Boldogs, Gothmogs and Sauron's New Clothes

[Petty Dwarf]

Two things leading up to this thread: I was reading through the orc material in Myths Transformed and the discussion on the Ring's part in Sauron's several re-embodiments that was taking place in Rings of Power & Osanwe-Kenta.

It becomes a huge problem to assert validity with the texts, especially for some of the short working notes in Myths Transformed. My preference is to defer to the most recent and more polished parts whether internal or external to the story. So this from the Orcs section of Quendi and Eldar carries lots of weight

For Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms. Those whose business it was to direct the Orcs often took Orkish shapes, though they were greater and more terrible. Thus it was that the histories speak of Great Orcs or Orc-captains who were not slain, and who reappeared in battle through years far longer than the span of the lives of Men.*

*Boldog, for instance, is a name that occurs many times in the tales of the War. But it is possible that Boldog was not a personal name, and either a title, or else the name of a kind of creature: the Orc-formed Maiar, only less formidable than the Balrogs.

Christopher goes on to mention the only times the name Boldog was used was in the Lay of Leithian and Quenta as the name for an orc-captain who lead a raid into Doriath. Fair enough. Maybe Tolkien intended to write him in at later times, put Quendi and Eldar aside and forgot.

But I have a feeling he meant for Boldog to be applied in the latter sense: as a class-name for Orkish Úmaiar. It seems clear from the piece above that being killed is hardly an end for certain Úmaiar, and in doing so it diminishes them. So considering this, are there any possible Boldog candidates out there? There aren't many. One name from older legends seems to intrude into later ones: Gothmog. Could a Balrog become a Boldog?

There is no textual evidence the second Gothmog was the same as the first, or that he was a Boldog, or that he was an orc, or a Ring-wraith either. So the floor is open to suggestions.

It seems if there were any Úmaiar powerful enough to rehouse themselves Balrogs would have been able to do it. Of course it would take very long, much longer than Sauron took to rehouse himself, but he had the Ring. That makes his case special. I doubt Sauron would have died the same death as Thû had the revision of the Lay of Leithian continued. It's more than likely that the first time Sauron died was in the Downfall.

[Formendacil]

How about we do as Tolkien hints we might, and use the term "Boldog" to refer to a very minor Úmaiar, one that is below Sauron, below Gothmog and the other Balrogs, and certainly WAY below their mutual master, Melkor-Morgoth? In other words, let's use it as generic term for the fourth tier of Ainur-gone-bad.

The First Tier is Melkor-Morgoth, the Alpha and the Omega of Evil. Peerless in all Arda, and that's taking the good guys into account.

Then we have the Second Rank, the powerful Maiar gone bad. Sauron, Ungoliant, and maybe one or two others that we don't know about fit in here.

Then we have the Third Rank, the Balrogs. We could also put them in the Second Rank, as junior partners. Gothmog (the Balrog), after all, seems close in importance to Sauron in command of the First Age's armies.

Now we come to a less easily proven level, what I shall call 4th Tier Úmaiar. These are the ancient spirits, Ainur who came into Arda, and who formed the bulk of the "many" Maiar who were seduced to evil by Melkor, but who don't seem to have been powerful enough to individually become a menace or threat. Thuringwethil and Draugluin might well fit into this category. So also would these Ork-Captains that Tolkien writes about, these powerful, strong, extra-large-and-nasty Orks that formed the original Ork hosts and commanded and interbred with the later ones. Let us use Boldog as a generic term for any of these Ork-captains, just as Balrog may be used for any Úmaiar of the Third Rank.

Being so low on the scale of power, these Boldogs would likely have been tied to a single incarnate form (hence their ability to reproduce and mate with other proto-Orks), and would thus have definitely been "slay-able", just as the more powerful Balrogs were. Also, as with the more powerful Balrogs, these Boldogs would not have been like to reincarnate themselves.

Most therefore, would not have survived the First Age. Those who did would likely have become the great Ork-lords of the Second. What with Sauron's invasion of Eregion, attacks from Westernesse, the War of the Last Alliance, and their own infighting, it would appear doubtful that many would have survived into the Third Age.

Perhaps Gothmog II was one of the last (or THE last) of these petty-Úmaiar, these minor Ainur-gone-bad. Still quite fearsome compared with men, but certainly within a man's power to kill, and certainly able to be dominated by Sauron, and even the Witch-king.

On the same topic, is it possible that Azog of Moria was another surviving Boldog? Hence his "kingly" status. Also, his son Bolg, as at least a half-Úmaiar, would then have had enough of a headstart on the competition in what was surely a mean and deadly fight for the leadership of the Orks.

Neither Azog nor Gothmog II need have been "the" Boldog, the one who fought Beleg and the wardens on the Marchs of Doriath, but surely it is possible that one or both them were "a" Boldog, or at least Orks with a stronger strain of Boldog in their blood. A kind of Orkish Line of Elros, so to speak.




*By the way, nice to see a fellow Lego/Tolkien fan.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Also, his son Bolg, as at least a half-Úmaiar, would then have had enough of a headstart on the competition in what was surely a mean and deadly fight for the leadership of the Orks.

But if Boldogs could not reproduce, how could Azog, if he was such a being, have produced a son?

There are some who hold that Gorbag's reference, in his conversation with Shagrat, to the "bad old times" and the "Great Siege" derives from first hand experience, suggesting an extraordinary longetivity. Might they perhaps be candidate for Boldog-ship?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But if Boldogs could not reproduce, how could Azog, if he was such a being, have produced a son?

There are some who hold that Gorbag's reference, in his conversation with Shagrat, to the "bad old times" and the "Great Siege" derives from first hand experience, suggesting an extraordinary longetivity. Might they perhaps be candidate for Boldog-ship?

Did I say that they couldn't reproduce?

Let me check....

Originally Posted by Formendacil

(hence their ability to reproduce and mate with other proto-Orks),

It's not a huge point, but here is proof that I DID write it as they can reproduce, although if you get right down to it, I suppose that I am hardly qualified to say whether or not a Boldog can mate, but in light of the fact that Tolkien seems to say that when he was looking at Boldogs as Ork-captains, and the fact that their fellow Maia (although not gone bad), Melian, could mate (and with a non-Maia, at that), it would seem to be a logical assumption.

I, personally, wouldn't have picked Gorbag out as a Boldog, but maybe they are more common than I am supposing. Or perhaps, being a captain, he has Boldog-blood, and thus greater longevity?

[Man-of-the-Wold]

I like it, I think it captures the potential for evil spirits and such. Another source in all this would be the fea of dead elves who refused to go to Mandos and were corrupted and rehoused, which I increasing except as the essence of the Barrow-wrights, and other necromancy in Middle-Earth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Did I say that they couldn't reproduce?

Oops! My apologies. I misread "ability" for "inability". My only excuse is that it was the early hours for me (being on GMT).

*Saucepan skulks off to write "I must read posts properly before responding" 100 times*

I do seem to recall discussion around here at some time to the effect that fallen Ainur could not reproduce, though. Didn't Tolkien speculate that Morgoth was rendered sterile in consequence of his fallen state? I will provide a link if I can find it.

I, personally, wouldn't have picked Gorbag out as a Boldog, but maybe they are more common than I am supposing. Or perhaps, being a captain, he has Boldog-blood, and thus greater longevity?

If one holds with the idea (put forward by Tolkien in his later years, I believe) that "normal" Orcs are mere creatures without fea directed by a greater will, then the Boldog analysis would explain the rebellious tendencies exhibited by Shagrat and Gorbag in their conversation. Personally, though, I don't hold with that idea, as Orcs in general, as depicted in The Hobbit and LotR, exhibit too great a degree of sentience and independence, to my mind, to be mere automata.

Edit: Here is the quote that I was thinking of (from Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed):

Evil is fissiparous. But itself barren. Melkor could not 'beget', or have any spouse (though he attempted to ravish Arien, this was to destroy and 'distain' her, not to beget fiery offspring).

Whether this applies to Melkor alone, or also to lesser fallen Ainu, is not clear. Although the suggestion is that an evil being would be barren by virtue of its evil nature, there are clear indications elsewhere that Orcs reproduced in the manner of other races.

[Neithan]

There are some who hold that Gorbag's reference, in his conversation with Shagrat, to the "bad old times" and the "Great Siege" derives from first hand experience, suggesting an extraordinary longetivity.

Does Tolkien say anywhere what the normal life span of an Orc is?

Whether this applies to Melkor alone, or also to lesser fallen Ainu, is not clear.

I think it only applied to Morgoth (and maybe Sauron since he became a lot like Morgoth in the end). After all, Ungoliant had offspring.

[Petty Dwarf]

Being so low on the scale of power, these Boldogs would likely have been tied to a single incarnate form (hence their ability to reproduce and mate with other proto-Orks), and would thus have definitely been "slay-able", just as the more powerful Balrogs were. Also, as with the more powerful Balrogs, these Boldogs would not have been like to reincarnate themselves.

I don't know if I agree with Boldogs being tied to a single incarnate form. Leaving room for variability I'm sure some could have been, while others were not. I always read the sentence "Thus it was that the histories speak of Great Orcs or Orc-captains who were not slain, and who reappeared..." as "Orc-captains who were slain but not killed, and who reappeared...". Perhaps due to a confusion in the definition, what made me make the leap was the fact that Boldog the orc-captain obviously died in Doriath, yet Tolkien puts forth his name as one that reappears. There is a purposeful contradiction here, created by Tolkien.

I also don't think a Boldog was very much further down from a Balrog. They were described as "only less formidable than the Balrogs". Read with the emphasis on the "less". The greater ones at least were horrifying, and probably more trollish than orkish.

So could a Balrog become a Boldog in rehousing?

Whether this applies to Melkor alone, or also to lesser fallen Ainu, is not clear

In the same Orcs passage from Quendi and Eldar it states specifically that Melkor had no children. It seems as if reproduction was for some Ainu and not for others. But any who did must have been tied to a single incarnate form.

[obloquy]

I think your rankings are more complicated than they need to be. Morgoth was obviously the most powerful of the Fallen. Sauron was an especially powerful Umaia, but I do not see any reason to put him in a different class than the Balrogs. They were all the same, they just possessed varying degrees of power.

Also, Ungoliante was not an Umaia.

I think that it was possible for a spirit that had died as an Incarnate to be reembodied by a more powerful being.

[Neithan]

Also, Ungoliante was not an Umaia.

Isn't this debatable? I always thought that she was a powerful Ainu and that she was one of those who went over to Melkor during the Music. But after they came to Arda and began shaping it Ungoliant left Melkor to fulfill her own purposes. Isn't it also possible that she was one of the people of Varda or at least had something to do with light and that Melkor corrupted her so that she became somewhat the opposite.

I think that it was possible for a spirit that had died as an Incarnate to be reembodied by a more powerful being.

An interesting thought but what are you basing it on?

I don't think that the two Gothmogs are the same, the Lord of Balrogs was just a little to great to be associated with a mere Boldog.

[the phantom]

Might they perhaps be candidate for Boldog-ship?

How about that orc captain in Moria that stabbed Frodo. He seemed to be a bit special. I don't recall that every orc let off a flash of light when their heads were hewn.

Whether this applies to Melkor alone, or also to lesser fallen Ainu, is not clear.

After all, Ungoliant had offspring.

Yep, yep. Just because an Ainu goes bad doesn't mean they can't reproduce.

I think that it was possible for a spirit that had died as an Incarnate to be reembodied by a more powerful being.

An interesting thought but what are you basing it on?

Melkor stuck spirits and such in dragons and wolves, so we know he could house spirits. So why not rehouse? Elves were rehoused after they died, so we know it's possible to rehouse a spirit.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Melkor stuck spirits and such in dragons and wolves, so we know he could house spirits. So why not rehouse? Elves were rehoused after they died, so we know it's possible to rehouse a spirit.

Agreed, but the ability to rehouse the Elves was not given to the Elves themselves, but to the Valar. Perhaps it is similar with the Maiar: once unable to reincarnate themselves, they are dependent on a higher power for rehousing. Of course, Melkor wouldn't be the power that SHOULD be doing this, but he is said to share in, and covet, the gifts of all his brethren, and it would be a form of rebellion to usurp the authority of the Valar (and in doing so create his own army).

Originally Posted by obloquy

I think your rankings are more complicated than they need to be. Morgoth was obviously the most powerful of the Fallen. Sauron was an especially powerful Umaia, but I do not see any reason to put him in a different class than the Balrogs. They were all the same, they just possessed varying degrees of power.

Also, Ungoliante was not an Umaia.

Well, I admitted myself that there could just as well be three rankings as four. But it was a somewhat minor point...

As for Ungoliant, she HAS to be an Úmaia, since how else does one explain that she joined the service of Melkor early on, and she recognised him as the Lord of Utumno? She's also quite powerful in her own right, and once she devours the power of the Trees, she has enough power to threaten Melkor himself (although his power is, of course, much dispersed by now throughout the matter of middle-earth).

It might be possible to debate whether or not Ungoliant was an Úmaia, but I think it has to be agreed on that she was an Ainu in origin, and since she was clearly not of Vala status, she must have been a Maia. Whether or not the "Ú" should be tacked on is pretty unimportant...

Originally Posted by Petty Dwarf

I also don't think a Boldog was very much further down from a Balrog. They were described as "only less formidable than the Balrogs". Read with the emphasis on the "less". The greater ones at least were horrifying, and probably more trollish than orkish.

The relative strength of a Boldog to a Balrog must be a debate that cannot finally be settled, considering how little we know about Boldogs, but I at least should say that a Boldog was considerably below the level of a Balrog. The Balrogs were armies unto themselves. It wasn't until the fall of Gondolin that one ever suffered from death. Previously, any battle including them was won by Morgoth.

Boldogs, on the other hand, were in charge of waging war against Doriath, something that Morgoth surely must have seen as near-impossible in his then-current situation. Had he REALLY been intent on crushing Thingol, surely he would have sent Sauron or Gothmog with the Balrogs against its borders. As it is, we only hear of ONE Boldog leading the skirmishes. In addition to which, it would seem that Beleg and Turin were both quite successful (above and beyond Melian's aid) in holding off his threat.

So personally, I don't think that the Boldogs were all that fearsome compared with Balrogs. Perhaps the analogy of the little-known Lesser Rings can be applied: "Mere trifles to the Elves, but essays in the craft, but still perilous in my mind to mortals" [Paraphrased from memory from the Lord of the Rings Not intended to be completely accurate.]

[Kuruharan]

Here is a thread that explains the definition of Maia and explains the theory of why Ungoliant was not one.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It might be possible to debate whether or not Ungoliant was an Úmaia, but I think it has to be agreed on that she was an Ainu in origin, and since she was clearly not of Vala status, she must have been a Maia.

Is it really that clear cut that she was a Maia?

I have not yet read HoME but the only reference to Ungoliant's origins of which I am aware is in The Silmarillion:

The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwë, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service.

Based on this, the argument might go either way. On one analysis, the extract suggests that she did not originate within Arda but came from outside, as did the Ainur. Yet, if she was Ainu in origin, would the Eldar not know whence she came? It is possible, to my mind, to read this extract as suggesting that she was a powerful being that came into existence with the creation of Arda (as a consequence of Melkor's part in the song?), living at first in the darkness surrounding it, and that she was corrupted into Melkor's service shortly after he entered Arda.

Is there any other evidence as to Ungoliant's origins? In particular, is there anything that establishes that she was Ainu in origin?

Edit after cross-posting with Kuruharan: Thanks for the link. That thread suggests that Ungoliant was an Ainu but not a Maia, as she did not serve the Valar. But is it not possible to argue that she came into existence with the creation of Arda and was therefore not an Ainu?

[obloquy]

Ungoliante was an eala in her beginnings, yes, but other than that we know nothing about her. She came into Arda uninvited, and so does not fall into the categories of those who were stationed in Arda by Eru. The distinctions "Vala" and "Maia" are given to Ainur (which may itself be an Arda-specific class of beings) who occupy specific stations appointed to them by Eru.

Apart from this, she was never actually in Melkor's service, but that point is moot.

Edit: And it's a good thing the point is moot, because Tolkien disagrees with me. Here's his latest word on the subject from Annals of Aman:

Whence she came none of the Eldar know, but maybe she came to the South out of the darkness of Ëa, in that time when Melkor destroyed the lights of Illuin and Ormal, and because of his dwelling in the North the heed of the Valar was turned most thither and the South was long forgotten. Thence she crept towards the realm of the light of the Valar. For she hungered for light and hated it. In a deep cleft of the mountains she dwelt, and took shape as it were a spider of monstrous form, sucking up all such light as she could find, or that strayed over the walls of Valinor, and she spun it forth again in black webs of strangling gloom, until no light more could come to her abode, and she was famished.

It may well be that Melkor, if none other, knew of her being and her abode, and that she was in the beginning one of those that he had corrupted to his service.

Edit again: Reading more carefully reveals that Tolkien thinks she may have been one of those he corrupted to his service.

[The Saucepan Man]

uh.. wots an eala ???/

[obloquy]

Additionally, I think her ability to consume light is unusual enough for us to label her an enigma instead. This ability and hunger of hers puts her at odds with Arda, and furthers the point that her presence was unsanctioned by Eru.

An interesting thought but what are you basing it on?

I don't base it on anything, other than the fact that it's not addressed by Tolkien and therefore not said to be impossible. It would seem that the only thing that prevented the spirit from doing it itself was that it no longer possessed the power to do so.

[Neithan]

uh.. wots an eala ???

Ealar, singular Eala, are those bodyless spirits who were created befor Ea, of which the Ainur are one type.

Ainur (which may itself be an Arda-specific class of beings)

What? All I have to go on is the 77 Sil and the quotes that I have read on the Downs but the Sil says that the Ainur were created beforehand and that those who went into Arda were broken up into subgroups such as Valar and Maiar, but some of the Ainur stayed with Iluvatar.

[obloquy]

What? All I have to go on is the 77 Sil and the quotes that I have read on the Downs but the Sil says that the Ainur were created beforehand and that those who went into Arda were broken up into subgroups such as Valar and Maiar, but some of the Ainur stayed with Iluvatar.

Yeah, you're right about that. It is possible that the Ainur, even those who did not enter Arda, were made specifically for the creation and overseeing of Arda and that there were other classes of spirits. The point is just that we don't really know much about ealar.

[Formendacil]

Okay, I'll admit that I was going out a bit on a limb with Ungoliant...

Perhaps it would be wrong to call her a Maia, as such...

She is definitely an Ainu, though. There is no debating that all the spirits created by Eru in the beginning, in time for the Music, were the Ainur, and that all the spirits who came to Arda in the beginning of the world were, of necessity, Ainur.

Here's where I perhaps made my mistake, that of automatically classifying each and every Ainu who came to Arda as either a Vala or a Maia. This strategy would seem to be born out by the Valaquenta, but I'll admit that it might be more accurate to say that all the Ainur in Arda were ORIGINALLY classified as either Valar or Maiar, and that those who turned evil lost the designation. In any event, I am willing to admit that I could have been wrong in my application of the term.

Perhaps she wasn't a Maia, persay, but she MUST have been an Ainu. She must have been one of the those spirits who created the Music for Eru, or at least the offspring of such. What else can she have been?

And while the term Ainur is not really used in the context of the spirits attendant at the Music once they are in Arda, where the terms Valar, Maiar, Balrogs, Istari, etc. are more proper and correct, the fact remains that all of these must have in origin been Ainur.

[obloquy]

Why must she have been an Ainu?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Why must she have been an Ainu?

Process of elimination.

What ELSE could she have been?

Elf? No.

Man? Weren't even awake, but No anyway.

Dwarf? See above.

Ent? A tree that eats trees? No.

Ork? Maybe. But in spider shape? Besides, with Ainur thrown in, Orks would appear to be one of the above.

Fea-less creature: Only possibility left. However, it would seem apparent (at least to MY deranged imagination) that Ungoliant had thoughts and a fea.

What else is left?

Plant? Mineral?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

What ELSE could she have been?

How can we be sure that the list that you give is a complete list of all sentient beings within, or indeed without, Arda?

What about the Stone Giants that Bilbo sees in the Misty Mountains and Gandalf refers to?

What about the infamous fox that note the Hobbits' journey through the Shire?

They can be explained by putting them down to the fictional author's whimsy, but that is only one explanation.

And what about Huan, the Eagles and Shadowfax? Can we be sure that they were Maiarin in origin?

Moreover, Neithan's helpful (for me) explanation of Ealar indicates that there were spirits originating outside Arda who were not Ainur.

[Bêthberry]

On the other hand, Ungoliant could be a vague allusion to another character from deep back in the misty dawn of mythological lore. Who has uncontrolled appetites, who harbours a vile appearance, who is the epitome of disobedience and willfulness and even bestiality? No, not Eve, but Adam's first wife, lost in the nether reaches of time. Lilith. At least according to some of the versions of the legends we have. How to fit her into the Legendarium, of course, is another problem.

[Neithan]

Yes, I will try to find the quote that I based that Ealar assertion on.
SpM, glad I could help. If anyone wants more information on Ealar try here


Edit: I am having a hard time finding the quote. I don't have the book that it is from, but if memory serves than it was posted at one point during a Bombadil debate in order to say that he might be such a being. If anyone knows what quote I am talking about will they help me out?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

How can we be sure that the list that you give is a complete list of all sentient beings within, or indeed without, Arda?

What about the Stone Giants that Bilbo sees in the Misty Mountains and Gandalf refers to?

What about the infamous fox that noticed the Hobbits' journey through the Shire?

They can be explained by putting them down to the fictional author's whimsy, but that is only one explanation.

And what about Huan, the Eagles and Shadowfax? Can we be sure that they were Maiarin in origin?

Moreover, Neithan's helpful (for me) explanation of Ealar indicates that there were spirits originating outside Arda who were not Ainur.

Your points are all well taken, but in the case of Ungoliant at least, the implications seem obvious to me, if to no one else. Call in a deeply-engrained thought-habit, if you like.

I'd also like to see the references for these ealar. Not just hte quotes, but where to find them. Cause I've never heard of them before, and I consider myself fairly well-read Tolkienwise. Not that a new text to devour would go amiss, by any means, and certainly I don't have the entire HoME commited to memor, but I'm still completely unable to recall having heard of them before...

[obloquy]

Discussion of ealar is in the latter three HoMe volumes, but which texts specifically I cannot recall at the moment. Tomorrow I may be able to provide more specific information.

Saucepan Man is right, though. There is no evidence of other classes of ealar besides Ainur, but there is also no reason to believe Ainur were the only kind of ealar. Why call them Ainur if they're the only kind of ealar anyway? Wouldn't one term or the other suffice?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Discussion of ealar is in the latter three HoMe volumes, but which texts specifically I cannot recall at the moment. Tomorrow I may be able to provide more specific information.

Saucepan Man is right, though. There is no evidence of other classes of ealar besides Ainur, but there is also no reason to believe Ainur were the only kind of ealar. Why call them Ainur if they're the only kind of ealar anyway? Wouldn't one term or the other suffice?

Hmm... Now I'm REALLY curious about these references, because I both own and have read (multiple times) the last few volumes of the HoME. And I can't remember a thing....

As for the variation of terms...

Different languages, different applications... Think humans vs. people. They're the same things in our world, right? But we have two words. In the same language.

Besides which, one has to remember that Tolkien often replaced terms with new words, then switched back, or forgot, or invented yet another term...

Whatever the case, I'm looking forward to seeing this reference.

[obloquy]

In my phatty thread (linked to above) I cite HoMe X, p165 (hardback edition) as the source for the term ëalar. It's possible that this is the only text in which it occurs, but I honestly can't remember.

Here it is:

Commentary on Chapter 3, ‘Of the Coming of the Elves'

LQ 1 is here again, as in the previous chapter, virtually the final text, for the later typescript LQ 2 was scarcely touched, and there was no further enlargement or expansion.

§18 In AAm §30 (p. 70) it is said that Melkor ‘wrought’ the Balrogs in Utumno during the long darkness after the fall of the Lamps; but in an interpolation to AAm there enters the view that Melkor, after his rebellion, could make nothing that had life of its own (§45, see pp. 74, 78), and in AAm*, the second version of the opening of AAm (p. 79, §30), the Balrogs become the chief of ‘the evil spirits that followed him, the Umaiar’, whom at that time he multiplied. The statement in QS §18 that the Balrogs were ‘the first made of his creatures' survived through all the texts of the later revision of the Quenta, but in the margin of one of the copies of LQ 2 my father wrote: ‘See Valaquenta for true account.’ This is a reference to the passage which appears in the published Silmarillion on p. 31:

For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.

The actual text of LQ 2 my father emended at this time very hastily to read:

These were the (ëalar) spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days. And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world; and his realm spread now ever southward over the Middle-earth. But the Orks, mockeries and perversions of the Children of Eru, did not appear until after the Awakening of the Elves.

There is a footnote to the word ëalar in this passage:

‘spirit’ (not incarnate, which was fëa, Sindarin] fae). ëala ‘being’.

[Neithan]

Well the quote I was trying to find but couldn't said something about other beings outside Arda other than the Ainur. I don't think that it said that they were Ealar but I assumed that they were.

[davem]

Re: Ealar

It seems from this that these 'evil 'ealar' were the Balrogs only. I can't see from this passage (unless there's another one I've missed - there isn't a reference to 'ealar' in the index) that Ungoliant could be an ealar.

I do find the reference to 'other monsters of divers shapes and kinds' interesting. It may, of course, only refer to the dragons, werewolve & vampires of the later legends, but there's an interesting passage in 'Tolkien & the Great War:

Tolkien had listed several monstrous creatures in the 'Poetic and Mythologic Words of Eldarrissa & its ethnological chart: tauler, tyulqin, and sarqin, names which in Qenya indicate tree-like stature or an appetite for flesh. . . All these new races of monsters proved transitory, bar two: the Balrogs and the Orcs. Orcs were bred in 'the subterranean heat and slime' by Melko: 'Their hearts were of granite and their bodies deformed; foul their faces which smiled not, but their laugh that of the clash of metal. . .' The name had been taken from the Old English orc, 'demon', but only because it was phonetically suitable. The role of demon properly belongs to Balrogs, whose Goldogrin name means 'cruel demon' or 'demon of anguish'. These are Melko's flame-wielding shock troops and battlefield captains, the cohorts of Evil.

(Edited for clarification)

[Neithan]

I can't see from this passage (unless there's another one I've missed - there isn't a reference to 'ealar' in the index) that Ungoliant could be an ealar.

To be fair there is no conclusive evidence either way. Personally, I believe, as stated before, that she was an Ainur of light like Varda. She would be a powerful Ainu probably as great as some of the Valar. Then when she turned evil she became a thing of darkness rather than light but she still craved light even as she hated it.

[davem]

I can't help but speculate that rather than being an ealar Ungoliant seems more like a kind of 'manifestation' of the 'Void'. She comes across as an 'absence' rather than a 'presence' in so many ways. She swallows, consumes, the light.

This is pure speculation, but I wonder, as it seems the 'Void' was a 'place' where Melkor could wander before the creation of Arda, whether something of that 'emptiness' entered into the Music through him, that it was some part of the theme that he introduced - the place where he sought the Secret Fire but failed to find it. She exists because Melkor sang her into being...

Of course, this drags into the realm of metaphysics in a big way

This could account for Ungoliant's 'existence'...or it may just be a mad idea

[obloquy]

You don't think Ungoliante was a spirit? That's funny.

She was originally discarnate as evidenced by the fact that she is stated to have descended into Arda (the created physical world) from outside (where all things are necessarily incorporeal). She eventually took physical form since she is stated to have produced offspring.

If she was an Ainu, she was an eala. If you believe she existed as Tolkien describes, she was an eala. No two ways about it.

It seems from this that these 'evil 'ealar' were the Balrogs only.

No, the definition of eala is clearly quoted above.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

This is pure speculation, but I wonder, as it seems the 'Void' was a 'place' where Melkor could wander before the creation of Arda, whether something of that 'emptiness' entered into the Music through him, that it was some part of the theme that he introduced - the place where he sought the Secret Fire but failed to find it. She exists because Melkor sang her into being...

An appealing proposition, davem, and one which I do not believe has been considered before.

But, to return to a question which I asked earlier, is there any reason to suppose that Ungoliant was created before Eä? Could she not have come into existence, as part of Melkor's part in the song, at the same time as Eä was created? The extract from the Silmarillion quoted above talks of her descending from the shadows that lay about Arda, but those shadows would have been within Eä, and would therefore have been created with it. So it does not follow from that extract that she pre-existed Eä.

The following is an extract from Of The Flight of the Noldor, in relation to Nan Dungortheb:

For other foul creatures of spider form had dwelt there since the days of the delving of Angband, and [Ungoliant] mated with them, and devoured them; and even after Ungoliant herself departed, and went whither she would into the forgotten south of the world, her offspring abode there and wove their hideus webs.

Perhaps these other creatures were of the same race as Ungoliant, although lesser than her, and they too had crept in from the shadows that lay about Arda.

[Neithan]

Perhaps these other creatures were of the same race as Ungoliant, although lesser than her, and they too had crept in from the shadows that lay about Arda.

Interesting, I had always assumed that these spiders were just creations of Morgoth just like the Orcs and other things but what you say is possable.
Also, Tolkien never said for sure that she "descended from the shadows about Arda" only that the Elves believed that she did. So she could be just about anything.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Obloquy

If you believe she existed as Tolkien describes, she was an eala. No two ways about it.

No, the definition of eala is clearly quoted above.

[QUOTE]These were the (ëalar) spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days.

[Petty Dwarf]

No, the definition of eala is clearly quoted above.

The definition does seem certain: ëalar are unhoused spirits. "Beings" in the sense that they exist regardless of embodiment. Obviously all Ainur were ëalar. But an unhoused elf or humans after death would be considered ëalar as well.

Obviously embodied, Ungoliant was no longer an ëala.

As for speculation, my belief is that the ëalar of all later incarnate creatres were present before, during, or sometime in the middle of the Music. But other celestial beings coeval or greater than the Ainur? Why assume there was some other kind of being than the Ainur------what are the Ainur anyway?

[obloquy]

No, the spirits of the Incarnates remain fëar even when unhoused because they are naturally incarnate, rather than naturally discarnate. The Children were created as incarnate beings whose fëa and hröa are bound to the point that the separation of the two results in 'death'. When an Incarnate dies, the being's 'fate' comes into play: for Elves it is to return to Aman; for Men it is mysterious; for incarnated ëalar it seems to be something like limbo--they kinda float around aimlessly and powerlessly. An ëala could probably be referred to as a fëa without crossing any lines, but a fëa could not be called an ëala.

At least, this is my take on it, based on the fact that Tolkien only uses the word ëalar to refer to spirits that we know were discarnate in their beginnings. This may be, of course, because the term is a new one in this emendation.

Why assume there was some other kind of being than the Ainur------what are the Ainur anyway?

We're not assuming that there were, we are saying that it is undeniable that there could have been. Ainur and ëalar are basically the same thing, except that the term ëalar potentially encompasses more. Ainur are all spirits who fall into either the Vala or Maia category, but ëalar are all spirits whose created nature is incorporeal.

All right, davem. You have succeeded in being a pest. I thought it was clear enough so I didn't go into it, but I will clarify just for you.

The portion I quoted is an emendation. This is the original text:

But the other Valar came seldom thither; and in the North Melkor built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the first made of his creatures: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days.

I have put the portion that was obviously replaced in bold. The preceding sentence was retained, however, as it lends context to the "these" that begins the next sentence of the emendation. The final version, therefore, would read thus:

But the other Valar came seldom thither; and in the North Melkor built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the (ëalar) spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days.

So, these 'demons' spoke of in the first sentence that Melkor gathered around him were the 'spirits' whom he had first corrupted, who later became known as Balrogs. The sentence does not read "These were the ëalar, the spirits who first adhered to him..." The parenthetical ëalar is semantic: Tolkien is providing his term for the word 'spirits'. There is a footnote to the word ëalar which defines them as discarnate beings. The nature of Balrogs is never adjusted from fallen Maiar after these revisions, not even in Myths Transformed.

This may be a bit late, but...

Well, I admitted myself that there could just as well be three rankings as four. But it was a somewhat minor point...

I submit that there need only be two rankings: 1) Melkor, 2) Umaiar.

[Neithan]

I submit that there need only be two rankings: 1) Melkor, 2) Umaiar

Yes, but this rather misses the point. He was pointing out the relative differences of power and rank between the Umaiar. Therefore let us say that the 2nd ranking is split up into two or three sub-rankings with Sauron at the top and lesser servents such as Boldogs at the bottom.