, Scottish or Irish or Italian or Greek; and consider this not to be undermined in the slightest if their family has lived exclusively in America for several generations and would be had to distinguish from other Americans except in their feelings of identity.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Feb 18, 7:33pm
Post #85 of 203
(6772 views)
Shortcut
|
Similarly, I understand it's not uncommon for some Americans to describe themselves as, say, Scottish or Irish or Italian or Greek; and consider this not to be undermined in the slightest if their family has lived exclusively in America for several generations and would be had to distinguish from other Americans except in their feelings of identity.
Not always taken seriously; my aunt married a McGraw and joked about how he made her Irish. Some people take it seriously, but never as "We've been Italian for 4 generations, and we're going back to Italy soon where we belong." Instead as, "We're Italian, that's how we do things." (dinner habits, birthdays, behavior, whatever) Plenty of us are mutts who have no label, so it's a variable phenomenon.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Feb 19, 1:39am
Post #86 of 203
(6742 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And then there's the Mouth of Sauron...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Identified by Tolkien as "Black Númenórean" even though that particular branch had declined precipitously since the War of the Last Alliance. and are absent from Middle-earth history after being utterly defeated by Hyarmendacil I in TA 1050. And yet MoS is claimed to be a descendant.
|
|
|
sevilodorf
Dor-Lomin
Feb 19, 2:22am
Post #87 of 203
(6739 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A stray thought a la Gorbag and Shagrat
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Would the Nazgul have considered trying to slip off and set up on their own? Would they even have been capable of such considerations or are they too much under the power of the Ring?
What about all those years Sauron was "recuperating"? What were they up to?
Fourth Age Adventures at the Inn of the Burping Troll http://burpingtroll.com
Home of TheOneRing.net Best FanFic stories of 2005 and 2006 "The Last Grey Ship" and "Ashes, East Wind, Hope That Rises" by Erin Rua
(Found in Mathoms, LOTR Tales Untold)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 19, 4:11am
Post #88 of 203
(6722 views)
Shortcut
|
Would the Nazgul have considered trying to slip off and set up on their own? Would they even have been capable of such considerations or are they too much under the power of the Ring?
What about all those years Sauron was "recuperating"? What were they up to? I'd say that the Nazgul were entirely subservient to Sauron. By the end of the Third Age, they seemed to have lost almost all sense of individual identity to the extent that they could not even recall their mortal names.
I have to assume that, before Sauron regained his strength, the Ringwraiths largely had to oversee the regions that were still under the Dark Lord's sway: Mordor; Rhun: Umbar: Khand; Near and Far Harad.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Feb 19, 10:49am
Post #89 of 203
(6674 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Colonial Timelines, Wraith Timelines
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your point is how I've always read Tolkien's notes about some of the Nazgul being "Numenorean" in ancestry.
We know that Numenor had colonies and satrapies on the mainland, governed and led by colonial populations who'd returned to Middle-earth from their island homeland. They are "Numenorean" in heritage, but they are no longer "Numenorean" in residence. Surely this is the population that Sauron seduced and, in some cases, utterly corrupted with his gifts of nine Rings of Power.
Looking at the timeline in LotR, Sauron is defeated with the help of Tar-Minastir's navy in 1700, and then:
c. 1800 From about this time onward the Númenoreans begin to establish dominions on the coasts. Sauron extends his power eastwards. The shadow falls on Númenor.
The colonies at this early time would have been small and insignificant next to the importance of the mainland, not the sort of places where you find "great lords" as permanent residents.
2280 Umbar is made into a great fortress of Númenor.
But the Nazgûl had already appeared earlier that century, their process of wraithification complete.
Tolkien never suggests that the royal family or even its princely adjuncts were liable to contact with Sauron in a way that would result in a Ring and a descent into wraithdom. That's not in keeping with his conception of the Fall of Numenor, as noted elsewhere in this thread.
There is that one version of the timeline where Tar-Ciryatan lives for over 600 years...
The members of the royal family wouldn't have contacted Sauron. Sauron would have contacted them, and not under his real identity.
The 1940s Rings of Power narrative postdates the 1930s Tale of Numenor, to the point that Tolkien had to do backflips to include Sauron's own Ring in the later versions of the Akallabeth, when The Lord of the Rings had been added to the legendarium. He, I think, had no interest at all in complicating the Fall by including the secondary Rings in the story. Sauron, without use of his own Ring, simply completes the seduction of the Kings of Men in a disaster that they were already bringing upon themselves, with no Rings involved at all.
The nature of storytelling is that things develop between different versions. You cannot assume that the plot would have remained static and unelaborated in Tolkien's mind when new major elements were introduced.
This "complicating the Fall" creates no new plot holes but solves the issue of Sauron ignoring the Númenor mainland (because he didn't do so here) and gives more background on how the King's Men started to crystallize. The existence of the faction implies that the king must have had strong ideas about the matter and was a driving force behind the split.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 19, 2:58pm
Post #90 of 203
(6658 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Numenorean Lords in Middle-earth
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your point is how I've always read Tolkien's notes about some of the Nazgul being "Numenorean" in ancestry.
We know that Numenor had colonies and satrapies on the mainland, governed and led by colonial populations who'd returned to Middle-earth from their island homeland. They are "Numenorean" in heritage, but they are no longer "Numenorean" in residence. Surely this is the population that Sauron seduced and, in some cases, utterly corrupted with his gifts of nine Rings of Power. Looking at the timeline in LotR, Sauron is defeated with the help of Tar-Minastir's navy in 1700, and then: c. 1800 From about this time onward the Númenoreans begin to establish dominions on the coasts. Sauron extends his power eastwards. The shadow falls on Númenor. The colonies at this early time would have been small and insignificant next to the importance of the mainland, not the sort of places where you find "great lords" as permanent residents.
Why would you assume that? Earlier in the Second Age, Tar-Aldarion (the Mariner; S.A. 700-1099) spent a great deal of time in Middle-earth even after he gained the throne. Why wouldn't some of the great lords of Númenor want to make a name for themselves as governors of Middle-earth colonies, especially during Númenor's expansionist period when it was exploiting Middle-earth for its resources? Seems like a good way to gain wealth and influence to me.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Feb 19, 5:56pm
Post #91 of 203
(6627 views)
Shortcut
|
Why would you assume that? Earlier in the Second Age, Tar-Aldarion (the Mariner; S.A. 700-1099) spent a great deal of time in Middle-earth even after he gained the throne. Why wouldn't some of the great lords of Númenor want to make a name for themselves as governors of Middle-earth colonies, especially during Númenor's expansionist period when it was exploiting Middle-earth for its resources? Seems like a good way to gain wealth and influence to me.
As Aldarion and Erendis tells, Tar-Aldarion spent years and years in Middle-earth trying to build and rebuild a harbor that kept being destroyed in storms. Then Tar-Ancalimë took over and didn't want any sailing to Middle-earth. At the end of her reign the number of Númenoreans in Middle-earth would have been plain zero. According to Appendix B, it wouldn't be until 1800 that significant colonization efforts started, and the initial colonies would have been small settlements without much infrastructure. Pelargir wasn't even founded until 2350.
The British Empire had significant surplus population to go as settlers in new lands. There is no indication that this was the case for Númenor for a long time with their low initial population density and low population growth. Númenor also had the resources it needed at home without long ocean trips.
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 19, 10:29pm
Post #92 of 203
(6599 views)
Shortcut
|
... on the chronology of the drafting - very much pertinent to what's being discussed!
Tolkien's epistolic commentary on the events of the Akallabêth went even further than the later redrafts of that story in terms of retrofitting, I reckon - as specifically set out in Letter 211, written in 1958:
He [Sauron] naturally had the One Ring [with him in Númenor], and so very soon dominated the minds and wills of most of the Númenóreans. (I do not think Ar-Pharazôn knew anything about the One Ring. The Elves kept the matter of the Rings very secret, as long as they could. In any case Ar-Pharazôn was not in communication with them...)
And, in the context of answering how an disincarnated Sauron could possibly have borne the One Ring back with him, following his 'death' in the cataclysm that destroyed Númenor:
I do not think one need boggle at this spirit [Sauron's] carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended.
Retrofitting at its finest!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 20, 1:01am
Post #93 of 203
(6583 views)
Shortcut
|
|
dates that more or less match up don't necessarily make for good logistics [part II]
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
On the timelines we're focusing on, I'm not sure I follow all of your argumentation. There's nothing I can see in it that underwrites Ciryatan being the answer to 'who was the Witch-king, originally?'.
Via the 'Tale of Years' (Appendix B, LotR), we have a fixed (or rather circa) date for the 'when' of the emergence of the Nazgûl, c. II.2251. And two precise dates concerning two named Númenórean strongholds in Middle-earth: II.2280 for Umbar and II.2350 for Pelargir. For the latter, this is a construction date ("was built"), and for the former, it was arguably an 'upgrade' date rather than a 'first built' one ("was made into a great fortress"). Moreover, in a very late in life note dated to c. 1970 ('Note on the delay of Gil-galad and the Númenóreans', NoMe 3.XVIII), Tolkien adds another layer to the history of Pelargir, by referring to "the Númenóreans occupying the Mouths of Anduin and the shorelands of Lebennin...". This setting is at some point between II.1600, when Sauron forges the One Ring and II.1695, when he invades Eriador. In other words, Pelargir was preceded by adjacent, possibly pre-located, Númenórean settlement.*
Add to this that Vinyalondë, at the mouth of the River Gwathló, was a functioning Númenórean settlement ("a small Númenórean harbour") at the time of Tar-Minastir's intervention in the War of the Elves and Sauron ('The History of Galadriel & Celeborn', Unfinished Tales), and it's evident that there were Númenóreans dwelling in Middle-earth, prior to the formal foundation / upgrade dates of Umbar and Pelargir.
I agree with you that the founding of Pelargir and Umbar come across as very significant events in the history of Númenórean colonisation of Middle-earth. And by extension, they likely outstripped in size and grandeur earlier editions. And I agree with you that because they post-date the emergence of the Nazgûl, they are not the dwelling places of 'the great lords', three of the future Nazgûl, we're looking for. Yet I'm less certain than you when you say:
The colonies at this early time would have been small and insignificant next to the importance of the mainland, not the sort of places where you find "great lords" as permanent residents.
Smaller, sure. Insignificant? Maybe but not necessarily. Afterall, Númenórean settlements are being founded / expanded in the cause of 'dominion' from c. II.1800, as per the entry in 'The Tale of Years' that you quote:
c. 1800 From about this time onward the Númenóreans begin to establish dominions on the coasts. Sauron extends his power eastwards. The shadow falls on Númenor.
I reckon it's eminently conceivable that 'great lords' of Númenórean descent could have set up shop early in this 'dominion' phase, even if we dismiss the idea that the pre-II.1700 Númenórean population in Middle-earth may also have been worthy enough to include such lords among their number. Looking at who the kings were in this era, Tar-Ciryatan and Tar-Atanamir and what they were doing ("eager for wealth, and they laid the Men of Middle-earth under tribute" - Akallabêth), it's easy enough to imagine members of the Númenórean aristocracy piling in - serving as colonial governors, overseers of tribute collection and so on. The preserve and business of aristocracies - existing or on the make - in many a historical empire.
So, coming back around to the date for the emergence of the Nazgûl, c. II.2251. Yes, this utter enslavement is completed many decades before Umbar and Pelargir enter into 'The Tale of Years'. But what does that really tell us with regard to when Sauron distributed those particular Rings of Power? What we can pin down is a terminus post quem, II.1697 (ie. when Sauron first gets his hands on these Rings) and a terminus ante quem of c. II.2051. Why does this mean Ciryatan is the future Witch-king? We are looking for three 'great lords'. Sure, it can be made to fit with the terminus post quem. But there is no 'two great lords and one crown prince' passage to draw on for this. And we've seen above that there's sufficient context in what Tolkien wrote to assume that there were likely plenty of candidates for Sauron to approach/seduce in the date range we're talking about. There isn't, in my view, a problem that needs solving by inserting Ciryatan into this. Not least because there is no imperative to tie origins of the future Witch-king to the earliest possible date - there are another 500 or so years to choose from, after all! It does provide for some fun extratextual speculation, admittedly.
This part of your theory also caught my eye:
This "complicating the Fall" creates no new plot holes but solves the issue of Sauron ignoring the Númenor mainland (because he didn't do so here) and gives more background on how the King's Men started to crystallize. The existence of the faction implies that the king must have had strong ideas about the matter and was a driving force behind the split.
I'm not sure why the emergence of the King's Men needs Sauron or a Ring of Power (transmitted to Númenor by Ciryatan or anyone else for that matter) to explain it. I agree with you that the corruption of the bulk of the Númenóreans would have been linked to/guided by the world view articulated by the king - Tar-Ancalimon in Akallabêth, and Tar-Atanamir in 'The Tale of Years'. I reckon squire and Otaku set out very well that the Fall has its own well-established origin and narrative, separate to the Rings of Power. Insofar as the Ring-lore is retrofitted into this Fall by the author, it's not there to describe the 'why' or the 'how' of that Fall, but rather serves to help explain why Sauron was able to suborn the Númenóreans relatively easily. He is not 'the Shadow', in this context.
And finally, a question! Is the source for the below tucked away in HoMe XII somewhere or somewhere else altogether?
There is that one version of the timeline where Tar-Ciryatan lives for over 600 years...
* I wrote an essay on this subject a few years back and posted it in the Reading Room, if interested: A Tale of Two Cities: Umbar & Pelargir
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 20, 1:31am
Post #94 of 203
(6578 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with this assessment of Vinyalondë, as it pertains to Aldarion's era. Yes, prince, then king Aldarion failed to keep this settlement going. And yes, Tar-Ancalimë dumped her late father's support for Gil-galad ("After Aldarion's death she neglected all his policies, and gave no further aid to Gilgalad [sic]" - 'The Line of Elros'). Yet it's worth noting that there is, early in the reign of Tar-Minastir, some 600 years later "a small Númenórean harbour" at the mouth of the River Gwathló, including "forts at the Haven" - Vinyalondë restored, as CJRT concluded ('The History of Galadriel and Celeborn'). This is before the c. II.1800 'dominion-building' era that you cite from 'The Tale of Years'.
I also agree that it may be that the Númenórean population in Middle-earth was negligible by the end of Tar-Ancalimë's reign (II.1280). But it's up and running again in the 17th century of the Second Age at the latest.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
(This post was edited by Felagund on Feb 20, 1:35am)
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Gondolin
Feb 20, 1:33am
Post #95 of 203
(6576 views)
Shortcut
|
far greater and more pivotal responsibility means the need for far greater control from the top. A couple of orcs going off on their own, even if they managed to get a large number of other or to go with them, aren't going to threaten Sauron's sovereignty, even if they might disrupt things.
But also, judging by their state after Sauron's fall, I'm not sure how much independence the orcs would have, long-term.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 20, 2:14am
Post #96 of 203
(6570 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks, Felagund; you've stated the case much better than I would have. However, the link to your previous post does not seem to be working!
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Feb 20, 10:50am
Post #98 of 203
(6487 views)
Shortcut
|
Aargh, tech fail! Cheers squire! I'm a Luddite masquerading as a functional 21st century citizen :)
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Feb 20, 4:59pm
Post #99 of 203
(6463 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with this assessment of Vinyalondë, as it pertains to Aldarion's era. Yes, prince, then king Aldarion failed to keep this settlement going. And yes, Tar-Ancalimë dumped her late father's support for Gil-galad ("After Aldarion's death she neglected all his policies, and gave no further aid to Gilgalad [sic]" - 'The Line of Elros'). Yet it's worth noting that there is, early in the reign of Tar-Minastir, some 600 years later "a small Númenórean harbour" at the mouth of the River Gwathló, including "forts at the Haven" - Vinyalondë restored, as CJRT concluded ('The History of Galadriel and Celeborn'). This is before the c. II.1800 'dominion-building' era that you cite from 'The Tale of Years'.
I also agree that it may be that the Númenórean population in Middle-earth was negligible by the end of Tar-Ancalimë's reign (II.1280). But it's up and running again in the 17th century of the Second Age at the latest.
Sauron didn't give rings to just any random Númenoreans. He specifically targeted "great lords". Not just "lords" but "great lords". Those tend to be too important to be living as permanent residents at tiny colonial outposts. If such a lord wanted peace and quiet, he could go to his country estate (similar to Erendis) and would have no need to play Little House on the Prairie in a distant country that takes months of sailing to reach and has issues with hostile natives.
The settlers to America too were mainly from the lower classes. The powerful aristocrats had no need to go.
As for what would count as a "great lord", I think a duke or better? There are not many of those in a realm.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Feb 20, 7:54pm
Post #100 of 203
(6440 views)
Shortcut
|
On the timelines we're focusing on, I'm not sure I follow all of your argumentation. There's nothing I can see in it that underwrites Ciryatan being the answer to 'who was the Witch-king, originally?'. Via the 'Tale of Years' (Appendix B, LotR), we have a fixed (or rather circa) date for the 'when' of the emergence of the Nazgûl, c. II.2251. And two precise dates concerning two named Númenórean strongholds in Middle-earth: II.2280 for Umbar and II.2350 for Pelargir. For the latter, this is a construction date ("was built"), and for the former, it was arguably an 'upgrade' date rather than a 'first built' one ("was made into a great fortress"). Moreover, in a very late in life note dated to c. 1970 ('Note on the delay of Gil-galad and the Númenóreans', NoMe 3.XVIII), Tolkien adds another layer to the history of Pelargir, by referring to "the Númenóreans occupying the Mouths of Anduin and the shorelands of Lebennin...". This setting is at some point between II.1600, when Sauron forges the One Ring and II.1695, when he invades Eriador. In other words, Pelargir was preceded by adjacent, possibly pre-located, Númenórean settlement.* Add to this that Vinyalondë, at the mouth of the River Gwathló, was a functioning Númenórean settlement ("a small Númenórean harbour") at the time of Tar-Minastir's intervention in the War of the Elves and Sauron ('The History of Galadriel & Celeborn', Unfinished Tales), and it's evident that there were Númenóreans dwelling in Middle-earth, prior to the formal foundation / upgrade dates of Umbar and Pelargir. I agree with you that the founding of Pelargir and Umbar come across as very significant events in the history of Númenórean colonisation of Middle-earth. And by extension, they likely outstripped in size and grandeur earlier editions. And I agree with you that because they post-date the emergence of the Nazgûl, they are not the dwelling places of 'the great lords', three of the future Nazgûl, we're looking for. Yet I'm less certain than you when you say: The colonies at this early time would have been small and insignificant next to the importance of the mainland, not the sort of places where you find "great lords" as permanent residents. Smaller, sure. Insignificant? Maybe but not necessarily. Afterall, Númenórean settlements are being founded / expanded in the cause of 'dominion' from c. II.1800, as per the entry in 'The Tale of Years' that you quote: c. 1800 From about this time onward the Númenóreans begin to establish dominions on the coasts. Sauron extends his power eastwards. The shadow falls on Númenor. I reckon it's eminently conceivable that 'great lords' of Númenórean descent could have set up shop early in this 'dominion' phase, even if we dismiss the idea that the pre-II.1700 Númenórean population in Middle-earth may also have been worthy enough to include such lords among their number. Looking at who the kings were in this era, Tar-Ciryatan and Tar-Atanamir and what they were doing ("eager for wealth, and they laid the Men of Middle-earth under tribute" - Akallabêth), it's easy enough to imagine members of the Númenórean aristocracy piling in - serving as colonial governors, overseers of tribute collection and so on. The preserve and business of aristocracies - existing or on the make - in many a historical empire. So, coming back around to the date for the emergence of the Nazgûl, c. II.2251. Yes, this utter enslavement is completed many decades before Umbar and Pelargir enter into 'The Tale of Years'. But what does that really tell us with regard to when Sauron distributed those particular Rings of Power? What we can pin down is a terminus post quem, II.1697 (ie. when Sauron first gets his hands on these Rings) and a terminus ante quem of c. II.2051. Why does this mean Ciryatan is the future Witch-king? We are looking for three 'great lords'. Sure, it can be made to fit with the terminus post quem. But there is no 'two great lords and one crown prince' passage to draw on for this. And we've seen above that there's sufficient context in what Tolkien wrote to assume that there were likely plenty of candidates for Sauron to approach/seduce in the date range we're talking about. There isn't, in my view, a problem that needs solving by inserting Ciryatan into this. Not least because there is no imperative to tie origins of the future Witch-king to the earliest possible date - there are another 500 or so years to choose from, after all! It does provide for some fun extratextual speculation, admittedly.
Aldarion and Erendis gives information on the state of Middle-earth (or at least Eriador) in Aldarion's time. Aldarion found Middle-earth very sparsely populated, but with vast virgin forests. Aldarion was interested in lumber from these forests so that he could build more ships because he liked ships. Sauron would later on work to improve the areas under his control, but it doesn't sound like the Númenoreans tried to colonize these places. If they had, the second war against Sauron would have come much sooner.
The timeline mentions no noteworthy conquests. There would have been some skirmishes and minor clashes, but the only two real wars mentioned are against Sauron. My conclusion is that the Númenoreans were content to colonize places that didn't require much manpower to conquer. Consequently all their colonies would have to be built nearly from scratch and it would be a long time for these to grow into the sort of places where "great lords" would live.
The choice of leaving Sauron alone can be interpreted as a sign of Sauron's subtle influence. It isn't until Ar-Pharazôn that Númenor breaks its long-standing non-intervention policy against Sauron, and Ar-Pharazôn had Tar-Palantír before him to put a stop to the tradition the kings may have had among themselves that was the justification for the policy.
As for the tribute from Middle-earth, furs, ivory, incense etc. as well as slaves are likely. Such things do not need complex and powerful civilizations to produce.
This part of your theory also caught my eye: This "complicating the Fall" creates no new plot holes but solves the issue of Sauron ignoring the Númenor mainland (because he didn't do so here) and gives more background on how the King's Men started to crystallize. The existence of the faction implies that the king must have had strong ideas about the matter and was a driving force behind the split. I'm not sure why the emergence of the King's Men needs Sauron or a Ring of Power (transmitted to Númenor by Ciryatan or anyone else for that matter) to explain it. I agree with you that the corruption of the bulk of the Númenóreans would have been linked to/guided by the world view articulated by the king - Tar-Ancalimon in Akallabêth, and Tar-Atanamir in 'The Tale of Years'. I reckon squire and Otaku set out very well that the Fall has its own well-established origin and narrative, separate to the Rings of Power. Insofar as the Ring-lore is retrofitted into this Fall by the author, it's not there to describe the 'why' or the 'how' of that Fall, but rather serves to help explain why Sauron was able to suborn the Númenóreans relatively easily. He is not 'the Shadow', in this context.
The psychological condition of the Númenoreans explains why the king's message would have been so widely popular. Sauron influencing the king through a Ring of Power explains why the king would be propagating the message in the first place. It would have been easy for the king to adhere to the traditions from sheer inertia (after all, those traditions put him at the top), but instead he chose to actively rebel and spread the rebellion.
Compare and contrast with the French Revolution.
And finally, a question! Is the source for the below tucked away in HoMe XII somewhere or somewhere else altogether? There is that one version of the timeline where Tar-Ciryatan lives for over 600 years...
See this article by someone who isn't me:
https://storiesnevertold.quora.com/...g-The-Witch-King-who
|
|
|
|
|
