Finding the Perfect Title

Master of the Rings and Lord of the Crowns, let alone more absurd alternate titles, such as King of the Rings, are all lacking when compared to the staying power of Lord of the Rings, but why is that the case? Is it only because of the mental connotations we’ve built up between the title and the source, or is there a more sound logical or linguistic reasoning for why this is the case?

Well, to begin with is the item of jewelry chosen for the title. As covered in class, crowns, necklaces, or other items could be justified for use in the title, but given the One Ring’s centrality to the entire trilogy, it only makes sense to focus the title upon it. And of course, one can most likely look to the utility of a ring in comparison to a crown, or a torc. While a crown would be in comparison unwieldy for Frodo to lug across Middle-Earth, not least for Bilbo to find in The Hobbit, a torc would similarly raise questions due to the constraints of wearing multiple. Whereas with rings, one person or being could technically wear as many as they wanted at once, a being would most likely only be able to physically wear two torcs at once. And to add, the simplicity of sliding on a ring, as described throughout The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, is important in comparison to, for example, a necklace, which must be taken out of a pocket or bag and slung over one’s head.

Next comes the choice of “Lord” over similar words like “Master,” “Ruler,” or “Earl,” and this is where it makes sense to call upon Tolkien’s attention to philology in an attempt to justify the usage of “Lord,” which comes from the Old English hlāford, from hlāfweard, which means “bread-keeper,” and is based upon hlāf “loaf” + weard “keeper.” The word “Lord” finds its earliest meaning as one who is a keeper or guardian, and its usage in religious texts such as the King James Old Testament or Bible as a reference to god can further the connotation in one’s mind to the “Lord” as an all-powerful, omniscient being.

Meanwhile, “master” has its roots in the Latin “magister,” which not only conveys meanings and connotations of a teacher, or one who is “better” or “more than” others, but, as Tom Shippey might put it, is “wildly inappropriate to a work which does its best to avoid Latinisms” (pg. 5, Road to Middle-Earth). “Ruler” similarly finds its roots in Latin, and contains meanings of governance, guiding, and, of course, ruling. Both of these two choices as replacements for Lord relate towards an external power structure and hierarchy that isn’t meant to be implied by the title “Lord of the Rings,” as the “Lord” in question, as will be discussed later, is meant to be the keeper and controller of said rings, not necessarily the one who is “better” than others, or who “governs” the rings.

And while other titles such as “Earl” don’t come from Latin, instead having roots in the Germanic, not only does the definition not track with Tolkien’s most likely intent for the title (see definitions including “brave man, warrior,” and “nobleman”), but this may be where the question of phonology and the sound of words comes into play, similar to what was discussed in class. But for Earl in particular, there’s a third reason why Tolkien may not have chosen it as part of his title – “Earl” is also a name, and in Tolkien’s time, it was quite a popular one. Looking at statistics from “Ourbabynamer.com,” Earl reached peak popularity in 1894, when it reached #20 in most popular boy names, and it remained in the top 40 boys’ names from 1884 to 1931 meaning Tolkien, and a large contingent of his readers at the time, grew up around kids named Earl, and while the word still had another meaning, it would’ve been like the first book of Harry Potter being named “Harry Potter and the Jack’s Stone” (Jack is currently the #22 boy’s name). Connotations of words, especially in the time that Tolkien was writing, are important to think about.

But let’s get into what the title of the trilogy is in reference to: namely in Book 2, chapter 1 of The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf refers to the Black Riders as “the Ringwraiths, the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings” (pg 220). Otherwise known as Sauron, the eponymous “Lord of the Rings” is the central villain of the story, and one of the cruxes of the plot is that if Sauron regains control of the “One Ring to rule them all,” Sauron will be able to control all of the other rings, and through them, their wearers – in effect, Sauron will be the warden of the rings, the ultimate power upon them – much more similar to, say, a keeper, or a lord, than a warrior, or governor, or teacher. Where words like “master” and “ruler” break down here, as described above, is simply that in the trilogy, there is no apt comparison between Sauron and other characters of power in relation to the rings. Sauron won’t “govern” or be “better than” others with control of the rings, Sauron with the rings is simply seen as the be-all end-all if he gains control of them, hence the phrase “and in the darkness bind them.”

It's difficult to tell, when discussing, how much of the weight of the name “The Lord of the Rings” comes from our own connotations, which we’ve attached to the story throughout our own lives, and which have been attached to the story for decades before us – instead, we should look to the literal roots of the title, both in the story – e.g., what “Lord of the Rings” refers to – in Tolkien’s life – e.g., the commonness of Earl as a name – and in the etymology of words – e.g., the Latin roots of “master.” Words carry power, just like rings do, and understanding where they come from, and why their chosen, is the most important step in fully understanding the stories and meanings they weave. -MR