Uruks vs. Uruk-hai

[Eonwe]

Newbies! Pay attention. B.S. = black speech, nothing else.

 

[aragil]

Eonwe you rat! Sneaking in here and thieving our preciousss 500th post. We hates it! We hates it forever!!

Oh well, 501 for me. Just 422 more and we catch the 'ticked you off' thread. Anybody feeling tired?

Tar Elenion- how do we know that the rings poem was not composed in it's entirety by Sauron?

Also, Uruk-hai demonstrably referred only to Saruman's troops, at least until summer 1948. Up until this time, the concept of 'large soldier-Orcs of Mordor' had already appeared, but had never been called Uruks. That he first applied the term Uruks to Mordor Orcs in 1948, 4 years after writing the letter to his son, is pretty good evidence that the definition changed during those four years. As I said before, this could have been an expansion of the collective terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' to include both Mordor and Isengarders, or it could have been that 'Uruk-hai' remained the name of Isengarders while 'Uruks' was used only for Mordor Orcs. Either way we have a changing definition. Having examined the 15 (really 18) usages in the texts and appendices, I would say that the latter theory is better supported by what Tolkien wrote.

 

[Greenwood]

I was saving this relisting of the examples for the 400th post but Eonwe stole that number. Anyway, I have redone the list of uses of the terms uruk/uruks/Uruks/Uruk-hai. In this new listing I have arranged the occurrences in the same sequence they appear in the book. I have renumbered them in this new sequence, but have used the computer software style of numbering, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. to distinguish them from the older listings on this thread. I have also seperated out each usage as its own number (in the old list 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 were lumped and 2.17 and 2.18 were lumped). Example 2.16 is new since the last listing, having been found by Aragil since then.

2.1) In The Fellowship of the Ring, in the chapter The Bridge of Khazad-dum, Gandalf says: "There are Orcs, very many of them .... And some are large and evil: black Uruks of Mordor. ...."

2.2) This is not exactly a quote, but in The Two Towers, Tolkien titles his chapter "The Uruk-hai".

2.3) In the chapter The Uruk-hai in The Two Towers, Ugluk says: "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here ..... "

2.4) Later in the same chapter, Ugluk again speaking: "Leave them to me then! No killing, as I've told you before; but if you want to throw away what we've come all the way to get, throw it away! I'll look after it. Letting the fighting Uruk-hai do the work, as usual. ..... "

2.5) On the next page, Ugluk again: "You seem to know a lot. ... More than is good for you I guess. Perhaps those in Lugburz might wonder how, and why. But in the meantime the Uruk-hai of Isengard can do the dirty work, as usual. ...."

2.6) In The Two Towers in the chapter Helm's Deep, as Aragorn looks out for the dawn there is the following passage:

"The Orcs yelled and jeered. 'Come down! Come down!' they cried. 'If you wish to speak to us, come down! Bring out your king! We are the fighting Uruk-hai. We will fetch him from his hole, if he does not come down. Bring out your skulking king!'

2.7) The passage in 2.6) continues: " 'The king stays or comes at his own will,' said Aragorn.

" 'Then what are you doing here?' they answered. 'Why do you look out? Do you wish to see the greatness of our army? We are the fighting Uruk-hai.'

2.8) The passage in 2.7) continues: " 'I looked out to see the dawn,' said Aragorn.

" 'What of the dawn?' they jeered. 'We are the Uruk-hai: we do not stop the fight for night or day, for fair weather or for storm. .... "

2.9) In The Two Towers, in the chapter The Choices of Master Samwise, Gorbag says: " .... I say something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. ....."

2.10) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Seige of Gondor there is the following sentence: "No hours so dark had Pippin known, not even in the clutches of the Uruk-hai."

2.11) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of Shadow, Sam and Frodo overhear two orcs talking and one says: ".... First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together."

2.12) In The Return of the King, in the chapter The Land of the Shadow, Sam and Frodo are overtaken on the road by troops of orcs and there is the following description of the troops: "Beside them, running up and down the line, went two of the large fierce uruks, cracking lashes and shouting." (Italics in original.)

2.13) In The Return of the King, at the end of the chapter The Land of the Shadow, while Sam and Frodo are masqerading as orcs: "A troop of heavy-armed uruks from Barad-dur charged into the Durthang line and threw them into confusion." (Italics in the original.)

2.14) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In the last years of Denethor I the race of uruks, black orcs of great strength, first appeared out of Mordor, and in 2475 they swept across Ithilien and took Osgiliath."

2.15) In The Return of the King, in Appendix A it says: "In 2989 Theodwyn married Eomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Eomer was borm in 2991, and her daughter Eowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected."

2.16) In The Return of the King, in Appendix B, The Tale of Years, it says: "2901 Most of the remaining inhabitants of Ithilien desert it owing to the attacks of Uruks of Mordor."

2.17) In The Return of the King, in Appendix F it says: "Orc is the form of the name that other races had for this foul people as it was in the language of Rohan. In Sindarin it was orch. Related. no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard." (Italics in the original.)

2.18) Directly following 2.17) above in Appendix F is: "The lesser kinds were called, especially by the Uruk-hai, snaga 'slave'." (Italics in the original.)

Continued in next post because of message length restrictions.

 

[Greenwood]

Continued from last post.

So what do we have?

Uruks/uruks where it clearly refers to Mordor orcs: examples 2.1, 2.9, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.16. Total of 6 examples

Uruk-hai where it clearly refers to Isengard orcs: examples 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10. Total of 8 examples

uruks referring to Isengard orcs: example 2.15. Total of 1 example

uruk referring to both Mordor and Isengard orcs: example 2.17. Total of 1 example.

Uruk-hai where it is not specified who is being referred to: example 2.11, 2.18. Total of 2 examples.

Notice I am not excluding any examples just because they are in the Appendices. I have never said that the Appendices should be ignored as Tar-Elenion as attempted to characterize my statements. I said that Tolkien said in his Introduction to the First Edition of LOTR that readers need not read the Appendices if they did not wish to. I said that based on that statement and normal usage of appendices in books, I consider it impossible that Tolkien would change the meaning of things in the main narrative by anything he wrote in the Appendices. Many foreign language editions of LOTR do not even include the Appendices. Some of these foreign editions certainly appeared during Tolkien's lifetime, the rest must be authorized by his estate. If the Appendices were essential to understanding the true meaning of things in LOTR, Tolkien and his estate would not allow what would be incomplete, and inaccurate versions of his work to be published. I do not believe Tolkien changed any meanings by what he wrote in the Appendices.

Let us look again at the usages. The first 13 are in the narrative proper and of these in 4 cases uruks/Uruks clearly refer to Mordor orcs and in 8 cases Uruk-hai clearly refers to Isengard orcs. The remaining instance is the much discussed soldier/tracker conversation (example 2.11); we will come back to this one. We have 5 examples in the Appendices. In two of these uruks clearly refers to Mordor orcs bringing that usage up to a total of six examples. In the remaining 3 cases, in one case Uruk-hai is not specified as to who it refers to (example 2.18), in one case uruks refers to Isengard orcs (2.15) and in one case uruk (2.17) refers to Mordor and Isengard orcs. This last case is unique in several ways. It is the only instance to in any way apply the same term to both Mordor and Isengard orcs, but it is the only case where the word uruk is used. It is also quite clear that the sense of the sentence here is linguistic and indeed the base word uruk is in both Uruks as applied to Mordor orcs and Uruk-hai as applied to Isengard orcs, so there is no conflict with the other usages. Example 2.15 does indeed have uruks applied to orcs in the employ of Saruman, but these are from a period approximately 30 years before the action of LOTR and there is no dispute that Saruman bred his own special orcs, so here we have the source of this special breed, the uruks before Saruman turned them into Uruk-hai. We are left now with only two examples (2.11 & 2.17). In both cases Uruk-hai is used without an immediate specification as to whose troops are being referred to. Given that we have 14 out of 18 examples that are clearly attributable, 6 for Uruks as Mordor orcs and 8 for Uruk-hai as Isengard orcs, by far the simplest, most logical conclusion is that these last two examples of Uruk-hai also refer to Isengard's troops, especially since there is not a single instance of Uruk-hai ever referring to Mordor troops. Thus 14 out of 18 examples require no special explanation as to what they mean; two (2.11 & 2.17) are easily assigned based on the other uses, one fits the other uses when we consider its time period (2.15) and the last (2.17) refers to the root word uruk common to both names and is so stated. Only one case, example 2.15 requires the least explanation.

In opposition to this simple explanation of the uses of Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR we have Tar-Elenion's and ShagratU's efforts to equate the two terms which require that virtually every one of the 18 examples have its own special explanation for why it does not refer to what the term in a simple, straight forward reading seems to refer to. We are told that "of Isengard" does not mean that the Uruk-hai are from Isengard but implies something different. We are told that we aren't really hearing Mordor orcs call themselves Uruks. We are told that when some character speak Westron they use one word, but when other characters also speak Westron they use a different word. In short many special cases instead of accepting that Tolkien meant what he wrote. And the whole rational for this is example 2.17 found in the end of the Appendices in a linguistic section. In other words Tolkien was such a bad writer that only those who carefully read the all the Appendices will be let in on the secret. Oh yes, the other initiates into the secret will be those readers who read personal family letters and a manuscript not written until nearly 20 years after LOTR and that Tolkien never intended the public to see (at least in its unfinished form). Yes, Tar-Elenion's and ShagratU's arguments are much simpler than merely accepting what Tolkien wrote in LOTR.

 

[Greenwood]

Quote by Tar-Elenion
I dont think Aragil has shown this. The meaning of the terms did not change. 'Uruk' and 'Uruk-hai' always referred to Orcs (even if 'figuratively'). I do not think JRRT changed his mind. He always applied the terms to Orcs (even if 'figuratively').

Of course, Uruks and Uruk-hai always referred to orcs. The question is do they refer to the same orcs? They do not.

a few quotes of Tar-Elenion's from various posts
The App. F and Q&E both note that the lesser breeds were called 'snaga'. That is what Shagrat is calling this lesser breed Orc. POV is important.

It fits in perfectly with all the other instances. As is noted in App. F Orcs of different breeds speak Common to each other, Black Speech was the 'language of Barad-dur and the captains of Mordor'. The explanation is not convoluted, it is provided by the author.

App. F where we see that 'uruk' applies to both the Mordoreans and the Isengarders, and that the lesser breeds are called 'snaga' by the Uruk-hai (and we have both Isengarders and Mordoreans who call a lesser breed orc 'Snaga' in the narrative).

This would be App. F where we learn that the Uruk-hai call lesser Orcs 'snaga'. A single entry for Snaga, with its uses treated exactly the same and the reader is referred to App. F for clarification of who it is used for and who uses it.

I have not used any quotes from ShagratU so that you do not have to speak for him. But we see from the above quotes your repeated insistence that to understand LOTR a reader must read the Appendices. I repeat that Tolkien would not write in such a way that a reader would be misled unless he/she read the Appendices. Tolkien was not that bad a writer and there is no evidence that he played those sorts of head games with his readers. I do not think the Appendices contradict anything in the narrative and I do not think that they must be read to understand the narrative.

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Greenwood
I have not used any quotes from ShagratU so that you do not have to speak for him. But we see from the above quotes your repeated insistence that to understand LOTR a reader must read the Appendices. I repeat that Tolkien would not write in such a way that a reader would be misled unless he/she read the Appendices. Tolkien was not that bad a writer and there is no evidence that he played those sorts of head games with his readers. I do not think the Appendices contradict anything in the narrative and I do not think that they must be read to understand the narrative.

Here I disagree with you Greenwood. JRRT used the appendices for the very reason you state he would not have. That is to enlighten the reader and to expand upon the information by adding more color and detail. We hear that Merry's horn comes from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. The appendix gives a little more information on that. One of the very reasons we should pay close attention to the appendices is that the author apparently did not like to revise his works. His letters make it clear that he had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance. He still tried and a much truer concordance was brought to the texts in 1987 when CT made revisions.

What is illogical in this thread is the fact that you choose to ignore CT as simply another third party. The LotR as it is published today has changes in it made by the Estate. It is they who own and control all supportive and ancillary material. It was CT who worked for years with his father in a supportive role. It was CT who was appointed the literary executor by JRRT himself. I would think that his input would have significant meaning to the discussion and his commentary would have very meaningful weight in these matters. I am not saying that his entry the Uruks = anglication of Uruk-hai is definitive but that it should definately bear substantially more weight than any statement by Foster who didn't have access nor the time to comb through all the reference material as has CT.

I am also disturbed that people continue to talk in the definitive voice on this thread. No one on this thread has proven anything one way or the other. The reason for that is that the Uruk versus Uruk-hai issue is one of opinion and one that you can not prove scientifically or linguistically no matter how hard one wants to. That occurs because there is not a consistency of use throughout. The linguists have to come up with "reaching" arguments of point of view and the scientists must show statistical charts in attempts to prove their points.

All in all, it boils down to a simple argument... if the two Orcs at outside of Cirith Ungol were referring to the rebel Uruk-hai as being the orcs of Minas Morgul then there is the proof that Uruk-hai was an interchangeable term for Uruk. If it refers to a group of sneaky, Saruman intruders then it would appear the terms are not interchangeable.

 

[Greenwood]

Here I disagree with you Greenwood. JRRT used the appendices for the very reason you state he would not have. That is to enlighten the reader and to expand upon the information by adding more color and detail. We hear that Merry's horn comes from the hoard of Scatha the Worm. The appendix gives a little more information on that. One of the very reasons we should pay close attention to the appendices is that the author apparently did not like to revise his works. His letters make it clear that he had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance.

Grond

I am not saying we should ignore the Appendices (as Tar-Elenion has tried to characterize my position). Of course, the Appendices give us lots of new and expanded information. I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative. I am unaware of any instances of his doing this. If there are such instances then I think you have already provided the guide in your above statement to resolving such a contradiction when you say Tolkien "had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance". In such a case the narrative proper should trump the Appendices. But, I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong.

What is illogical in this thread is the fact that you choose to ignore CT as simply another third party.

CT is a third party. He may be more knowledgeable than the rest of us, but he is not his father. There is nothing in any of the books published by CT that states that equating Uruks and Uruk-hai in LOTR was his father's idea.

All in all, it boils down to a simple argument... if the two Orcs at outside of Cirith Ungol were referring to the rebel Uruk-hai as being the orcs of Minas Morgul

Of course, Gorbag and his boys were the basis for the rumor, as Sam was the basis for the warrior Elf rumor and Frodo was the basis for the dwarf-man rumor. The point, however, is that all three rumors are wrong and both the narrator of the story and we, the readers, know they are wrong. Tolkien is telling us here how totally confused the "higher-ups" are by what happened in Cirith Ungol. We know there was no warrior elf, we know there was no dwarf-man, we know there were no rebel Uruk-hai and we certainly know that there was not a combination of all three. To insist that there were indeed rebel Uruk-hai means that this is the one rumor of the four that is correct. It is illogical to assume that Tolkien meant for us to think that this one rumor was true when we know all the others are wrong. We are in on the joke on the "higher-ups", we know the basis of the rumors and we know they are wrong. Rumors often have some basis in fact, as these do, but you have to ask yourself as the reader. Is there really a warrior elf loose in Mordor? No, it was Sam who is anything but a warrior elf. Is there really a "dwarf-man" around? No, it was Frodo; and remember hobbits consider themselves distinct from the "Big People". A hobbit would never consider himself a "dwarf-man". Was there really a bunch of "rebel Uruk-hai" as we have come to understand Uruk-hai in the narrative, that is Saruman's troops? No, of course not, there was a falling out of Mordor orcs arguing over the swag. Finally, there certainly was not a warrior elf a dwarf-man and a bunch of rebel Uruk-hai all at the same time attacking Cirith Ungol, whether in concert or independently. The point is, we the readers, no all of these suugested possibilities are absurd.

 

[Grond]

Greenwood, I'm not really arguing with you. I just find it odd that you are definitive that the two Orcs are stating that all three of the assumptions are wrong. The perception was that there was a great Elf-warrior and a small Dwarf-man and rebel Uruk-hai (from wherever). We, the reader, know those statements are incorrect, but I don't feel either of the two Orcs knew which were right and which were wrong or whether all the three statements together were right or wrong. I don't see it that way and I don't see any single definitive in any argument presented here by either side.

I personally see the sheer number of Uruk-hai descriptives as weighing more in favor of them being Saruman's exclusive description of his specific breed but there is no definitive evidence presented here at all, only conflicting and conflicted evidence.

 

[Greenwood]

We, the reader, know those statements are incorrect, but I don't feel either of the two Orcs knew which were right and which were wrong or whether all the three statements together were right or wrong. I don't see it that way

Grond

Look at the entire conversation between the two orcs:

"Hardly twenty paces from where the hobbits lurked the small orc stopped. 'Nar!' it snarled. 'I'm going home.' It pointed across the valley to the orc-hold. 'No good wearing my nose out on stones anymore. There's not a trace left, I say. I've lost the scent through giving way to you. It went up into the hills, not along the valley, I tell you.'
" 'Not much use are you, you little snufflers?' said the big orc. 'I reckon eyes are better than your snotty noses.'
" 'Then what have you seen with them?' snarled the other. 'Garn! You don't even know what you're looking for.'
" 'Whose blame's that?" said the soldier. 'Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together.'
" 'Ar!' said the tracker. 'They've lost their heads, that's what it is. And some of the bosses are going to lose their skins too, I guess, if what I hear is true: Tower raided and all, and hundreds of your lads done in, and prisoner got away. If that's the way you fighters go on, small wonder there's bad news from the battles.' " [emphasis added]

To me, it seems clear you have two very frustrated orcs who are complaining they don't know what they are looking for. The soldier orc says it isn't his fault, because look at the ridiculous stories he has been given. I can't think of a better description of this than sarcasm. We, the reader, know these rumors are ridiculous, and it seems, so does this soldier orc. But, evidently you don't think it is clear, so I guess we will just "agree to disagree".

 

[Grond]

Greenwood, I absolutely agree that they don't know what they're looking for. They appear confused and also apparently feel the higher ups are morons and confused as well; however, my point does not change one whit. There is absolutely no clarity in the statements as to what they are meaning when the say Uruk-hai. They may be referring to rebel Isengarders or they may be referring to Gorbag's Cirith Ungol Uruks who have already been referred to as rebels by Shagrat.

I also find it odd that your agruments are adamant that Shagrat could not have spoken to someone (say a subordinate) advising them that 1) an Elf-warrior was loose, 2) he had captured a small Dwarf-man and that 3) a group of Mordor Uruks had rebelled against Sauron's orders not to molest of pilfar any captives and that he had killed him.

I'm not saying this happened because we can't possibly know. But I wonder how you can say that it absolutely did not happen. If there was a note somewhere in a appendix that said this did in fact happen, it would disprove your theory. As a note found that said the rebel uruk-hai referred to Isengarder Orcs would prove your case.

 

[Cian]

Originally posted by aragil
Imagine what would happen to her theory if someone ...

Helge is a man (f. Helga).

 

[Greenwood]

Greenwood, I absolutely agree that they don't know what they're looking for. They appear confused and also apparently feel the higher ups are morons and confused as well; however, my point does not change one whit. There is absolutely no clarity in the statements as to what they are meaning when the say Uruk-hai. They may be referring to rebel Isengarders or they may be referring to Gorbag's Cirith Ungol Uruks who have already been referred to as rebels by Shagrat.

Grond

The point that Aragil and I make is that there is clarity as to what the meaning of Uruk-hai is here. Forget all the arguments that have gone back and forth on this thread. Look at it for a moment as you did when you first read LOTR. At this point in LOTR, the term Uruk-hai has occurred eight times. In everyone of those cases Uruk-hai has clearly referred to Saruman's elite troops. As a first time reader, who would you think these "rebel Uruk-hai" are? Do you think that any author, least of all an author as good as Tolkien (or his editors for that matter), would suddenly on this ninth occasion change the meaning of the term? It would be completely unfair to the readers, none of whom would get it. If Tolkien meant us to think Mordor orcs were being referred to, why not use Uruks here? The term has already been used twice in the narrative, both times in reference to Mordor orcs. Why would Tolkien so confuse his readers?

I also find it odd that your agruments are adamant that Shagrat could not have spoken to someone (say a subordinate) advising them that 1) an Elf-warrior was loose, 2) he had captured a small Dwarf-man and that 3) a group of Mordor Uruks had rebelled against Sauron's orders not to molest of pilfar any captives and that he had killed him.

No. I have argued that Shagrat did not send a message from Cirith Ungol before he leaves the tower himself with the bundle. Clearly, he has spoken to someone after leaving the tower, because what the soldier orc says is based on events at the tower, but Shagrat's hurried report as he makes his dash for Barad-dur (in his wounded state, a dash about as remarkable as the famed death march across Rohan ) has only served to confuse everyone. Also look at the soldier orc's phrasing: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together." This does not sound like a coherent report: "dwarf-man captured, warrior elf attacks tower while Minas Morgul troops rebel". No, the soldier says: "First they say it's a great Elf in bright armour", then they tell me, no "it's a sort of small dwarf-man", then they tell me, no, its "a pack of rebel Uruk-hai", no, no, "maybe it's all the lot together"! Whatever report has been received is totally incomprehensible to the "Higher Ups" as are the orders given to the soldier orc. It has only served to sow total confusion.

 

[Gawain]

The difference between primary and secondary sources is basic to doing any research. Secondary sources cannot refute primary sources.

...an authors published material that he/she saw through to publication is considered in a very different light than any posthumously published material that someone else has gathered together and published.

Hitler once published some propoganda stating clearly that Germany could in no way lose WWII. Victory was assured and within only months he himself would be marching into Britian.

Some years after the war had ended, letters written by Hitler were found. In one he declared that Germany would die. The war was lost and the Fatherland faced only defeat.

According to the second source theory, Germany did win WWII. The letters describing defeat were published post-humously, so they hold no weight. Only the first writing can and is to be believed.

Just being silly...

 

[Harad]

Reality (Germany lost WWII) or truth (2+2=4, base10) trump general principles of literary sources. There is none of the first and some of the second in LOTR.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Greenwood wrote:
I am not saying we should ignore the Appendices (as Tar-Elenion has tried to characterize my position).

I have? Lets see, I think have 'characterized' your position as wanting to dismiss the appendices:
"and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices."";" as well as you saying Tolkien is "telling his readers they can skip the Appendices". What I have referred to as you wanting to ignore is a part of the narrative proper ('rebel Uruk-hai') which you have said is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored".

I have said that: "With as much as Shagrat and I are dismissing JRRT's writings, declaring them ambiguous and saying they should be ignored or that they are not relevant we obviously think he was a "bad writer"."

Of course, the Appendices give us lots of new and expanded information. I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative. I am unaware of any instances of his doing this. If there are such instances then I think you have already provided the guide in your above statement to resolving such a contradiction when you say Tolkien "had neither the time nor the inclination to go through the massive corrections that would be necessary to bring all his works into accordance". In such a case the narrative proper should trump the Appendices. But, I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong.
[and]
I repeat that only a poor storyteller and writer would use appendices to change the meanings of things in the main narrative. That or a writer who liked to play head games on his readers.

JRRT refers the reader to the Appendices in (at least) two cases I can recall. Once when Frodo is singing the 'Man in the Moon' song ('At the Sign of the Prancing Pony'), and again in the 'Lothlorien' chapter when Frodo first hears the Galadhrim speaking.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
Tar Elenion- how do we know that the rings poem was not composed in it's entirety by Sauron?

I infer that it was not from Gandalf's statement about it being a verse long known in Elven lore.

Why do you think Sauron would have composed it?

Also, Uruk-hai demonstrably referred only to Saruman's troops, at least until summer 1948. Up until this time, the concept of 'large soldier-Orcs of Mordor' had already appeared, but had never been called Uruks. That he first applied the term Uruks to Mordor Orcs in 1948, 4 years after writing the letter to his son, is pretty good evidence that the definition changed during those four years. As I said before, this could have been an expansion of the collective terms 'Uruks' and 'Uruk-hai' to include both Mordor and Isengarders, or it could have been that 'Uruk-hai' remained the name of Isengarders while 'Uruks' was used only for Mordor Orcs. Either way we have a changing definition. Having examined the 15 (really 18) usages in the texts and appendices, I would say that the latter theory is better supported by what Tolkien wrote.

Except, of course, that in the two Letters previously cited, the terms are not referring to Saruman's troops.

 

[aragil]

The verse- I don't know, Elven lore could refer to the fact that the Elves were around and the Numenoreans were still on their Island when the verse was first spoken. I guess the main problem with my theory is that Sauron spoke the 'Ash nazg' lines (undoubtedly his own) at the forging in SA 1600, yet the 'nine for mortal men' did not first appear until SA 2251. Oh well, Sauron still could have written the other lines much later.

The letters:

Well there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.
JRRT, letter 66, 4th May, 1944

If that is not a reference to Merry, Pippin, and the troops of Saruman, then you can call me Shirley.

Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable
JRRT, letter 78, 12th August, 1944

To whom do you suppose that Tolkien is referring with his usage of Uruks and Urukhai here, if not to the troops of Saruman. The Uruks of Mordor were not good folks made bad by Sauron, they were bad folks made to be stronger, and the term 'Uruks' was not applied to them for another four years. The Uruk-hai of Isengard were men crossed with orcs. As men were generally considered 'good' peoples (with many exceptions), the Uruk-hai were 'good' folk 'made bad by the intention of their maker' (Saruman). The same could of course be said of Orcs in general and their maker Morgoth, but Orcs in general are not Uruks, as is pointed out in Appendix F. Considering this evidence within the letters, and the dates we have from the HoME series I do not understand how you can say that these letters were not referring to the troops of Saruman.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by aragil
The letters:

Well there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.
JRRT, letter 66, 4th May, 1944

If that is not a reference to Merry, Pippin, and the troops of Saruman, then you can call me Shirley.

The 'hobbit' referred to is Christopher Tolkien, and he was not among Saruman's troops.

Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable
JRRT, letter 78, 12th August, 1944

To whom do you suppose that Tolkien is referring with his usage of Uruks and Urukhai here, if not to the troops of Saruman. The Uruks of Mordor were not good folks made bad by Sauron, they were bad folks made to be stronger, and the term 'Uruks' was not applied to them for another four years. The Uruk-hai of Isengard were men crossed with orcs. As men were generally considered 'good' peoples (with many exceptions), the Uruk-hai were 'good' folk 'made bad by the intention of their maker' (Saruman). The same could of course be said of Orcs in general and their maker Morgoth, but Orcs in general are not Uruks, as is pointed out in Appendix F. Considering this evidence within the letters, and the dates we have from the HoME series I do not understand how you can say that these letters were not referring to the troops of Saruman.

"The penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs", L66.
"And of course, as you already discover, one of the discovers of the process is the realization of the values that often lurk under dreadful appearences", L78.

Saruman did not turn Men into Orcs. If the supposition holds, he interbred Men with Orcs. Sauron was the one who turned Men and Elves ('good folk') into Orcs ('made bad') by implementing Morgoth's plan:
"We may assume, then, that the idea of breeding the Orcs came from Melkor, not at first maybe so much for the provision of servants or the infantry of his wars of destruction, as for the defilement of the Children and the blasphemous mockery of the designs of Eru. The details of the accomplishment of this wickedness were, however, left mainly to the subtleties of Sauron. In that case the conception in mind of the Orcs may go far back into the night of Melkor's thought, though the beginning of their actual breeding must await the awakening of Men."

App. F says: "Related, no doubt, was the word uruk of the Black Speech, though this was applied as a rule only to the great soldier-orcs that at this time issued from Mordor and Isengard."
Italics mine. 'Uruk' had been in use for a _long_ time (internally).

 

[Greenwood]

Quote by Tar-Elenion
Lets see, I think have 'characterized' your position as wanting to dismiss the appendices:
"and dismiss the appendices because you are saying "Tolkien is telling his readers: "Don't bother to read the Appendices if you don't want to, you will still understand the story without the Appendices."";" as well as you saying Tolkien is "telling his readers they can skip the Appendices". What I have referred to as you wanting to ignore is a part of the narrative proper ('rebel Uruk-hai') which you have said is "at best ambiguous and hence can be ignored".

There you go again. First, Tolkien himself told his readers they could skip the Appendices in the Foreward to his First Edition of LOTR. While Tolkien did indeed completely redo the Foreward in the Second Edition and this statement is not there, he certainly never said anywhere, "BTW, I retract my statement about not reading the Appendices. You must read them to understand my work." Second, I said: "I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative." and "I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong." As for the "rebel Uruk-hai", I have said that I do not think it is ambiguous, I was trying to grant you some leeway for the sake of argument. I think it clearly refers to Saruman's troops.

JRRT refers the reader to the Appendices in (at least) two cases I can recall. Once when Frodo is singing the 'Man in the Moon' song ('At the Sign of the Prancing Pony'), and again in the 'Lothlorien' chapter when Frodo first hears the Galadhrim speaking.

And of course these references were not included when Tolkien wrote these chapters, nor in the First Edition. They are also about as relevant to this discussion as your earlier red herring about the Kings of Numenor.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Originally posted by Greenwood
There you go again.

?

First, Tolkien himself told his readers they could skip the Appendices in the Foreward to his First Edition of LOTR. While Tolkien did indeed completely redo the Foreward in the Second Edition and this statement is not there, he certainly never said anywhere, "BTW, I retract my statement about not reading the Appendices. You must read them to understand my work."

JRRT said he wanted to cancel the Forward. He cancelled it, and wrote another one, that does not include any reference to 'skipping' the Appendices. CT notes that the First Edition Forward was "rejected in its entirety". Guess what, I think I will trust CT's statement over your supposition.

Second, I said: "I am saying that Tolkien would not use the Appendices to contradict things in the narrative." and "I do not think Tolkien contradicts the narrative in the Appendices, so if there is an interpretation of material in the Appendices that does contradict the narrative, I submit that the interpretation must be considered to be wrong."

I have provided two instances of the Appendices 'contradicting the narrative'.

As for the "rebel Uruk-hai", I have said that I do not think it is ambiguous, I was trying to grant you some leeway for the sake of argument. I think it clearly refers to Saruman's troops.

I am aware of that, I was pointing out what you said should be 'ignored'.

And of course these references were not included when Tolkien wrote these chapters, nor in the First Edition. They are also about as relevant to this discussion as your earlier red herring about the Kings of Numenor.

Really? They are included in the Second Edition, HM editions. And the Lothlorien one is in my copy of the Ballantine edition.
And you did ask Cian: "Can you point to a single instance (other than your argument in this case) where Tolkien changed the usage of words in the narrative proper with redefinitions in the Appendices? That would be very poor story-telling, especially after telling your readers they do not have to read the Appendices."

There you go. I have provided two instances.