Is Khamul an Easterling?

[norrinradd]

We know that; in UT (Hunt for the Ring, journey of the black riders, note 1) says that Khamul was called a nick name that is ”the Black Easterling”. Therefore, Did Tolkien give the nickname (Black Easterling) to Khamul because of he was actually an Easterling?
Otherwise, Tolkien, as the purpose of using this nickname in his work; Did Tolkien want to explain that Khamul was known with this nickname to other middle-earth cultures, races or people and that Khamul is not actually an Easterling?

 

[Alcuin]

Khamûl is almost certainly an Easterling. Sauron and before him Morgoth long had influence over the Easterlings, who were divided in their loyalties in the First Age when during the Nirnaeth Arnoediad some remained true to the Eldar and Edain, while some deserted, attacking Caranthir from behind in a pre-arranged assault that overthrew the lines of Elves and Men.

Swarthy has its root in Proto-Indo-European *swordo meaning “black, dirty”. It might describe skin color, indicating that the Easterners had darker skin than the Edain and Drúedain, or that they did not have flaxen-colored hair, as did the majority of the Third House (and the majority of their Third Age kindred, the Rohirrim); but neither did the majority of the First or Second Houses, nor did the Drúedain.

Skin coloration follows wide variation, even among kindred: I am mostly European, as is my wife but darker; however, if I’m out in the sun all summer (something that hasn’t happened in 40 years), my Cherokee heritage shows forth, and I darken considerably. One of my brothers-in-law, however, turns dark enough to be mistaken for an African-American, and though he’s never as pale as I in late winter, he’s definitely a paleface. I call him “O swarthy one” to his delighted amusement. My sons darken considerably over the summer, but my daughters barely tan and sunburn easily.

More than likely, though, Khamûl’s appellation as “the Black Easterling” refers to his penchant for evil.

 

[norrinradd]

Khamûl is almost certainly an Easterling. Sauron and before him Morgoth long had influence over the Easterlings, who were divided in their loyalties in the First Age when during the Nirnaeth Arnoediad some remained true to the Eldar and Edain, while some deserted, attacking Caranthir from behind in a pre-arranged assault that overthrew the lines of Elves and Men.

Swarthy has its root in Proto-Indo-European *swordo meaning “black, dirty”. It might describe skin color, indicating that the Easterners had darker skin than the Edain and Drúedain, or that they did not have flaxen-colored hair, as did the majority of the Third House (and the majority of their Third Age kindred, the Rohirrim); but neither did the majority of the First or Second Houses, nor did the Drúedain.

Skin coloration follows wide variation, even among kindred: I am mostly European, as is my wife but darker; however, if I’m out in the sun all summer (something that hasn’t happened in 40 years), my Cherokee heritage shows forth, and I darken considerably. One of my brothers-in-law, however, turns dark enough to be mistaken for an African-American, and though he’s never as pale as I in late winter, he’s definitely a paleface. I call him “O swarthy one” to his delighted amusement. My sons darken considerably over the summer, but my daughters barely tan and sunburn easily.

More than likely, though, Khamûl’s appellation as “the Black Easterling” refers to his penchant for evil.

How did you say Khamul was certainly an Easterling? Does this depend on a source of Tolkien? Khamul’s Appellation as “black” refers to his penchant for evil but this is just not “black”. His appellation was “black easterling”.

 

[Sailawen]

He's probably an Easterling, for all I know. Is it mentioned anywhere other than UT, though??

 

[Olorgando]

He's probably an Easterling, for all I know. Is it mentioned anywhere other than UT, though??

No, he seems to be mentioned exclusively in UT, at least if my checking for his name in the indexes of "The Silmarillion", LoTR and the four HoMe volumes dealing with the latter are concerned.

 

[Elthir]

We know that; in UT (Hunt for the Ring, journey of the black riders, note 1) says that Khamul was called a nick name that is ”the Black Easterling”.

Note 1 also explains that "The Second Chief (the Black Easterling)" appears in a rejected version (a version which did not include the name Khamul) -- a rejected version of the passage that refers to "Khamul" as "the Shadow of the East". I would say (unless I'm forgetting another reference) that Tolkien's "Black Easterling" might have been rejected for "Shadow of the East", but it hardly seems a point worth wrangling over (not that anyone is), considering the suggestion of both descriptions.

If I had to bet, I'd say that Khamul is an Easterling (at least in the sense of the UT Appendix description regarding the Third Age). And for myself anyway, to say otherwise I would want to see some evidence not to take the suggestion of either BE (Black Easterling) or SE (Shadow of the East),
or of both in tandem. That's not to say your notion is impossible, but at the moment I can't think of any good evidence to lead me down a different path here.

Khamul is also mentioned in various notes published by Hammond and Scull in their Reader's Guide to The Lord of the Rings, but unless I missed a further reference there (I don't think I did), K is not called BE in these, nor an Easterling. Hammond and Scull (not Tolkien admittedly) refer to K as "from the East."

🐾

 

[norrinradd]

Note 1 also explains that "The Second Chief (the Black Easterling)" appears in a rejected version (a version which did not include the name Khamul) -- a rejected version of the passage that refers to "Khamul" as "the Shadow of the East". I would say (unless I'm forgetting another reference) that Tolkien's "Black Easterling" might have been rejected for "Shadow of the East", but it hardly seems a point worth wrangling over (not that anyone is), considering the suggestion of both descriptions.

If I had to bet, I'd say that Khamul is an Easterling (at least in the sense of the UT Appendix description regarding the Third Age). And for myself anyway, to say otherwise I would want to see some evidence not to take the suggestion of either BE (Black Easterling) or SE (Shadow of the East),
or of both in tandem. That's not to say your notion is impossible, but at the moment I can't think of any good evidence to lead me down a different path here.

Khamul is also mentioned in various notes published by Hammond and Scull in their Reader's Guide to The Lord of the Rings, but unless I missed a further reference there (I don't think I did), K is not called BE in these, nor an Easterling. Hammond and Scull (not Tolkien admittedly) refer to K as "from the East."

🐾

Hi again,


What Christopher Tolkien (in UT) meant in the rejected version is about the number of the Nazguls at that time in Dol Guldur. Whether 2-3 Nazgul at there,or Khamul is not there, is not important and nasty (rejected version is already related to how many nazguls are in Dol Guldur); but this is not a note showing that he was not nicknamed “the Black Easterling”. Am I wrong? It is presented in the note that Khamul is referred to by his nickname “Second Chief” and “Black Easterling”, just not by his original name. In this note (about rejected version), ”Second Chief” and ”the Black Easterling” are used together. And in the other text (actual text), we already knew and saw that Khamul was called ”Second Chief”. We understand clearly that the nickname “Second Chief” belongs to Khamul. With this note (about the rejected version) just added a nickname, is “Black Easterling”, to other nickname (Second Chief).

Even if it is on the rejected version,there is no doubt that these two nicknames belong to Khamul by using “Second Chief” and “the Black Easterling” nicknames together, I think that Christopher Tolkien also stated these notes and in last pages of UT (Indexs); there are 2 notes that are “the Black Easterling, see: Khamul” and the other one is “Khamul:.... nicknames; Shadow of the East, the Black Easterling, Second Chief”.

Am I right?

 

[Elthir]

What Christopher Tolkien (in UT) meant in the rejected version is about the number of the Nazguls at that time in Dol Guldur.

That's certainly a main thrust for the note, but not the only information it provides. If (for a silly example) the rejected passage had the name Khrème Brûlée for the second Chief, and the revised passage had Khamûl . . . well, I said it was silly.

Whether 2-3 Nazgul at there, or Khamul is not there, is not important and nasty ( . . .)

Do you mean that it's nasty that I offer a possible second way to view this evidence? Above I put the word might in italics to stress this, and certainly didn't intend it to be nasty.

( . . . ) Even if it is on the rejected version, there is no doubt that these two nicknames belong to Khamul by using “Second Chief” and “the Black Easterling” nicknames together, I think that Christopher Tolkien also stated these notes and in last pages of UT (Indexs); there are 2 notes that are “the Black Easterling, see: Khamul” and the other one is “Khamul:.... nicknames; Shadow of the East, the Black Easterling, Second Chief”.

I wouldn't call your statements wrong, and I fully understand your thinking here, and why the UT index reads as it does -- the same character is no doubt involved, and especially given these names, both having "East suggestions" (as I said above), "it hardly seems a point worth wrangling over (not that anyone is), considering the suggestion of both descriptions."

That said, so far, if indeed there is no other reference to Khamul as the "Black Easterling", maybe Tolkien simply thought "Shadow of the East" was "cooler" than "Black Easterling". . . maybe JRRT was thinking of what Khamul might mean in some language, and changed BE for some, possibly fleeting "linguistic reason"

Maybe he was going to retain both BE and SE. And maybe he intended that "BE" was incorrectly given by certain folks, due to some false rumor, or purposely false information . . . Is that last statement nasty, or am I trying to keep the tone of this post light? I intend the second reason, in any case.



Or maybe, as the late, great Halfir has suggested at the Tolkien Fanatics Forum, Tolkien was better off giving the Nazgul no "names" (outside of the title Witch-King of course) in the author-published sources, as this would arguably stamp the idea that the Nine had lost themselves/identities to Sauron's will.

Anyway, note one tells us more than the number of Nazgul compared to the author-published description in Appendix B. However you interpret it, CJRT also chose to tell the reader that in the rejected passage, the unnamed second to the Chief was called BE, compared to the revised version, in which we find Khamul and SE rather.

I'll "pause" here 🐾

 

[norrinradd]

That's certainly a main thrust for the note, but not the only information it provides. If (for a silly example) the rejected passage had the name Khrème Brûlée for the second Chief, and the revised passage had Khamûl . . . well, I said it was silly.




Do you mean that it's nasty that I offer a possible second way to view this evidence? Above I put the word might in italics to stress this, and certainly didn't intend it to be nasty.




I wouldn't call your statements wrong, and I fully understand your thinking here, and why the UT index reads as it does -- the same character is no doubt involved, and especially given these names, both having "East suggestions" (as I said above), "it hardly seems a point worth wrangling over (not that anyone is), considering the suggestion of both descriptions."

That said, so far, if indeed there is no other reference to Khamul as the "Black Easterling", maybe Tolkien simply thought "Shadow of the East" was "cooler" than "Black Easterling". . . maybe JRRT was thinking of what Khamul might mean in some language, and changed BE for some, possibly fleeting "linguistic reason"

Maybe he was going to retain both BE and SE. And maybe he intended that "BE" was incorrectly given by certain folks, due to some false rumor, or purposely false information . . . Is that last statement nasty, or am I trying to keep the tone of this post light? I intend the second reason, in any case.



Or maybe, as the late, great Halfir has suggested at the Tolkien Fanatics Forum, Tolkien was better off giving the Nazgul no "names" (outside of the title Witch-King of course) in the author-published sources, as this would arguably stamp the idea that the Nine had lost themselves/identities to Sauron's will.

Anyway, note one tells us more than the number of Nazgul compared to the author-published description in Appendix B. However you interpret it, CJRT also chose to tell the reader that in the rejected passage, the unnamed second to the Chief was called BE, compared to the revised version, in which we find Khamul and SE rather.

I'll "pause" here 🐾

Christopher Tolkien says that in the note1: "In the version that was taken off the agenda, the number of Nazgul's in Dol Guldur was actually 1, and that was BE, and my father specified Khamul as SE and BE in that version, that is, by using nicknames, not Khamul."

Any note with the name Khamul was not found in the already published JRRT sources; Christopher Tolkien compiled and collected all of them and presented the name Khamul to the reader for the first time in UT, we know. For this reason, Tolkien's use of SE and BE together in the note of the rejected version, but using SE only in the note of the present version, does not mean that Khamul does not have the BE nickname. If we go with this logic, it should be doubted that the use of only SE in the rejected version belongs to Khamul, which would be ridiculous. Tolkien, I think there is no doubt that SE is BE, if there is no doubt how he meant Khamul using only SE. Because neither version has already been released, then it must have been contented by typing SE in the current version he wrote, because he already knows that it is Khamul and BE.

Last important question and then I will finish: If JRRT was meant to keep BE off the agenda (bring down the agenda of version), wouldn't his son, Christopher Tolkien, understand it? If Christopher had already realized that his father had such a purpose about "bring down the agenda of version", he wouldn't call Khamul's nickname in the Index as BE. In fact, if we say Khamul is not BE, we are ignoring what Chris wants to tell us. Isn't it enough that Christopher Tolkien calls BE to Khamul's nickname in the INDEX of UT, to say Khamul is an Easterling with this nickname? Because Christopher Tolkein could best understand what his father was trying to say from his notes (of rejected or present versions)?

 

[Elthir]

Norrinradd (the Silver Surfer's name if I recall correctly), I think I've already given my point of view concerning the issues you raise, and if you still think some part of my last post is ridiculous, no problem. One possible clarification though. . .

Christopher Tolkien says that in the note1: "In the version that was taken off the agenda, the number of Nazgul's in Dol Guldur was actually 1, and that was BE, and my father specified Khamul as SE and BE in that version, that is, by using nicknames, not Khamul."

. . . this is not how note 1 reads, at least in my English version -- if you mean to say this is Christopher Tolkien's actual statement that is, by using quotation marks here.

🐾

 

[norrinradd]

Norrinradd (the Silver Surfer's name if I recall correctly), I think I've already given my point of view concerning the issues you raise, and if you still think some part of my last post is ridiculous, no problem. One possible clarification though. . .




. . . this is not how note 1 reads, at least in my English version -- if you mean to say this is Christopher Tolkien's actual statement that is, by using quotation marks here.

🐾

Elthir lord, sorry for misunderstanding. When I wrote “ridiculous”, I meant “winding”.

In the INDEX part in UT; Christopher Tolkien stated clearly that Khamul's nickname is BE and SE (When he stated that is BE nickname, Do you think he opposes his father's will here, or does he actually agree with his father?

 

[Elthir]

In the INDEX part in UT; Christopher Tolkien stated clearly that Khamul's nickname is BE and SE (When he stated that is BE nickname, Do you think he opposes his father's will here, or does he actually agree with his father?

As I say, I've no doubt that the character is referred to with both names, and the index properly sorts these names out with respect to page number. But that said, to my mind, the index doesn't necessarily need to characterize, one way or the other, if one name has been rejected for another. If it's obvious enough, the index might read "earlier names" or "formerly". . . but admittedly, in this case it's not easy to know Tolkien's intent for certain (again, unless I'm forgetting some other later reference to BE).

I note, for one example from HOME 12, the forms under the entry Maedros: Maedhros, Maidros, and especially Maedron, all with their respective page numbers for easy reference of course. There's nothing in the index itself that characterizes Maedron -- one has to go to the text to see what's said, or what's known about this form . . . and yes it's a bit different being the form of a name, but if I'm a writer and refer to Elendil "the Brave" . . . but change my mind to Elendil "the Tall" 'cause I think it sounds "better" . . . then "the tall" it is (this is an invented example, by the way).

Anyway, I'm not championing the idea that BE is certainly rejected for SE, but so far, it seems possible to me, and not that crazy to wonder about, given that BE hails from a rejected passage, and then we find SE.

 

[norrinradd]

As I say, I've no doubt that the character is referred to with both names, and the index properly sorts these names out with respect to page number. But that said, to my mind, the index doesn't necessarily need to characterize, one way or the other, if one name has been rejected for another.

However, it is not the rejected character name or nickname; only the number of Nazguls is changing. The use of SE in the current version, and the use of both BE and SC (Second Chief) nicknames in the rejected version does not show us that BE and SC have been rejected, on the contrary, it shows that they have 3 nicknames (which says that they have 3 nicknames in the fandom). Am I right or wrong?

Also the index goes directly to "Khamul ... nick names: SE and BE".If the index stated only the number of pages, in this case; the phrase "nicknames of khamul" would not pass directly. (which has used this phrase)

 

[Alcuin]

norrinradd, “Black Easterling” and “Shadow of the East” are epithets, “nicknames” if you will. An individual can have several epithets.

In the real world, Alexander III of Macedon is more commonly called by his epithet, “Alexander the Great”. Philip II of Spain is called “Philip the Prudent” in Spain because his policies lifted the Spanish Empire to the height of its power, but “Philip the Bigot” in the Low Countries because his attempts to suppress Protestantism and extract revenue in the wealthy region (continuing the monetary and taxation practices of his father, Emperor Charles V) resulted in the Dutch Revolt and Eighty Years War. George Washington is variously referred to as the “first president” of the United States, “Commander-in-Chief in the Revolutionary War”, and (in America) “father of his country”, but they are all epithets for the same man.

Khamûl, we may be sure, was a mortal Man from the middle of the Second Age, as were all the Nazgûl, who were ensnared by Sauron using the Nine Rings he seized from the Smiths of Eregion during the War of the Elves and Sauron during Second Age 1693–1701. If, as is likely, Khamûl was in origin a powerful king and warrior of the Easterlings who as a living man worshipped Sauron, he was probably given one of the more powerful of the Nine Rings and one of the first to become a Nazgûl. That he earned several epithets both before he became a Nazgûl and in the centuries afterward should not be surprising.

 

[norrinradd]

norrinradd, “Black Easterling” and “Shadow of the East” are epithets, “nicknames” if you will. An individual can have several epithets.

In the real world, Alexander III of Macedon is more commonly called by his epithet, “Alexander the Great”. Philip II of Spain is called “Philip the Prudent” in Spain because his policies lifted the Spanish Empire to the height of its power, but “Philip the Bigot” in the Low Countries because his attempts to suppress Protestantism and extract revenue in the wealthy region (continuing the monetary and taxation practices of his father, Emperor Charles V) resulted in the Dutch Revolt and Eighty Years War. George Washington is variously referred to as the “first president” of the United States, “Commander-in-Chief in the Revolutionary War”, and (in America) “father of his country”, but they are all epithets for the same man.

Khamûl, we may be sure, was a mortal Man from the middle of the Second Age, as were all the Nazgûl, who were ensnared by Sauron using the Nine Rings he seized from the Smiths of Eregion during the War of the Elves and Sauron during Second Age 1693–1701. If, as is likely, Khamûl was in origin a powerful king and warrior of the Easterlings who as a living man worshipped Sauron, he was probably given one of the more powerful of the Nine Rings and one of the first to become a Nazgûl. That he earned several epithets both before he became a Nazgûl and in the centuries afterward should not be surprising.

Tolkien determines the Nazguls ranking, not us. According to Tolkien, he may have been the first Nazgul Numenour or some other origin, not necessarily making the 1st Nazgul someone who thinks he is an Easterling lord or warrior, but he has not.

We only have nicknames mentioned in UT regarding Khamul. Christopher Tolkien also states that when he looks at his father's notes and compiles himself, one of the Khamul’s nickname is Black Easterling (Easterling is a special name in the Middle Earth and this name was not used any other things, except the origin, by Tolkien). If we do not call “Black Easterling” as an Easterling, then you shouldn't call ”Black Riders” as a Rider. Isn’t it?

 

[Elthir]

An individual can have several epithets.

And I myself have been known by other *names

@Norrin *some now "rejected"

Nice post Alcuin [I don't do "likes" for a reason that's too knotted to try and explain in full -- and may itself be crazy]

Applaws 🐾

 

[norrinradd]

And I myself have been known by other *names

@Norrin *some now "rejected"

Nice post Alcuin [I don't do "likes" for a reason that's too knotted to try and explain in full -- and may itself be crazy]

Applaws 🐾

JRRT didn't give us much information about Nazguls anyway, we know. I think he didn't care so much that he didn't give us Nazgul's information which are any real names or detailed information in published works (LOTR, Hobbit...). It is very normal to use SE in some of his later notes or BE in others. He might not have wanted to use or write 3 epithets in each of his notes, he might not have remembered at that moment because he doesn't care the detailed information about Nazguls of anyway. While writing the current passage, SE may have been cooler for JRRT, or it may be ridiculous to specify 3 epithets each time he writes Khamul for JRRT. If JRRT had the thought that he was rejected BE, Christopher Tolkien would not clearly indicate BE while determining Khamul's epithets in INDEX of UT. If Christophers calls us Khamul's epithets are BE and SE; It seems unreasonable to say "I think not BE" by going through the winding roads. Christopher Tolkien also says it's important (because Christopher stated that: "it may be noted") when specifying the rejected version in "Note1" of "Hunt for the Ring". I think that it was rejected does not mean that Tolkien gave up here; It is actually the Nazguls number in Dol Guldur that was rejected, If JRRT had given up on the epithet of BE here, Christopher Tolkien wouldn't have made it clear that this epithet BE belong to Khamul in INDEX of UT. (While reading the general explanations of INDEX, we also see that this is written with Christoper Tolkien's first mouth as; "Although the small details in the directory seem to be insignificant, it will be easier and more beneficial to reach the whole of these details... Some names that were not included in my father's published works were mentioned with an asterisk on their heads. I did not limit the short expressions that provide definitions and comments to the reader to the topics and concepts mentioned in the content of our book, but at some points, I added notes on the meaning of some names that have not been translated until now"). (Khamul has an asterisk on their heads in INDEX).

The fandom page also thinks that Khamul is on this nick, and Christopher also stated, according to your logic they are all wrong?

 

[Elthir]

Hmm. I'll say yes, my star-surfing friend, in my opinion they would all be wrong if they claimed to know for certain that an epithet used in a rejected passage -- given that the revised passage uses another epithet -- was definitely not rejected by JRRT. I would be wrong too if I claimed that BE was certainly rejected, due to the simple observation I just made.

Well, maybe we all would not be "wrong" exactly

But I guess I was wrong that this matter is not worth wrangling over, as it has certainly given me something to do

 

[norrinradd]

Hmm. I'll say yes, my star-surfing friend, in my opinion they would all be wrong if they claimed to know for certain that an epithet used in a rejected passage -- given that the revised passage uses another epithet -- was definitely not rejected by JRRT. I would be wrong too if I claimed that BE was certainly rejected, due to the simple observation I just made.

Well, maybe we all would not be "wrong" exactly

But I guess I was wrong that this matter is not worth wrangling over, as it has certainly given me something to do

You are quite right But I think we should consider BE epithet even when there is so little information about Nazguls. Even if we can't take BE into account, I think SE is equivalent to BE, very similar meanings. If we just consider SE, that information arises: Even if Rhun is not included in the concept of East, Khand can enter. Easterlings are from Rhun, but someone living in Khand is Eastern automatically. Three of the Nazgul's are said to be from Numenour, and Khamul is not one of them, and because his epithet is SE, we clearly understand that he is one of the eastern people. It is impossible to say that it is not Eastern, even if Khamul is not an Easterling, according to Tolkien's sources. Cool? or not?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

the name Khrème Brûlée

Gee, wish I'd thought of that when I was choosing a username!

Do you mean that it's nasty that I offer a possible second way to view this evidence? Above I put the word might in italics to stress this, and certainly didn't intend it to be nasty.

But what's it got in its nassty little pocketses? That's what I want to know. 🧐