Talk:Mouth of Sauron

Sauron's tongue came out of the black gates in the last battle of the Lord of the Rings trilogy with Gandalf and Aragorn after uttering his last sentence about Aragorn's lover, that is, the elven woman who gave up immortality for her love, King Aragorn by the sword, brought A legend has been made that Isildur's legacy was struck and that the killing of Sauron's tongue was the breath that sounded the trumpet of the final battle between good and evil. Rest in peace to all the defenders of the boarders and our security and eternal paradise of their place, cut off the hands and necks all the dead eaters, the slanderers, the liars, the profiteers of the pain and blood of our noble people and the enemies of this pure land and its holy soil (Iran), Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.218.2.213 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Arose again how many times?
I'm deleting the segment about first and second "re-arisings" of the Dark Tower. The first one referred to appears (from the date given) to be a reference to Sauron's return from Númenor, but Barad-dûr had not then been destroyed - he simply moved back in. It was destroyed twice and rebuilt once.

On second thoughts, I'll leave it in as a "theory".

-- Perey 22:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GAMMEN GORTHAUR
The words written on his helmet in ROTK extended edition read GAMMEN GORTHAUR, and I've been informed by Ausir that Gorthaur was an old name for Sauron, so I'm assuming this means Mouth of Sauron, but I can't put it in the article without confirmation. silsor 08:08, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gammen means 'hand', so his title would be '(Right) Hand of Sauron'. In any case this is not a "canon" title, but a plausible translation. The Sindarin word for 'mouth' is not known, IIRC ('ethir' is a river "mouth" only). Possible 'nîf' (front of face) might be used here for mouth, but I doubt it is what Tolkien would have used, had he given the translation. Anárion 23:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There's no Google entry for Gammen Gorthaur, but there are several for Lammen Gorthaur. Lammen is established in LOTR as meaning "voice" (as in Gandalf's incantation before the doors of Moria: "Fennas nogothrim, lasto beth lammen" - "Doors of the Dwarves, listen to my voice" - and "Gorthaur" ("Abominable dread", according to The Complete Guide to Middle-earth) is an Elvish epithet for Sauron. Hence Lammen Gorthaur = Voice (Mouth) of Sauron. Lee M 20:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds plausible enough, asides of course from the rather dubious suggestion Sauron's lieutenant would use the language of Sauron's enemies and not the Black Speech or his native (Black) Adûnaic... Anárion 21:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * [Don't be dumb! Sauron used elvish letters for the inscription on the inside of the 'One Ring', so why would his lieutenant object to their use on his own gear? In any case, 'The Mouth' was an ambassador (his own phrase), so it would make perfect sense for him to label himself in an alphabet and a language that 'foreigners' could understand!] -- Herumor Stormraven


 * The Ring was inscripted in Black Speech, not Sindarin. An alphabet is not the same as a language. Jordi·✆ 14:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess it's no more implausible than he should break his master's rule never to use the name Sauron, by calling himself The Mouth of Sauron...! Lee M 23:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In the book at least, he does not call himself such: the author voice (therefore Frodo, possibly assisted by Aragorn or Gandalf) does. But we know that Sauron liked the name 'Gorthaur', so Lammen Gorthaur is possible. Anárion 07:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes he did. The first words out of his mouth are, "I am the Mouth of Sauron." Eric119 08:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Original research here
There is too much speculation in this article, it needs to be cut to that which is actually know (which is very little). Thu 15:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'''Not to worry. I deleted all the speculative part (except the part about his being 68 years in service). I also added an info box.''' --Barnikel 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you cut too much. One theory is that the 'first arose again' refers to Sauron's return and rebuilding after the Downfall of Numenor... making the Mouth much older. The '68 years version' is just a theory also. I happen to agree with it, but there is no proof for that interpretation either. We should probably either stick to the stated facts with no interpretation of how long the Mouth had been in Sauron's service or present the reasons behind the different theories in a factual (rather than speculative) way. --CBDunkerson 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree, Conrad. There was no 'rebuilding' at the end of the Second Age- Sauron went on his little trip to Numenor, and then came back home.  The Tower wasn't destroyed until the Last Alliance, and there was only one 'rebuilding,' a few decades before its final fall. Solicitr (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cpould someone please tell me if the words on his helmet read the accursed one??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.157.210 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Interpretation on Thematic Elements in Film
I think that this: this nicety of international diplomacy is set aside entirely, and the theme of just leadership, and its difficulties, with it is pure opinion with regard to the theme of just leadership. I think it should be changed to omit this editorializing on Jackson's alteration. Thoughts? --Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the editorializing presented on Aragorn's slaying of the Mouth in the movie takes into account that, much as the Armies of the West are a diversion tactic, the Mouth of Sauron is stalling them from functioning as a diversion. For the diversion tactic to succeed, and distract Sauron from the search for Frodo, Aragorn would do better to incite a real fight and dispense with diplomacy. --MattBattison 7 December 2006

Not to mention the fact that those at the Black Gate were being thrown into despair at the Mouth's tauntings. Aragorn quickly decided to end this enervation of will decisively. Yes, this change will inevitably lead to different thematic interpretations than one gleaned from events in the book, but a Wiki entry is no place to opnionatedly disparage one over the other. I'm going to remove said subjective editorializing. --Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

who cares?
Why does anyone care at all whether a few fanboys on a forum think that Aragorn "shot the messenger" by beheading the "mouth"? Does that really have to be cited? 66.92.170.227 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be removed as well. If someone wants to make a more formal, distinct section along the lines of reaction to the Mouth of Sauron, that is one thing. But a few anecdotal fans' impressions hardly constitutes as evidence of much at all. --Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do care and I don't agree. It is "shooting the messenger" - punishing the person bringing bad news - and don't be so quick to label such people "fanboys" or "few". Not everyone agrees with Jackson's changes. It does go against the themes of the book - but I removed the "shooting the messenger" links and noted that instead, only stating "in contrast..." with no editorializing. Uthanc 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Peter Jackson is a fanboy, of his own admission. Or did you not watch the 25 hours of "extras" on the dvd's? The point is, it doesn't matter whether you care or not, it matters whether it's significant. There is a long standing forums-are-not-sources policy. ... aa:talk 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is now moot anyway as the forum citations are now replaced with book ones. Uthanc 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Mouth of Sauron.jpg
Image:The Mouth of Sauron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Sauron's Real Name
The speculation in this article about the "inconsistency" of Aragorn's statement that Sauron does not permit his real name to be "spelt or spoken" is a little off. Aragorn most certainly was NOT referring to Sauron's name as a Maia of old in Valinor. When Aragorn makes this comment, it is during a discussion of the tokens of the orcs that waylaid the company and captured Merry and Pippin. Gimli opines that the "S" on the Orcs' helms stand for Sauron, and Aragorn disagrees and responds with the line about Sauron forbidding use of his real name-- and then suggests that the "S" stands for Saruman. The exchange clearly suggests that the "real name" in question is Sauron (starting with an 'S'), not anything else.

Christopher Tolkien's suggestion that Aragorn's information was 'out of date,' and referred to the time when Sauron still went by the generic term of 'necromancer' makes more sense, but is still a real stretch. Sauron had been openly declared for many decades before the War of the Ring. And not only the Mouth of Sauron, but the messenger from Mordor to Erebor, as recounted by Gloin at the Council of Elrond, refers to "the Lord Sauron the Great." It seems a stretch that Aragorn would have been unaware that Sauron's servants now used his real name.

The real answer most likely is: it's just a mistake, an error in consistency and continuity. Tolkien wrote different passages at different times, and revised them heavily over the course of many years. And there was a great rush as publication neared, and no conveniences like word processors or computer programs to make editing and proofreading easier. Aragorn's line is a great line, and a great idea, but Tolkien either didn't catch the inconsistency, or, more likely, meant to edit the work to remove it, but in the rush of putting the massive novel together, simply forgot and it slipped through. There are many errors like that in LOTR. Another frequently cited inconsistency is the statement that Sauron doesn't use the Elvish characters-- but the inscription on the Ring itself, while in the Black Speech, is written in Elvish script.

If you read LOTR enough times, you start to catch little slips throughout. No matter, I think it's inevitable in a work of such fascinating detail.169.253.4.21 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn
 * Minor, minor, minor point, but Legolas says at the beginning of TTT that Sauron doesn't use the Elf runes (Cirth), so the use of the (different) Elvish script (Tengwar) on the Ring isn't technically an inconsistency. The use of Tengwar on the Ring is sort of covered off too, with Gandalf's statement that "they have no script fine enough for such work in Mordor" (or words to that effect). Since I doubt Tolkien had spotted the inconsistency anyway, that's most likely sheer coincidence.... 4u1e (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Aragorn stated that Sauron forbid the use of his "right" name. The name Sauron is Elvish (either Sindarin or Quenya, I forget which), so it technically isn't his "right" name, it was merely the name that Elves had bestowed upon him. Perhaps Sauron had actually forbidden the use of his pre-Arda name (e.g., his "birth" or "real" name, spoken and written in Valarin, the native language of the Ainur before they descended to Arda). It's not impossible to consider that some of Sauron's most loyal, trusted or devoted followers could have known his real name, is it? - Myrddin_Wyllt 10/14/09

No, you're wrong. Please see the above. Aragorn's remarks about the Dark Lord not permitting the use of his "right name" are made when discussing what the "S" stands for on the Orcs' livery-- Sauron or Saruman. It is 100% CLEAR that Aragorn is referring to the name SAURON, not another name. Moreover, Tolkien states uses the name SAURON throughout his writings on Middle-earth-- CF the Silmarillion: "Of old, there was Sauron the Maia.....," throughout the Silmarillion, Sauron and Melkor (later Morgoth) are used as the "right names" of these evil beings, etc. Christopher Tolkien tried to suggest an alternative to clear up the inconsistency, but this was just an ex post facto justification, and a rather weak one at that. No matter. Why it is so beyond the pale to suggest that JRR Tolkien made mistakes and errors in LOTR is beyond me! I love the books and love Tolkien, and have read and re-read them probably 50 times throughout my life. But it is only natural that in a work of such incredible scope and creative detail, mistakes would be made. Imagine the difficulty of drafting this in the 40's and 50's, with technology limited to typewriters and carbons! But there are many, many other minor inaccuracies, from the Sauron issue, to the "extra" pony the Hobbits have as they leave Crickhollow, to different descriptions of geography and topography in different sections (Eastfold described as "rolling plains," and later "flat plain"), etc. It happens. 214.13.130.104 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Vainamoinen


 * FWIW, here's the relevant passage from The Two Towers:




 * In context, the "right name" Aragorn is speaking of is clearly "Sauron". I'll remove the contrary speculation from the article page. -- Narsil (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The way I'm reading that it appears that Legolas says that can't be "Sauron" because Sauron doesn't use elf runes to spell his name, and then Aragorn says that he doesn't use his "right name" either. To me this looks like a clear delimitation between the elf rune name (Sauron) and his "right name". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.126.144 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this article has gotten WORSE, not better. The "Mouth" does not appear on a "single page," the line about him being "almost certainly" a follower of "Herumor" is bizarre, the ridiculous speculation about his age (he's a mortal man, he's not 3000 years old), etc. Where does this stuff come from??214.13.130.104 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Vainamoinen

There is no huge inconsistency here. Sauron may have a bee in his bonnet about people taking his name in vain, and thus a humble orc may not have dared to casually write it on his helmet, but the Mouth of Sauron is a powerful ambassador. Also, he makes sure to call him "Sauron the Great" (in the film -- I forget the wording in the book), rather than throw his name around as if there were equals. And perhaps even he wouldn’t have dared use the name in Sauron’s earshot. There is plenty of precedent for holy names being pronounceable in certain contexts. Jews and Christians don’t call their god ‘Elohim’ or ‘Yahweh’ directly, but they utter theophoric names like ‘Elijah’ (‘God is Jah’). Correctrix (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Concept and creation
Currently concept and creation part absolutely unacceptable as a concept it should to contain author's conception but not critics', fun's or anybody's else.

What made to think that R. Morse's idea of Christian allegory and T. Shippey idea of WWII history allegory have something with the J.R.R. Tolkien's conception of Mouth os Sauron character when Tolkien himself expressed in letters his dislike of allegory (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1981 iirc) and specially pointed that here's no any allegories of WWII history and personalities in his book?

Let's take a look on the draft texts, published in "The War of the Ring (The History of the Lord of the Rings 3)" in 1990:

"This survived into the fair copy, where it was replaced by the text of RK (p. 162), in which the Nazgul did not closely approach the Host of the West until the final attack on the Slag-hills. In the draft text it is said that 'some 500 left the host' and went off south-west towards Cair Andros. No more is said in the draft of the history of the Lieutenant of Baraddur, the nameless Mouth of Sauron, than that 'It is told that he was a living man, who being-captured as a youth became a servant of the Dark Tower, and because of his cunning grew high in the Lord's favour ...' In the fair copy this was repeated, but was changed subsequently to: 'But it is said that he was a renegade, son of a house of wise and noble men in Gondor, who becoming enamoured of evil knowledge entered the service of the Dark Tower, and because of his cunning [and the fertile cruelty of his mind] [and servility] he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour ...' (these phrases being thus bracketed in the original). In RK (p. 164) the Mouth of Sauron 'came of the race of those that are named the Black Numenoreans'."

No any suggestion for any allegories. The name with "Mouth" could be simply explained as he's messenger, herald, the spokesperson - the speech is one of his functions and as any other human he uses his mouth to speak. The manner of MoS is manner of his role: no any allegory here but maybe some "pattern" generally of villains (compare with the manner of Hollywood villains).

Di7ra (talk)


 * Do not remove cited work, the author is a WP:PRIMARY source, we need the opinions of WP:RELIABLE 3rd party sources to help prove WP:NOTABILITY. The authors stance is only 1 view point Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Di7ra is pointing out that the "concept and creation" section has no information about the actual "concept and creation" of the character, and instead only seems to provide some analyses of the character by third parties. Also, an author is a perfectly legitimate source of information about a character that they've created.  Swarm   X 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it wasn't. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you were implying it wasn't. My mistake.  Swarm   X 11:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not any analyses othewise it should to include the analyses of the using allegories by Tolkien in his works (based on author's comments, of course). It's just somebody's alternative interpretations. Tolkien cleary said that dislikes of allegory, he even specially axplained that the book has been minded for along before the WWII and there aren't any allegories of H-bomb, countires and peoples, as Valinor isn't Paradise (Forodo's life in Valinor will end) and so on - the author's point is the defining and we don't have any actual proofs to say "here could be an allegory" as every thing which has been called "allegory" could to be simply explained in any other ways. It could to be only unsubstantiated theory - open a discussion thread or even add as an alternative view section, though it sounds a bit strange: Tolkien said he didn't like to use and didn't use allegories but we think he lied and actually did ;). Di7ra (talk)
 * It is only unsubstantiated in the realms of Tolkien fan-dom. For Wikipedia the sources are perfectly valid and encouraged. 3rd party discussion and dissection of an authors work is what gives weight to the article, even if that person disagrees with the authors. Have a look at the Albus Dumbledore article, there are references to 3rd parties who disagree with the authors revelation that he is gay! Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The key word in your answer is "discussion". And we may discuss only how like it could to be an allegory. Here should to be the analyses how author is using allegories in his book and what did Tolkien said about other scenes of his book which have been suggusted to be allegories as well (in all cases Tolkien said here waren't any allegories), and so on. It could to be an intersting work but here's nothing with "concept and creation" where should to be not some points of view (not analyses even) by other people but actual drafts of the character creation. As i have pointed above, you'r free to add an alternative - discussed - view section. But to place it under "concept and creation" is totally wrong way. And no, incorrect information or incorrectly placed information doesn't make any weight - the article only losses from it. 2.95.194.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Of course it does belong there. That's what gives it notability. The authors opinion is only one view point and bears no more weight here than any other published reliable source Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Concept and creation" is not only for the author's opinion (if that can be reliably traced back) but it is in fact primarily a section for third-party opinions of people who have been writing about the author's influences and motivations. You are wrong to assume that a Wikipedia article on fictional content is only based on primary sources. As Carl said, it is the secondary and tertiary sources that make a topic notable and benefit the article. A discussion of allegories etc. can only be added if someone else has done it before on a notable and reliable platform outside Wikipedia — adding your own interpretation of Tolkien's writings would be original research which is prohibited at Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)