Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
11-25-2002, 06:09 PM | #1 | ||||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Ëalar and Incarnation.
This is intended as an explanation of certain points that may seem ambiguous after reading The Silmarillion, as published in 1977 by Christopher Tolkien. I put it forth as fact, despite that some of it borders on personal interpretation. Dispute what you wish, though I believe these ideas provide the most consistent and reasonable whole and I will provide arguments for whatever is contested. On to it, then!
Ainur and ëalar The origin of the Ainur is fully explained in The Valaquenta, which is contained within The Silmarillion. They are what Tolkien calls ëalar (see HoMe X, p165), which is a being that is naturally discarnate. Ainur may be the only type of ëalar, but it is not necessarily so. Some of the Ainur did not enter into the World, choosing to remain outside of it. From the ’77: Quote:
Tulkas is an example of one of these Ainur who chose to remain outside, though he later did enter into Ëa as an appointed Vala. Ungoliantë, however, could possibly be an Ainu who entered into Ëa of her own accord, unsanctioned by Ilúvatar, and thus was neither Maia nor Vala. It is also possible that she was one of those spirits corrupted by Melkor to his service, as stated in The Silmarillion; but in any case, at the time of her appearance in that story, she was unaffiliated and doing her own thing. Though Tom Bombadil was not a Maia, it is not impossible that he was an ëala or Ainu, much like Ungoliantë. It may be that when the Ainur were given designations, the potency of the being's spirit played a part in determining to which class it would belong. But it is also possible that some of the Maiar, and especially unaffiliated ëalar or Ainur, could have had spiritual power to rival some of the Valar. It is important to note the difference between ëala and fëa. The Children of Ilúvatar possess fëar: it is their spirit, and it is separated from the hröa (or ‘body’) when the body is slain. On the other hand, ëalar are discarnate in nature, and only assume a hröa when they choose to do so. Incarnation There is a difference between ‘incarnate’ and merely ‘clothed’ with a physical form. Ëalar could apparently take on physical shapes to interact with beings on the physical plane, and were able to abandon or change those shapes as they willed. Tolkien called this being ‘clothed’ or ‘self-arrayed’. When a ‘clothed’ spirit’s raiment was destroyed or wounded, the being was ultimately unaffected. In contrast, some ëalar actually became incarnate, and were thus capable of being killed as incarnates were. They had engaged in certain activities or depleted their power to the point that they could no longer abandon their bodies without being rendered virtually impotent. Ósanwe-kenta, which appeared in Vinyar Tengwar #39, sheds some light on this point: Quote:
Quote:
The permanence of the ‘death’ of an incarnated ëala appears to relate directly to the stature of their spirit and the amount of power they have expended in incarnate activities. It also seems likely that there are different degrees of incarnation. After an incarnate ëala was slain, it could rebuild a hröa for itself. This is primarily relevant to Sauron, who was a particularly mighty Maia (or Úmaia) spirit. He was slain several times, and though he may originally have been only ‘self-arrayed’, he later became dependent on having a corporeal form. He repeatedly reassumed a hröa, but his ability to do so may have hinged upon the fact that much of his power continued to exist in his Ring, whereas when other incarnate Maiar were destroyed, their power had been overcome and disintegrated without a Ring to ‘anchor’ them. Still, according to The Silmarillion, Sauron evidently lost a certain amount of his power with every ‘death’: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From Myths Transformed, HoMe X: Quote:
Understanding these points sheds some light on certain seemingly problematic questions, such as Why didn't Saruman, being a Maia, just rebuild his body? and Why didn't Gothmog (the Lord of Balrogs, not the Lieutenant of Morgul) ever reappear in the later ages? It can also provide an explanation for difficult revisions, such as the ‘3 or at most 7’ Balrog note from AAm, and reconcile such revisions with the older texts. If the Balrogs at the Battle of the Powers were perhaps only ‘clothed’ rather than fully incarnate, they would have been able to reassume hröar when Melkor returned later. However, their later deaths were more permanent due to incarnation, or an increased degree of such. They were inherently weaker Maiar than Sauron – who himself may only have been able to reincarnate so many times because of his Ring – and could not re-embody themselves as he did. Last edited by obloquy; 08-19-2004 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Grammatical corrections |
||||||||
11-26-2002, 12:10 AM | #2 |
Hidden Spirit
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,424
|
Very well put.
__________________
What's a burrahobbit got to do with my pocket, anyways? |
11-26-2002, 12:33 AM | #3 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
very well indeed, burra
+ Quote:
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
11-26-2002, 08:52 PM | #4 |
Dead and Loving It
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The land of fast cars and loud guitars.
Posts: 361
|
Very enlightening. Well researched, great work. I'll make one small suggestion and you can take it or leave it as you see fit.
I think it would fit in well and make the article even more enlightening if you were to add a bit towards the end about these 'spirits of malice' Sauron, Saruman, the Balrogs. Explain briefly what it means to be a spirit of malice, where they exist (floating around Arda I think?) and what happens after The End (will they all be gathered together before Eru?) These things weren't clear to me until I asked our fellow Tolkien scholars burrahobbit and Legalos; if you think it fits in with the article, I think it would be new and valuable knowledge to many less read Tolkien enthusists like myself. |
11-29-2002, 08:09 AM | #5 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! Last edited by HerenIstarion; 12-20-2004 at 05:11 AM. Reason: sweeping party - smilies updated |
|
11-29-2002, 01:58 PM | #6 | |||||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Maedhros posted this in reply to my topic on another forum, and I hope he doesn't mind me reproducing it here:
-------------------------------------------- Very interesting obloquy, I had already read it in the bd, but unfortunately had not the time to post in it. Quote:
If Morgoth had a hosts of Balrogs, with the "same power", how is it that a Balrog could be easily defeated by an Elf. From The Fall of Gondolin: Quote:
--------------------------------------------- And then also this: --------------------------------------------- From the Published Silmarillion: Chapter 1 Quote:
--------------------------------------------- My replies: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen people declare that we should ignore the AAm '3 or 7' note based on the claim that reducing the number of Balrogs to 3 is clearly impossible, and thus the entire note is evidence of Tolkien's elderly mind slipping into dotage. This is entirely baseless. This revision is post-LotR, and represents a major change in Tolkien's ideas of the potency of Balrogs. At their LotR level of might, multitudes of these beings would have tipped the scales in Morgoth's favor far too much. The Professor was clearly planning a drastic reduction of their numbers, and since at the time of this note's being written, none of the Silmarillion texts had been published, I believe that it should be accepted as an implemented change, evidenced by the emendation from 'host' to 'his Balrogs.' In addition, if Tolkien was planning to implement this change, he would have had to emend nearly all of his texts in which Balrogs make an appearance whatever the number he finally decided on happened to be; therefore reducing the total to 3 was just as plausible as going with 7. There really need only be the three: Gothmog, Durin's Bane, and Glorfindel's Bane, for only these three have a concrete canonicity, existing in authentic antemortem publication by J.R.R. Tolkien himself. The other nameless 'hosts' could be easily edited out, and probably would have been. Quote:
Quote:
In any case, in the same essay, after some discussion of orc origins/nature, he changes his mind: Quote:
[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ] |
|||||||||
12-02-2002, 06:19 AM | #7 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
In ages past Saulotus presented me with a piece of his thinking, were he argued upon 2 kinds of balrogs being in existence, one of those being ealar corrupted before arda (those who's number was 3 to 7), and another kind - 'created' by Morgoth using some existing life form of Arda, which was animated by direct investmemnt of his will (cf beast orks).
In case one agrees with the theory (and I did), I suppose linguistic difficulties may be eliminated by using capital B for ealar (or Umaiar) Balrogs and small b for the rest (something like: 7 Balrogs and great host of balrogs appeared) [ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
12-02-2002, 11:08 AM | #8 |
Dead and Loving It
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The land of fast cars and loud guitars.
Posts: 361
|
HI would that be the Baldogs?
|
12-02-2002, 01:42 PM | #9 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helcaraxe
Posts: 210
|
Obloquy - I have a question about your post in reference to the Eagles and their offspring. I did read the quote from the later portion of the essay stating that the Eagles have no fea, but in regards to what you said about mating, I just wonder...:
Quote:
Perhaps I misread your post there, I got a bit lost between who was quoting who and actually saying what. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
__________________
"Pull the blinders from my eyes, let me see these endless skies And drown here where I stand in the beauty of the land." |
|
12-02-2002, 03:46 PM | #10 |
Hungry Ghoul
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,719
|
Mhoram brought up the topic in chat the other day:
Mhoram: re: Maia in Eagle form mating with regular Eagles - Melian + Elwe = Luthien might be the best base to make that decision obloquy: no, i've considered that and it's not the same. maiar and elves are both sentient beings with fëar obloquy: maia + eagle is a different kind of union Mhoram: good point obloquy: a kind of union i doubt tolkien would have allowed in his works. obloquy: at least on the good guys team I think the point is very valid. A maia in eagle form would, according to the sources we have, still be an intelligent creature, and would not normally commit an act with an animal. |
12-02-2002, 05:57 PM | #11 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helcaraxe
Posts: 210
|
Thanks for the response Sharku! I see the point in that it does not directly correspond with the Melian + Thingol theory (Thingol being an intelligent creature with a fea), but what about Ungoliant and her offspring? I guess what I'm asking is, Is it physically possible for a maia in animal form to produce offspring with a true animal? As obloquy says, it's highly likely that Tolkien would not have allowed this on the good guy team, but did he allow it on the evil side because Ungoliant's spirit was already so preverse? Was she technically incarnate because of the evil she had committed? Thoughts?
__________________
"Pull the blinders from my eyes, let me see these endless skies And drown here where I stand in the beauty of the land." |
12-02-2002, 09:43 PM | #12 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Great question! Glad to see someone's paying attention.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now the question is, What kind of sentience could she pass to her offspring? Was Shelob a rational being? |
|||
12-02-2002, 09:57 PM | #13 |
Beloved Shadow
|
Have we decided that a union is not possible without a true incarnate? I had always assumed that the other spider creatures were Ainu like Ungoliant, not mere animals (but certainly much less powerful Ainu compared to Ungoliant). If that were true, Shelob could certainly be rational.
If those other spiders did not have any heavenly origin whatsoever, I would say that she would not be considered to have sentience. She would just be a very smart and powerful animal.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
12-02-2002, 10:13 PM | #14 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Quote:
[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ] |
|
12-02-2002, 10:27 PM | #15 |
Beloved Shadow
|
Yes, I get your point. Well put.
Next, are we assuming that intelligence and speech do not necessarily indicate a spirit and sentience? (eg spiders, eagles) What are your thoughts on this?
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
12-02-2002, 11:01 PM | #16 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
According to Tolkien, Myths Transformed:
Quote:
|
|
12-03-2002, 01:16 PM | #17 |
Beloved Shadow
|
Another question.
Earlier, the differences between Maia, Vala, and Ainu were set forth. It was said that the title 'Maia' was merely denoting the job or office that the particular Ainu filled, and did not necessarily represent power or lack there of. It was said that there were other Ainu that could possibly rival the Valar on the power scale, but weren't called Valar because they didn't fill that role. If the title Valar was indeed not representative of amount of power, but merely a position, I don't believe it would be a stretch to say that Sauron was nearly as powerful as some of the Valar, instead of considering him to be some watered down version of Morgoth. He was a Maia of Aule, but if Maia was merely the name for a helper or assistant to a Vala, then the fact that he was a Maia should not put him very far down on the scale. All that it would say about him was that Aule had more skill with things of the earth. But, maybe Sauron wasn't too far behind, and was more skilled in other areas. Maybe before Arda was created, back when the holy ones were dwelling with Iluvatar and they were all in the same boat as the Ainur, maybe Sauron had the greater overall power in comparison to lets say Orome or Mandos, but because of his nature and the particular roles that needed to be filled in Arda (and because of his allegience to Melkor), he never became one of the Valar. Am I way off base, or misreading the other posts? What do you think?
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
12-03-2002, 08:56 PM | #18 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Well, you're stretching the extent of our speculation a bit, but it's possible.
I think it's more likely that when an Ainu was designated either Vala or Maia, its spiritual stature played a part in determining to which class it would belong. When I said this: Quote:
|
|
12-04-2002, 05:41 AM | #19 |
Hungry Ghoul
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,719
|
When looking at Tolkien's quote "In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fëa", we should be careful to distinguish between language and the act as talking just as well as the author did. Intelligence and the understanding of the comlpex system of language still seem to be exclusive traits of a fëa, unlike the skill to produce sounds physically, up to the imitation of speech devised by rational beings.
|
12-04-2002, 12:48 PM | #20 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Good point, Sharkû. We notice that immediately after that sentence, Tolkien stresses:
Quote:
|
|
12-11-2002, 05:33 AM | #21 |
Hungry Ghoul
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,719
|
As I have mentioned once in chat, it is my belief that the nature of Arda being marred in, or even, as the incarnation of Morgoth, is an important reason for the Dwindling of the Quendi to be observed in the later Ages. The very fact that both exist make a connection likely, but there is also the further observation to be made that the fate of Elves is explicitly said to be tied to Arda and thus inevitably tainted by the incarnation of Morgoth, naturally so in the "mortal" lands and considerably less so, if hardly at all, in Aman.
[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sharkû ] |
12-11-2002, 08:32 AM | #22 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
As far as hroa is involved, yes. And as hroa is tied to fea (or vise versa, phrasing not essential), it is affecting it, since "feeling of tire" as time goes by.
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
|
|