How many Istari came to Middle-earth?

[The Saucepan Man]

Now, before eveyone yells "five, of course!" and directs me to the numerous other Istari threads (which I have skimmed through), hear me out. I have just read the chapter on the Istari in Unfinished Tales and came across the following:

Of this Order the number is unknown; but of those that came to the North of Middle-earth, where there was most hope ... the chiefs were five.

The first part of this sentence is referring to the Order of Wizards, the Heren Istarion. I assume that their number is unknown because not all of them came to Middle-earth. But the second part of the sentence suggests to me that more than the five that are named may have come to Middle-earth.

First, the sentence is referring only to those who came to the North of Middle-earth, suggesting that there may have been others who were sent to the South. Of course, it may equally be that none were sent to the South and the reference to "the North" is included merely to make the point that this was where there was the most hope and therefore where those that were sent could have the greatest effect.

But it is also said that the chiefs of those sent to Northern Middle-earth numbered five. Might this suggest that more than five were sent but that those who are named were the greatest, ie their chiefs? Otherwise, why not simply say that "Of those that came to the North of Middle-earth, the number was five" or something similar?

Now, I realise that other references in the chapter suggest that there were only five. For example, the paragraph from which the quote given above comes names five Istari, with Mithrandir (Gandalf) being described as the last arrival. But this does not preclude there being other un-named Istari amongst those who came. It just means that, of all those who came (the chiefs of whom are named), Gandalf came last.

Later in the chapter, it is said that:

The two highest of this order (of whom it is said there were five) were called ... Curunir ... and Mithrandir ...

But this only refers to it being said that there were five. It is therefore not conclusive. And it is also in reference to the "order", of which the quote given earlier says the number is unknown.

So could it be that more than five Istari travelled to Middle-earth, or are there further, more conclusive, references that establish the number as five? And, if so, why are the named Istari referred to as the chiefs of those who came?

[Sharkû]

My reading is that the number of said 'order' is unknown because it refers to the Ainur, not the Istari.

Now, the specification "North of Middle-earth" (UT, IV, ii), may or may not mean that others of that order, sc. Ainur, were sent to other parts. What makes this wholly unlikely, however, seems to be the way the three/five Istari were chosen by the "council of the Valar, summoned it seems by Manwë ('and maybe he called upon Eru for counsel?'), at which it was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-earth" (ibid.)

I am not sure to what degree "of whom it is said there were five" (App. B) can be interpretated to mean 'of whom there were allegedly five'. For one thing, it can simply mean that it was already stated as fact, i.e. said, earlier. The other point is that the notes and essays on the istari, which are most important to determining their number exactly and beyond doubt, came later than the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings. Perhaps Tolkien was, at the time of writing the appendices, unsure himself, and later felt the need to remove the uncertainty about the number of istari.

See further here for an earlier post of mine dissecting the UT istari essay.

[ August 15, 2003: Message edited by: Sharkû ]

[Legolas]

But this only refers to it being said that there were five. It is therefore not conclusive. And it is also in reference to the "order", of which the quote given earlier says the number is unknown.

Having such conditions said to be given "allegedly" is simply a product of the books being written by historians living in this created world - not by some omnipotent narrator.

This sort of 'alleged' statement can be found elsewhere within the stories; the truth is hinted at or even stated, but not proclaimed to be the absolute truth (though we find elsewhere, i.e. Letters, that the truth is confirmed with Tolkien writing outside of the story). As Sharku stated, it indeed could simply be referring to the fact that 'it is said [previously in these records]' - the fact that there are five wizards is mentioned earlier in Lord of the Rings by Saruman speaking to Gandalf of the five staffs [of the wizards].

Mithadan made a nice comment about this in another thread:

The Red Book presumably contained Bilbo's versions of Elvish tales heard directly from the Elves, but may have been recorded inaccurately due to lack of complete understanding. Further, the Red Book was supplemented by scholars in Gondor who may have included remote rumors and legends (true or untrue) as well as "facts". So when LoTR and the Sil. say "it was later said" or "it was sung", this may refer to "mannish" legends rather than true Elvish tales.

Similarly, they could have interpretted fact or something presented as almost fact in the original writings to be more open, more rumor due to their removal from/ignorance of the Elvish culture that produced the early histories. One example being the 'alleged' presence of Elvish blood in the line of Princes of Dol Amroth - it's stated to be some sort of rumour, yet the blood is clearly there because Legolas can see/sense it.

Plenty of examples of these 'allegations.' The case of Tuor...

and with Idril Celebrindal he set sail into the sunset and the West, and came no more into any tale or song. But in after days it was sung that Tuor alone of mortal Men was numbered among the elder race, and was joined with the Noldor, whom he loved; and his fate is sundered from the fate of Men.

You might note that the following are found in the Appendices of Lord of the Rings just as one of your quotes about the wizards:

The two highest of this order (of whom it is said there were five) were called by the Eldar Curunír, 'the Man of Skill', and Mithrandir, 'the Grey Pilgrim', but by Men in the North Saruman and Gandalf.

Celeborn going to Imladris after Galadriel's departure:

It is said that Celeborn went to dwell there after the departure of Galadriel; but there is no record of the day when at last he sought the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth.

Sam's depature for Aman is called 'tradition' instead of merely being presented as fact:

Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.

Merry/Pippin's graves near Aragorn's, Gimli sailing to Aman:

It is said that the beds of Meriadoc and Peregrin were set beside the bed of the great king. Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf.

In The Silmarillion, even Frodo's quest to Mt. Doom as inspired by Gandalf is stated in a similar fashion:

For Frodo the Halfling, it is said, at the bidding of Mithrandir took on himself the burden, and alone with his servant he passed through peril and darkness and came at last in Sauron's despite even to Mount Doom;

We, of course, find all of these to be truth, facts, the way things were intended to be, the way things are. You'll find "it is said" a million and half times throughout these histories of Middle-earth.

My reading is that the number of said 'order' is unknown because it refers to the Ainur, not the Istari.

As was always my reading of that line, but it seems it could be meant otherwise, since the prior paragraph is clearly describing the Istari specifically. I read it as "Of the Ainur" simply because it's the only thing that made sense. The possibility is there - the previous paragraph speaks of

they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years.

and the paragraph that follows (where your quote is at) mentions Saruman as chief of this "Order." [and he was regarded by well-nigh all, even by the Eldar, as the head of the Order.] Order is used in both parts - first as the high-order of Ainur, next (capitalized) as whatever order Saruman is chief of. Whether or not the capitalization is important in distinguishing between the orders of Ainur and Istari is debatable - Tolkien had notoriously bad handwriting when he was in a hurry (check out the copy of his scribblings of IV, 1 'The Taming of Sméagol' found in HoLOTR), and thus he could've been in a hurry, or changed his mind between paragraphs, or anything of that sort. If he's capitalized it because it's an abbreviation of the translation of the proper Heren Istarion, it could be important.

Earlier on in the essay (at the very beginning, actually), Tolkien speaks of the 'order' and gives 'Order of Wizards' as the translation of Heren Istarion:

Wizard is a translation of Quenya istar (Sindarin ithron): one of the members of an "order" (as they call it), claiming to possess, and exhibiting, eminent knowledge of the history and nature the World. [...] since Heren Istarion or "Order of Wizards"

Well, as I've been looking back, I went to Sharku's link and had forgotten how he went into detail about the possibilities I was going to mention, so I'll recommend heading there instead.

The other point is that the notes and essays on the istari, which are most important to determining their number exactly and beyond doubt, came later than the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings. Perhaps Tolkien was, at the time of writing the appendices, unsure himself, and later felt the need to remove the uncertainty about the number of istari.

A solid point; of the latter part, we will unfortunately never get a straight answer as to what it was about certain points that Tolkien could not decide (or of which we have been given no definitive say) - the names/courses of the Blue Wizards, Gil-galad's ancestry, Glorfindel's second coming, et. al.

[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[The Saucepan Man]

When I read the reference to "the Order" of which the number is unknown, I assumed that the Order being referred to was the Heren Istarion, the Order of Wizards. This seemed to me to be the most logical interpretation of the sentence in terms of the way that it is phrased. On reflection, however, I do take the points made in your post on the other thread, Sharkû, in support of the proposition that it could also refer to the Order of the Ainur.

As you say, the statement "Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful" does suggest that no Istari remained in Aman, since any that did remain would unquestionably have remained faithful, although "of all the Istari" could be shorthand for "of all the Istari that went to Middle-earth". More compelling, however, is the point that the Order of the Istari appear to have been formed on an ad hoc basis solely as a result of the decision to send emissaries to Middle-earth. If the "raison d'etre" of the Istari was to travel to Middle-earth, it makes little sense for any to be left behind.

That, however, does not preclude the possibility of the number of emissaries sent to Middle-earth being greater than five.

Legolas, I take your point about the phrase "it is said" frequently being used to describe an undeniably true set of circumstances. But, depending on the context, it can also suggest that there is an element of uncertainty about what is being said. For example, I may be wrong on this, but I had always understood that doubt remained over the fate of Tuor, notwithstanding that it was sung that was "numbered among the eldar race". So, I still believe that the reference to it being said that the order of the Istari numbered five does not preclude there in fact having been more than five. So I think that we need to look at what else is said on this subject very carefully.

The point that the Council of the Valar resolved to take only three emissaries, the number later being increased to five, is a good one. But, as I understand it, this passage comes from a fragment of writing, possibly unfinished. Might it be possible that more volunteered, or were selected, at a later stage, before they actually went (or while they were going, since they appear to have arrived in Middle-earth in stages)? Perhaps a subsequent decision was made to support those who had been selected at the first Council with Maia of lesser power, so that those who were first seleced became the "chiefs" of the emissaries.

Which brings me back to my central point, and one which has not yet been explained. If only five Istari travelled to Middle-earth, why is it said that "of those that came to the North of Middle-earth ... the chiefs were five"? This sentence, if rearranged logically, reads "the chiefs of those that came to the North of Middle-earth were five". I still find it very difficult to reach any conclusion from this other than that there were more than five emissaries and that their chiefs were the five who are named.

~Saucepan~

[Finwe]

You've got a good point there. I think that was another one of the little mysteries that the good ol' Professor threw in there to make all his readers nearly pull their hair out in frustration. It's like that line, when Eowyn killed the Witch-king,

...was not heard in this Age of the World.

I'm sure he enjoyed putting in little mysteries like that just to make us think. I personally believe that there were five Istari worth mentioning, that is why only their names are given. If there were any others, then they either failed almost immediately, or got themselves killed. Either way, they weren't of any consequence, and that was why they weren't mentioned.

[Legolas]

For example, I may be wrong on this, but I had always understood that doubt remained over the fate of Tuor, notwithstanding that it was sung that was "numbered among the eldar race".

Immortality and Mortality being the special gifts of God to the Eruhini (in whose conception and creation the Valar had no part at all) it must be assumed that no alteration of their fundamental kind could be effected by the Valar even in one case: the cases of Lúthien (and Túor) and the position of their descendants was a direct act of God.

Of this Order the number is unknown; but of those that came to the North of Middle-earth, where there was most hope ... the chiefs were five.

i.e. 'We don't know how many Ainur there are, but of those that were sent to our area of Middle-earth, we know of at least five.' In that case, those five being chief is simply a guess because of their being known (while any others remain a mystery) and Saruman referring to the staffs of the five wizards. The Istari essay was written and originally intended to be a part of an index for Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure if the planned index was to be a separate, 'outside of the story' inclusion in publication, but I think Tolkien would've not done so - meaning the essay would've been a part of the recorded history just as the appendices were. It's very possible whoever writing that essay inside of the story would not have known everything there is to know - it's said that only Cirdan, Elrond, and Galadriel would've known of the Istari's origins (during the Third Age); naturally anyone else would be uncertain of the number, knowing only the five that have 'been said' to come at the bidding of the Valar. Glorfindel too came from Aman (as noted in HoME XII) - any observer (not being omnipotent) might wonder if there were others (whether they be elves or wizards), and if not wonder, at least not reject the possibility of others being sent.

[Noxomanus]

Though I believe there were only 5 Istari this thread is interestung nonetheless.

[Rumil]

Ah, Sospan Fach,
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
sadly I believe as most do that there were only 5, but there are passages which seem to contradict this (probably due to a time and development type thing). One is when Gandalf goes to kick the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur. He attends a meeting of the 'White WizardS' therefore presumably Saruman plus hangers-on (not Radagast since he was 'Brown'). These manange to dissuade Sauron from staying in Dol Guldur.

I've always imagined that Saruman had 'apprentice' sorcerors to tend the 'Fires of Orthanc' and generally perform lab tehnician-type jobs for him.

'Set the controls to MAXIMUM, Igor, we belong dead etc.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the confirmation on Tuor's fate, Legolas. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] My understanding had come from speculation on other threads that he and Idril never reached Aman.

Nevertheless, without confirmation such as that, the words "it is said" still convey to me a sense of uncertainty as to whether what is said to have happened did in fact happen. And I am still not convinced that there is any unambiguous confirmation that the Istari numbered only five (although I remain open to persuasion [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ).

i.e. 'We don't know how many Ainur there are, but of those that were sent to our area of Middle-earth, we know of at least five.'

But surely that does not reflect the correct meaning of "chiefs". It does not mean "those that we know about". It means "the main ones or leaders". Which suggests to me that there must have been others.

It's very possible whoever writing that essay inside of the story would not have known everything there is to know - it's said that only Cirdan, Elrond, and Galadriel would've known of the Istari's origins (during the Third Age); naturally anyone else would be uncertain of the number, knowing only the five that have 'been said' to come at the bidding of the Valar.

But the text is making a positive assertion: "of those that came, there were five chiefs". Which is in contrast to the less positive "it is said there were five" Istari.

On reflecting on the points made here, one further theory has occurred to me. Assuming that the reference to "the Order" in the quote in question is to the Order of the Ainur, it might mean that there were a number of emissaries who were of the Ainur and that they were led by five "chiefs". And those five chiefs were the Istari. So, only five Istari were sent, but they were accompanied by lesser Maia who were also emissaries of the Valar.

The problem with this is that, to my knowledge, we never hear of these "lesser" Maiar emissaries. And what is the point of alluding to their existence in this quote if they are never mentioned and play no discernible part in the struggle against Sauron? But it seems to me to be the only way that the sentence can be interpreted in a way that does not signify that there were more than five Istari.

Edit: Yes, Rumil, I too have always believed that the Istari numbered only five, but this extract from Unfinished Tales has led me to wonder whether that is a product of a combination of convention and the fact that we only ever hear of five.

But, when you refer to a meeting of the 'White Wizards', don't you mean a meeting of the White Council (ie Gandalf, Saruman and selected Elves)?

[ July 11, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Horse-Maiden of the Shire]

I wonder if Tolkien did this on purpose, knowing that someday people would wrack their brains trying to come up with an answer. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

And I am still not convinced that there is any unambiguous confirmation that the Istari numbered only five.

Of course there is no mention of them written outside of the story - the other two (or the concept of five) were never mentioned anywhere in writings published during Tolkien's lifetime, so no one ever got the chance to ask him.

But surely that does not reflect the correct meaning of "chiefs". It does not mean "those that we know about". It means "the main ones or leaders". Which suggests to me that there must have been others.

"Surely" - is any of this surely? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I'll attempt to further explain my thoughts on the usage of 'chiefs' - the historians did not know their number for certain (very little was known of them during their stay), but Saruman speaks of the rods of the five wizards and there are five whose names are known (at least given some sort of title, as is the case with the Ithryn Luin), five known to be sent. They did not want to deny the possibility of others, so because these five are apparently 'the' five mentioned by their chief, Saruman, and because they were renowned enough among record-keepers to be included in these stories, then "surely" these whose presence were made known must be the chiefs of whatever emissaries the Valar sent. That seems to be reason enough for me, but a further possible explanation seems to present itself: Saruman at least is known to be the chief of these emissaries, and Gandalf proved to be the greatest so Radagast (who interacted with Gandalf and was held so highly among the animals of Middle-earth) and the Blue Wizards (who travelled into the East with Saruman) would seem to be among the chiefs too (in the event that there were others). If there are others (a possibility in the minds of those documenting these stories), they apparently not among the chiefs of their order (for not only do they not play any sort of role in the stories, they are not even mentioned).

About "white wizards":

For one thing, you capitalized the words where they are not capitalized in the one time the term is used in The Hobbit:

It was in this way that he learned where Gandalf had been to; for he overheard the words of the wizard to Elrond. It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic; and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood.

This most assuredly means (as Saucepan Man said) the White Council, those on the 'white' (read: good) side opposing the Black Hand of Sauron. Bilbo wouldn't have known or understood the use of 'wizard' (much less 'Istar') referring to the group of Maiar sent by the Valar in the Third Age - he was a hobbit just beginning to get out into the world that was eavesdropping on a conversation far beyond his comprehension at the time. You might note that the 'white wizards' are described as 'masters of lore and good magic' immediately afterwards in teh quote. 'wizards' in this case would be referring to 'wizards' as their original, most commonly used definition - the only definition Bilbo would've known. Sharku pointed out the meaning of 'wizard' in the thread he linked to above:

Linguistically, of course, istari, wizards, means nothing more than 'versed and wise in the ways of the world'

[ July 12, 2003: Message edited by: Legolas ]

[Legolas'Beloved]

I'm just curious, as ignorant as this may sound, but what exactly is an Istari?

[Legolas]

'Istari' is plural, elvish for 'wizards'.

When capitalized, it is referring specifically to the five wizards the Valar sent to Middle-earth in the Third Age to motivate the resistance to Sauron. They were Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando. Of the five, only the first three appear in Lord of the Rings, and alone Gandalf sticks to the mission.

[Legolas'Beloved]

Sounds good to me..thanks

[The Saucepan Man]

I'll attempt to further explain my thoughts on the usage of 'chiefs' ...

I follow your reasoning Legolas, and it does make sense to me. You say that, because they had no first hand knowledge of how many Istari there were, those recording these events referred to the five that were known, but left open the possibility that there might be more by referring to the named five as the "chiefs" of those that came to Middle-earth. But they were mistaken because there were in fact only five.

Your argument is premised on the passage which contains this sentence having been intended to form part of a recorded history "within the story". And it is implicit in what you say that those responsible for recording the events portrayed were fallible, ie they could get it wrong when recording events of which they had no first hand knowledge.

The difficulty that I have with this is that it raises the question of how much more there is, for example in the Appendices, that cannot necessarily be taken as accurate because it is portrayed as having been recorded by those without direct knowledge of the events in question.

[Finwe]

Perhaps the historians assumed that all those who came with the Istari to Middle-earth from Aman were the "wizards." If you count in Glorfindel, you have more than five wizards, the chief of which, are still the "original" five Istari. In that sense, the seemingly skewed perspective of the historians could make sense.

[Sharkû]

Even though the "chiefs" clearly refer to the Istari, I would not make much of it. If one wanted to maintain that wording at all cost and reconcile its meaning with the other texts, one might apply it instead to "the Wise" which are defined as "the chieftains of the Eldar and the Istari" (HoME XII 1, viii) and "the Istari and the chief Eldar" (app. B) in the published version.

Taking into consideration that to most, the nature of the Istari was not clear, and that they were commonly mistaken for Elves (at least among men) might show how the lines could have been blurred here. Tolkien himself briefly and hesitatingly wondered whether Glorfindel was a wizard (cf. HoME 2, xiii).

In this case, however, even though it appears that Tolkien maybe even deliberately kept the true number of Istari a relative secret, throughout The Lord of the Rings at any rate, the answer which can be derived from the background writings is definite. In his Letters, Tolkien never questions the number of five when he gives it, but in his Last Writings, he brought it all together by stating both points we have been working on: "Saruman in his wrath mentioning five [Istari] was letting out a piece of private information" (ibid.). The existance of the blue wizards was actually only known to the other three (ibid.).

This says both that the number was hard, if not impossible to tell for outsiders, because it was intentionally kept hidden (from Sauron), and that there very clearly were five.

[The Saucepan Man]

In his Letters, Tolkien never questions the number of five when he gives it, but in his Last Writings, he brought it all together by stating both points we have been working on: "Saruman in his wrath mentioning five [Istari] was letting out a piece of private information" (ibid.).

Thanks Sharkû. That seems to settle it. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I find the use of the word "chiefs" curious nonetheless. Perhaps JRRT had it in mind that other lesser Maia accompanied the Istari on their mission, but never got round to developing the idea. Or perhaps I am just placing too much importance on the word. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Finwe]

That might be it. Of course, we could all be over-analyzing this thing to death, which is leading us in circles. I don't think many of the discrepancies were meant to be over-analyzed!