• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

For a final informative view for Khamul

Elthir said:
We seem to agree then: in the Christopher Tolkien recommended reference, The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth, there is no such character named Khamul.

At least in my edition
Click to expand...
Yes, but there was a character, who was Khamul, in the middle world. Christopher Tolkien said, if I was insufficient in my explanation and my explanations were difficult, look at that (TCGME) source. Whether it is included in that source (TCGME) is unimportant. I suggest that you examine the index part of UT, because the index chapter is very clear and in the index chapter; Christopher Tolkien stated that, together with his own conclusions, Khamul was the second Nazgul, dwelling in Dol Guldur, and Khamul’s epithets were BE and SE.
 
Can we at least agree with Christopher Tolkien (Introduction to Unfinished Tales) that: " . . . he [JRRT] himself, peculiarly critical and exacting of his own work, would not have dreamt of allowing even the more completed narratives in this book [UT] to appear without much further refinement." And that Appendix B was published by Tolkien himself -- in which an unnamed Black Rider comes to Hobbiton.

Or at least that I am being annoyingly annoying in my last couple of posts (and probably more) < we can at least agree on that much, surely!
 
Yes I agree with you. Just; the fact that Khamul was not mentioned in the Appendix B did not mean that the notes indicated by Christopher Tolkien in UT were not important. I already agree with Khamul comments on the other thread of Khamul.
 
To sum up then, by making purposely silly arguments (time I could have used looking up Elros references), my participation in these Khamulian threads has:

A) made the threads longer

Also, in another thread I lied about Feanor and said my source was HME XIII -- which doesn't exist.
 
The thread seems a bit scattered To sum up; we only know for sure that Khamul is called "Shadow of the East". For example, JRRT called "Men of the West" to western people and "Men of the East" to eastern people, we know sure and we already see that JRRT used the word "of" instead of "from" for the general reference terms when he was addressing the culture or divisions of the people. Considering that Khamul had Black Easterling epithet before (in rejected version); by that logic (I mentioned above), “Shadow of the East”: Eastern Khamul. I think, there was no need for hypothesis interpretations for this situation (Connection of Eastness). Because, there was no JRRT work (even if it has been rejected or scribbled) to prove otherwise a situation which is related to he was sent only to direct the east, but was not actually an Easterling. (At least when we think of the "Black Easterling" epithet, even if it was rejected; and the "Shadow of the East" epithet which in the present version did not disrupt the meaning integrity of the "Black Easterling" epithet. Also, since the epithet in the current version did not constitute a contrast or contradiction to the epithet in the rejected version; we can say for sure that Khamul has have more than one epithet).
Thanks for your all replies. If I could get your likes, I would be very happy, of course

Best regards,
Berk
 
Last edited:
Boiled down: "from the East" is a reasonable conclusion here. Even Hammond and Scull go out on this limb in their Reader's Guide. That said . . .

"Also, since the epithet in the current version did not constitute a contrast or contradiction to the epithet in the rejected version; we can say for sure that Khamul has have more than one epithet).
Click to expand...


I would disagree that anyone can know this for sure in an internal sense (within the story).
 
Last edited:
Since Ulfang's epithet was Black Easterling, there was a possibility that he may have interfered with it, he may have changed it (It may not be exactly certain that he didn't give up BE epithet, yes).



It is a certain situation to say “from the East”, but we can see that Tolkien used “of” word instead of “from” for the general reference terms when he was addressing the culture or divisions of the people (No epithets in the “Men from the West” style.

When we think of the Tolkien way of writing, that I’ve just mentioned above, with the SE epithet and also, when the speculations produced in order to refute the situation of Khamul was being an Easterling (otherwise a situation which is related to he was sent only to direct the east by Sauron, but was not actually an Easterling) can not be filled, I think these speculations are the aim of prolonging the thread (I’m not saying that aim for you @Elthir ).
 
norrinradd said:
Since Ulfang's epithet was Black Easterling, there was a possibility that he may have interfered with it, he may have changed it (It may not be exactly certain that he didn't give up BE epithet, yes).
Click to expand...


My approach here is simpler. The mere existence of draft text > revised draft text (and so on, depending upon how many draft forms exist for a given passage) > to the latest form, or even an author-published "final" form, is a process. If I write a passage in which my character Robin is called Longstride, and at some point I revise the same passage and call my character Robin Longshanks, do I certainly intend Robin to have two epithets within the story?

Do I, as the creator of Robin, intend for anyone to even read the first draft?
 
Yes, we are the same here. However, this did not prevent Khamul from being an Easterling. Wasn’t the “Shadow of the East” epithet alone clear enough? (I’m saying again; JRRT called "Men of the West" to western people or "Men of the East" to eastern people, we know sure and we already see that JRRT used the word "of" instead of "from" for the general reference terms when he was addressing the culture or divisions of the people). In addition, SE and BE epithets did not contradict but overlap each other. Some forum members posted and said speculation that Khamul could be directed East by Sauron and he was not actually an Easterling. This speculation that does not rely on data from any Tolkien source is a betrayal of the Tolkien universe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

Who is the Most Sly Politician in Middle Earth?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Vardarianna
Wisdom: √ÑGOL and Tolkien’s Philological Ethics
Replies
9
Views
1K
Backyard Professor
The Eru-as-Audience Symphony Theory
Replies
9
Views
1K
AaronSecret
Tolkien Bible Crossover series short stories compendium
Replies
1
Views
688
Roy Lores
📖👀 Chapter 10 (📔Book V): The Black Gate Opens
Replies
7
Views
2K
Eljorahir
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…