On the Ainur

[Isildur]

I've been reading letters and in letter 183 Tolkien mentions that
Sauron is "...of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far
higher order." And in the silmarillion it is made clear that both
Sauron and the Istari are maiar. How does this fit in with the earlier
statement? Is there a sub class between the Valar and the Maiar? Any
thoughts?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Post by Isildur
I've been reading letters and in letter 183 Tolkien mentions that
Sauron is "...of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far
higher order." And in the silmarillion it is made clear that both
Sauron and the Istari are maiar. How does this fit in with the earlier
statement? Is there a sub class between the Valar and the Maiar? Any
thoughts?

It's clear that Tolkien envisioned the Maiar as varying greatly in their
individual "stature" and innate powers. Some, like Osse, were practically
junior Valar (in fact in earlier stages of the mythology Osse *was* a
Vala); whereas others, such as Melian, were of significantly lesser
degree. In his essay on the Istari, Tolkien indicates that Olorin
(Gandalf) was afraid of Sauron, but also that Aiwendil (Radagast) was of
smaller stature still. In one late essay Tolkien speculated that some very
minor Maiar, corrupted by Melkor, could have been the earliest
Orc-chieftains.

While in a sense this is consonant with the medieval notion of greater and
lesser angels, Tolkien never classified them into a systematic set of
orders on a par with cherubim, seraphim, powers, thrones, dominions,
archangels and angels.

[Stan Brown]

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:50:55 GMT from William Cloud Hicklin

Post by William Cloud Hicklin

Post by Isildur
I've been reading letters and in letter 183 Tolkien mentions that
Sauron is "...of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far
higher order." And in the silmarillion it is made clear that both
Sauron and the Istari are maiar. How does this fit in with the earlier
statement? Is there a sub class between the Valar and the Maiar? Any
thoughts?

It's clear that Tolkien envisioned the Maiar as varying greatly in their
individual "stature" and innate powers. Some, like Osse, were practically
junior Valar (in fact in earlier stages of the mythology Osse *was* a
Vala); whereas others, such as Melian, were of significantly lesser
degree.

I would question that. Melian had enough power to hold back Morgoth.
In fact, she fenced in the land of Doriath using just her will,
without physical barriers; even the Valar used mountains to defend
Valinor. I think that qualifies her as practically a junior Vala as
well as Ossë.

That word "order" is a slippery one, and Tolkien uses it in different
ways. Sometimes Gandalf's "order" is the Istari; sometimes it's the
Maiar.

My own belief is that that "far higher order" meant "far higher
degree of power". I don't think Sauron was part of any "order" other
than the Maiar.

Or else it was just an error. It's not clear to me that Gandalf was
actually much inferior to Sauron, natively. Yes, until his death he
was "cloaked" and as an Istar had given up much of his power. But
after his death, when he came back resembling the spirit he had been
in Valinor, it seemed he was the equal of Sauron, or pretty nearly.
Gandalf de-Maiarized Saruman and nearly blasted a Nazgûl out of the
sky; could Sauron have done more?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:59:54 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown
Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:50:55 GMT from William Cloud Hicklin

Post by William Cloud Hicklin

Post by Isildur
I've been reading letters and in letter 183 Tolkien mentions that
Sauron is "...of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far
higher order." And in the silmarillion it is made clear that both
Sauron and the Istari are maiar. How does this fit in with the earlier
statement? Is there a sub class between the Valar and the Maiar? Any
thoughts?

It's clear that Tolkien envisioned the Maiar as varying greatly in their
individual "stature" and innate powers. Some, like Osse, were practically
junior Valar (in fact in earlier stages of the mythology Osse *was* a
Vala); whereas others, such as Melian, were of significantly lesser
degree.

I would question that. Melian had enough power to hold back Morgoth.
In fact, she fenced in the land of Doriath using just her will,
without physical barriers; even the Valar used mountains to defend
Valinor. I think that qualifies her as practically a junior Vala as
well as Ossë.

Well, she held back Morgoth's creatures, not Him; but I see your point.

Post by Stan Brown
That word "order" is a slippery one, and Tolkien uses it in different
ways. Sometimes Gandalf's "order" is the Istari; sometimes it's the
Maiar.
My own belief is that that "far higher order" meant "far higher
degree of power". I don't think Sauron was part of any "order" other
than the Maiar.
Or else it was just an error. It's not clear to me that Gandalf was
actually much inferior to Sauron, natively. Yes, until his death he
was "cloaked" and as an Istar had given up much of his power. But
after his death, when he came back resembling the spirit he had been
in Valinor, it seemed he was the equal of Sauron, or pretty nearly.
Gandalf de-Maiarized Saruman and nearly blasted a Nazgûl out of the
sky; could Sauron have done more?

The difference between G the Grey and G the White is I think due to more
than mere cloaking. Tolkien says that Eru sent him back "with enhanced
powers." I'm inclined to think Olorin's declaration to Manwe that he
"feared Sauron" was literally true, not just humility: Sauron was much
more powerful or of much greater 'stature' that GG. How GW would have
matched up is anyone's guess.

[Geza Giedke]

Post by Stan Brown
Or else it was just an error. It's not clear to me that Gandalf was
actually much inferior to Sauron, natively. Yes, until his death he
was "cloaked" and as an Istar had given up much of his power. But
after his death, when he came back resembling the spirit he had been
in Valinor, it seemed he was the equal of Sauron, or pretty nearly.
Gandalf de-Maiarized Saruman and nearly blasted a Nazgûl out of the
sky; could Sauron have done more?

if I recall correctly, the Valar and Maiar can "expend" their power if
they try to dominate others. That's why Morgoth in the end can be
vanquished by Eonwe, while the Valar sit at home, enjoying he sunset
in Aman.
Similarly, I think that Sauron has lost much power/stature since he
first joined Melkor. (He can no longer appear fair, change shape
etc.). Thus in my opinion Gandalf the White might be (roughly) equal
in power to Sauron at the end of TA (and without the Ring) - but this
could be consistant with Sauron the Maia being natively much more
powerful than Olorin.

just IMHO
Geza

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:48:20 +0000 (UTC) from Geza Giedke <mmmgi01

Post by Geza Giedke
if I recall correctly, the Valar and Maiar can "expend" their power if
they try to dominate others. That's why Morgoth in the end can be
vanquished by Eonwe,

Morgoth was a special case: he actually dissipated his power by
putting himself into the matter of Arda. I may be mistaken, but I
don't recall any general rule that being a dominator causes one to
lose power.

Maybe what you're thinking of is that a Vala or Maia that takes on a
physical body can become more or less bound to it. JRRT talks about
this somewhere, but I can't find it in Letters where I thought it
was.

Post by Geza Giedke
Similarly, I think that Sauron has lost much power/stature since he
first joined Melkor. (He can no longer appear fair, change shape
etc.).

He can no longer appear fair, but I don't think we've been told he
can't change shape.

But I respectfully disagree with your statement that he has lost much
power. The Ring has made him much more powerful than he would have
been without it. Even considering that he doesn't have the Ring, he
is still very strong indeed because he's been practicing dominating
lesser wills for millennia.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown
Maybe what you're thinking of is that a Vala or Maia that takes on a
physical body can become more or less bound to it. JRRT talks about
this somewhere, but I can't find it in Letters where I thought it
was.

Tolkien discusses this in /Osanwe-kenta/ (p 30 "Author's Notes"):

"[O]n the use of the /hroar/ by the /Valar/...'[S]elf-arraying'... may
tend to approach the state of 'incarnation', especially with the lesser
members of that order (the Maiar). 'It is said that the longer and the
more the same /hroa/ is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the
less do the "self-arrayed" desire to leave it..... if a 'spirit' (that
is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a /hroa/ for the
furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment
of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate
without the /hroa/. The things that are most binding are those that in
the Incarnate have to do with the life of the /hroa/ itself, its
sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding,
but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most binding is
begetting or conceiving".

Melian, of course comes to mind with that last sentence.

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Geza Giedke
Similarly, I think that Sauron has lost much power/stature since he
first joined Melkor. (He can no longer appear fair, change shape
etc.).

He can no longer appear fair, but I don't think we've been told he
can't change shape.

I get the impression that by the WotR, Sauron is pretty much bound to
his form. I can't think of any specific reference to that effect, but
looking at the above passage -- his being one of the 'lesser members',
using one form for an extended period of time, and for the use of his
personal purposes (presumably, after the death of Annatar, he resumed a
humanoid form for the purpose of wearing the Ring?). That, and the lack
of any stated instances where he changes form, suggests that to me that
he is essentially incarnate.

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:59 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally
"[O]n the use of the /hroar/ by the /Valar/...'[S]elf-arraying'... may
tend to approach the state of 'incarnation', especially with the lesser
members of that order (the Maiar). ... Most binding is
begetting or conceiving".
Melian, of course comes to mind with that last sentence.

Indeed she does. Something I've never understood is how that is
consistent with her actions after the ruin of Doriath:

"Thereafter Melian spoke to none save to Mablung only, bidding him
take heed to the Silmaril, and to send word speedily to Beren and
Lúthien in Ossiriand; and she vanished out of Middle-earth, and
passed to the land of the Valar beyond the western sea, to muse upon
her sorrows in the gardens of Lórien, whence she came, and this tale
speaks of her no more."

To me that always sounds like she abandoned her body and passed as a
spirit over the waves back to Valinor. I don't think there were any
ships to take her. But she didn't seem all that "bound" to her form,
despite having used it for centuries and borne a child.

Or did she *die* (of grief?), and her spirit "re-formed" in Lórien?

On the other hand, it's just one sentence, and maybe I shouldn't read
too much into it. It doesn't actually say either way whether Melian
abandoned her body as an Ainu would put off a garment, or actually
"died".

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown
Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:59 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally
Melian, of course comes to mind with that last sentence.

Indeed she does. Something I've never understood is how that is
"Thereafter Melian spoke to none save to Mablung only, bidding him
take heed to the Silmaril, and to send word speedily to Beren and
Lúthien in Ossiriand; and she vanished out of Middle-earth, and
passed to the land of the Valar beyond the western sea, to muse upon
her sorrows in the gardens of Lórien, whence she came, and this tale
speaks of her no more."
To me that always sounds like she abandoned her body and passed as a
spirit over the waves back to Valinor. I don't think there were any
ships to take her. But she didn't seem all that "bound" to her form,
despite having used it for centuries and borne a child.

I also believe that she abandoned her hroa after Thingol's death.

Post by Stan Brown
Or did she *die* (of grief?), and her spirit "re-formed" in Lórien?
On the other hand, it's just one sentence, and maybe I shouldn't read
too much into it. It doesn't actually say either way whether Melian
abandoned her body as an Ainu would put off a garment, or actually
"died".

I don't think this is too inconsistent, especially in view of what
Tolkien discusses in 'Laws and Customs' (see 'The Statute of Finwe and
Miriel'). Marriage is a powerful force among the Eldar (well, Melian was
a Maia, but she was married to one). Marriage is mainly a bonding of the
hroar, but also of the fear. Melian had maintained her form principally
due to her love of Thingol. While the binding of her physical form to
her spirit would have been strong after maintaining that it for so long,
and bearing a child with it, I would suggest that the bonds of marriage
would be stronger still: once Thingol became disembodied, so too was
Melian able to shed her physical form and return to the West. We don't
know if they were ever reunited spiritually as the tale "speaks of her
no more".

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 1 Apr 2007 09:57:17 -0500 from Bill O'Meally
[Melian not "bound" to her body, apparently]

Post by Bill O'Meally
I don't think this is too inconsistent, especially in view of what
Tolkien discusses in 'Laws and Customs' (see 'The Statute of Finwe and
Miriel'). Marriage is a powerful force among the Eldar (well, Melian was
a Maia, but she was married to one). ... once Thingol became
disembodied, so too was Melian able to shed her physical form and
return to the West. We don't know if they were ever reunited
spiritually as the tale "speaks of her no more".

I don't think I've ever heard this explanation before, but I like it.
From all appearances, having married Thingol she lived as an Elda. It
makes sense that she would have their same fidelity to marriage. (And
as far as we know the Ainur were also eternally faithful to their
spouses, unlike that rabble in Olympus.)

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Stan Brown
Sun, 1 Apr 2007 09:57:17 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

Melian ought to be bound to her body after having even conceived in
the body she wore, and yet the description in /The Silmarillion/
seems to suggest that she left her body after Thingol's death and

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
On the other hand, it's just one sentence, and maybe I shouldn't
read too much into it. It doesn't actually say either way whether
Melian abandoned her body as an Ainu would put off a garment, or
actually "died".

In the Lost Tale of the Nauglafring, I believe the implication is
that she (Gwendelin) leaves and travels physically to Valinor:

Thereafter did Gwendelin abide a while in the wood among
them and was healed; and in the end she fared wistfully
back to the land of Lórien [...].
[BoLT2, IV 'The Nauglafring']

This also seems to me the sense in the Quenta:

[Doriath ...] though Melian no longer dwelt in that place,
and she departed to the land of the Gods beyond the
western sea, to muse on her sorrows in the gardens whence
she came.
[SM (HoMe4), III 'The Quenta' §14]

The last that I can find in a hurry is from the Annals of Beleriand
where it is said, in the annal for the ear 304, that 'Melian went
back to Valinor and Doriath had no longer her protection'.

None of this, I realize, actually states that Melian did /not/
abandon her body, but I think that the implication is that she
didn't, since I would expect such a significant change to have been
noted, or at least strongly implied, if it had occurred.

How Tolkien would have handled this, had he ever returned to the
story of the Necklace of the Dwarves, is beyond me to say -- the
account CRT pieced together is, by necessity it would seem, rather
vague at times. I agree that it seemingly suggests that Melian
abandoned her body, but I'm not entirely sure where that would come
from? Anyone knowing the source texts better, who can help here?

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally
I don't think this is too inconsistent, especially in view of
what Tolkien discusses in 'Laws and Customs' (see 'The Statute of
Finwe and Miriel'). Marriage is a powerful force among the Eldar
(well, Melian was a Maia, but she was married to one). ... once
Thingol became disembodied, so too was Melian able to shed her
physical form and return to the West. We don't know if they were
ever reunited spiritually as the tale "speaks of her no more".

I don't think I've ever heard this explanation before, but I like it.

Aye, me too ;)

And isn't there something about the Eldar (and I agree that Melian,
for bodily purposes, can be treated as an Elda) could die also of
grief? Perhaps that was what happened to her.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Frodo and Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Stan Brown
Sun, 1 Apr 2007 09:57:17 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

Melian ought to be bound to her body after having even conceived in
the body she wore, and yet the description in /The Silmarillion/
seems to suggest that she left her body after Thingol's death and

FWIW, I never read it that way. I always thought she physically went back to
Valinor. If I ever thought about how she got there, it would be a sort of,
"oh well, she did that Girdle thing, and she's a powerful Maia, she won't
have any problem getting back". Let's remind ourselves what was written in
/The Silmarillion/ as published:

"she vanished out of Middle-earth, and passed to the land of the Valar
beyond the western sea" (Of the Ruin of Doriath)

Well, there you are. She went 'pfft' and vanished. Maybe Olorin provided
some smoke and flashes of lights to cover her obvious early use of 'One
Ring' (TM) technology... :-) To my mind, only the use of the word 'vanished'
causes any problems. When it says she "passed to the land of the Valar", I
guess I thought of her passing over the sea like Sauron did after Numenor -
yes, I know, I hadn't read that bit yet, but imagine this is a later
reading, OK! :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
On the other hand, it's just one sentence, and maybe I shouldn't
read too much into it. It doesn't actually say either way whether
Melian abandoned her body as an Ainu would put off a garment, or
actually "died".

In the Lost Tale of the Nauglafring, I believe the implication is
Thereafter did Gwendelin abide a while in the wood among
them and was healed; and in the end she fared wistfully
back to the land of Lórien [...].
[BoLT2, IV 'The Nauglafring']

Presumably on the Path of Dreams. Which reminds me - I've just finished
Roverandom - great story! Everyone who has a copy - read it! Everyone who
doesn't have a copy - buy it and then read it! :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer
[Doriath ...] though Melian no longer dwelt in that place,
and she departed to the land of the Gods beyond the
western sea, to muse on her sorrows in the gardens whence
she came.
[SM (HoMe4), III 'The Quenta' §14]
The last that I can find in a hurry is from the Annals of Beleriand
where it is said, in the annal for the ear 304, that 'Melian went
back to Valinor and Doriath had no longer her protection'.
None of this, I realize, actually states that Melian did /not/
abandon her body, but I think that the implication is that she
didn't, since I would expect such a significant change to have been
noted, or at least strongly implied, if it had occurred.
How Tolkien would have handled this, had he ever returned to the
story of the Necklace of the Dwarves, is beyond me to say -- the
account CRT pieced together is, by necessity it would seem, rather
vague at times. I agree that it seemingly suggests that Melian
abandoned her body, but I'm not entirely sure where that would come
from? Anyone knowing the source texts better, who can help here?

Well, I'm not going to ferret around in the source texts. I'm just going to
speculate that, rather than turn Melian into a seabird (as he did with
Elwing), Tolkien might have turned her into a sea-faring nightingale. OK.
Maybe not! :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally
I don't think this is too inconsistent, especially in view of
what Tolkien discusses in 'Laws and Customs' (see 'The Statute of
Finwe and Miriel'). Marriage is a powerful force among the Eldar
(well, Melian was a Maia, but she was married to one). ... once
Thingol became disembodied, so too was Melian able to shed her
physical form and return to the West. We don't know if they were
ever reunited spiritually as the tale "speaks of her no more".

I don't think I've ever heard this explanation before, but I like it.

Aye, me too ;)
And isn't there something about the Eldar (and I agree that Melian,
for bodily purposes, can be treated as an Elda) could die also of
grief? Perhaps that was what happened to her.

That sounds like the best option, but maybe not. Luthien seemingly died of
grief, and Miriel too. But Melian, I think, deserves a different fate.
Grieving in the gardens of Lorien, but, unlike the Elves and Men, unable to
lie down and die. As an Ainu, an incarnate, she is bound to the world in its
grief and hers, and unlike the Elves, cannot retire to the Halls of Mandos,
but can only retire to the gardens of Lorien.

Christopher

[Stan Brown]

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:23:00 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
And isn't there something about the Eldar (and I agree that Melian,
for bodily purposes, can be treated as an Elda) could die also of
grief?

From the very last paragraph of Chapter 1 of the Quenta Silmarillion
in the published Silm:

"For the Elves die not till the world dies, unless they are slain or
waste in grief (and to both these seeming deaths they are subject);
neither does age subdue their strength, unless one grow weary of ten
thousand centuries; and dying they are gathered to the halls of
Mandos in Valinor, whence they may in time return."

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Stan Brown
Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:23:00 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
And isn't there something about the Eldar (and I agree that Melian,
for bodily purposes, can be treated as an Elda) could die also of
grief?

From the very last paragraph of Chapter 1 of the Quenta Silmarillion

That's it, thank you. Seems to me a reasonable explanation for Melian
abandoning her body after Thingol's death (if that is what she did).

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
None of this, I realize, actually states that Melian did /not/
abandon her body, but I think that the implication is that she
didn't,

Why? What else should she have done?

Post by Troels Forchhammer
since I would expect such a significant change to have been
noted, or at least strongly implied, if it had occurred.

I think the description in the SIL works well enough. There's no need
to have it explicitely say "gave up her body". After all, the important
part is the story, not the "world-mechanics".

- Dirk

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Stan Brown
Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:59 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally
"[O]n the use of the /hroar/ by the /Valar/...'[S]elf-arraying'... may
tend to approach the state of 'incarnation', especially with the lesser
members of that order (the Maiar). ... Most binding is
begetting or conceiving".

To me that always sounds like [Melian] abandoned her body and passed
as a spirit over the waves back to Valinor. I don't think there were
any ships to take her. But she didn't seem all that "bound" to her
form, despite having used it for centuries and borne a child.

I always understood this "binding" to mean that the body of the Ainu
becomes more than just "clothing" that can be easily changed. It sort
of integrates with the personality, if this is the right way to describe
it. Bu that doesn't mean that she is "stuck" in her body, and cannot
give up that part if she wants to. And since she took on the body
mainly because of her love of Thingol, I think it's only consequent
that now, with Thingol dead, she's willing to give up that part of
herself and go back to Valinor.

In the same way Sauron could probably have given up his body during the
War of the Rings if he had wanted to. But as he was already "weak"
in this respect, he probably wouldn't have been able to make him a
new body again, and so he would have had to suffer the same fate
that caught him in the end: to become an evil, but mostly powerless
spirit, denied the return to the West. So he really didn't have a lot
of motivation to do it :-)

- Dirk

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Bill O'Meally
I get the impression that by the WotR, Sauron is pretty much bound to
his form. I can't think of any specific reference to that effect, but
looking at the above passage -- his being one of the 'lesser members',
using one form for an extended period of time, and for the use of his
personal purposes (presumably, after the death of Annatar, he resumed a
humanoid form for the purpose of wearing the Ring?). That, and the lack
of any stated instances where he changes form, suggests that to me that
he is essentially incarnate.

Evidently he still has only four fingers on one of his hands,
despite having formed a new body after the loss of the finger!

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Stan Brown
Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:50:55 GMT from William Cloud Hicklin

Post by William Cloud Hicklin

Post by Isildur
I've been reading letters and in letter 183 Tolkien mentions
that Sauron is "...of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but
of a far higher order." And in the silmarillion it is made
clear that both Sauron and the Istari are maiar. How does this
fit in with the earlier statement? Is there a sub class between
the Valar and the Maiar? Any thoughts?

It's clear that Tolkien envisioned the Maiar as varying greatly
in their individual "stature" and innate powers.

Yes, that is clear. In the lower orders we have Maiar who seem to be
below some of the Eruhíni in stature and innate powers. A figure such
as Fëanor seems to me to have been 'greater' (whatever we might mean
by that is another question <G>) than many of the lower echelon,
unnnamed, Maiar.

Post by Stan Brown

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
Some, like Osse, were practically junior Valar (in fact in
earlier stages of the mythology Osse *was* a Vala);

Isn't there some statement along those lines about Sauron as well?

Post by Stan Brown

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
whereas others, such as Melian, were of significantly lesser
degree.

I would question that. Melian had enough power to hold back
Morgoth.

And if she didn't hold his person back physically, then she certainly
held him back in other senses -- he couldn't 'see' into Doriath, and
of course his creatures were held back physically from that land.

Post by Stan Brown
That word "order" is a slippery one, and Tolkien uses it in
different ways. Sometimes Gandalf's "order" is the Istari;
sometimes it's the Maiar.

Yes. It seems to me odd that Tolkien's wording here recalls his
descriptions elsewhere of the difference between Maiar and Valar,
although even these are occasionally, described as being of the same
order (e.g. letter #325) -- as is even the Ainur and the Eruhíni
(letter #200).

In letter #246 Gandalf is explicitly said to be 'a creature of the
same order' as Sauron, referring to both them being 'an immortal
spirit taking a visible physical form.'

Post by Stan Brown
My own belief is that that "far higher order" meant "far higher
degree of power". I don't think Sauron was part of any "order"
other than the Maiar.

That seems to be the intention in this case, I agree. This is not
necessarily the same as Valinórean stature, but do think the latter
may serve as a convenient metric of the innate degree of power. We
have discussed before the usefulness of using 'power' without
specifying for what (neither Manwë nor Melkor, for all their power,
could have made the Two Trees, for instance), but the idea of
'Valinorean stature' (which I first saw in UT 4,II 'The Istari')
could prove a convenient way to circumvent this problem.

The next question, then, would be whether the letter refers to their
innate powers or to their specific powers at the time of the War of
the Ring.

Post by Stan Brown
Or else it was just an error. It's not clear to me that Gandalf
was actually much inferior to Sauron, natively. Yes, until his
death he was "cloaked" and as an Istar had given up much of his
power. But after his death, when he came back resembling the
spirit he had been in Valinor, it seemed he was the equal of
Sauron, or pretty nearly. Gandalf de-Maiarized Saruman and nearly
blasted a Nazgûl out of the sky; could Sauron have done more?

Regarding this, I think that all the named Maiar belong to the upper
reaches of Valinórean stature. That doesn't necessarily mean that
Olórin and Curumo were equals of Sauron, but I don't think they were
far below him.

Gandalf and Saruman, though, were indeed far below Sauron -- the
Istari were, IMO, severely limited by the nature of their special
incarnation (which is clearly not the same as the usual self-
embodiment of the Ainur).

In the essay on the Istari in UT, we hear Manwë concerning the choice
of the Istari:
Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron,
but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so
as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and
Men.
[UT 4,II 'The Istari']

This explicitly makes the Istari 'peers' of Sauron, suggesting that
their innate Valinórean stature is of the same range as Saurons.

I don't know when the note CRT quotes from here was written -- it may
stem from a wholly different period than the letter which states that
Sauron was 'of a far higher order' and as such the two statements may
reflect different views on their innate statures, but the statement
in the letter may also refer to the incarnate Istari and the embodied
Sauron specifically rather than to their innate Valinórean statures.

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:38:28 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In the essay on the Istari in UT, we hear Manwë concerning the choice
Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron,
but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so
as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and
Men.
[UT 4,II 'The Istari']
This explicitly makes the Istari 'peers' of Sauron, suggesting that
their innate Valinórean stature is of the same range as Saurons.

I think this is consistent with the quote given earlier, about
Gandalf fearing Sauron. I think there are two reasons why he might
fear Sauron:

(1) The fight would be long and difficult and perhaps painful -- just
as a man armed with a stout stick might fear a wild dog. Even though
he could eventually win, he might get severe injuries in the process.

(2) The temptation to *become* like Sauron would be severe. This
actually happened to Saruman. I don't think Olórin predicted this
specifically, but he must have seen the possibility in his own nature
and feared he would succumb to temptation. This passage in LotR I 2
always gives me the chills. Frodo has just offered the ring to
Gandalf.

"'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I
should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would
gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his
face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish
to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my
heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do
good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe,
unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength.' "

[Tux Wonder-Dog]

Post by Stan Brown
Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:38:28 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In the essay on the Istari in UT, we hear Manwë concerning the choice
Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron,
but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so
as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and
Men.
[UT 4,II 'The Istari']
This explicitly makes the Istari 'peers' of Sauron, suggesting that
their innate Valinórean stature is of the same range as Saurons.

I think this is consistent with the quote given earlier, about
Gandalf fearing Sauron. I think there are two reasons why he might
(1) The fight would be long and difficult and perhaps painful -- just
as a man armed with a stout stick might fear a wild dog. Even though
he could eventually win, he might get severe injuries in the process.

This brought to mind the fight with the Balrog, another of the Maiar, but
corrupted by Melkor. I assume that Olorin would not fear the Balrog, but
Gandalf lost his "mortal" life in the fight with it.

And that brings in the question of the powers of the Eldar - Glorfindel lost
his life in the fight against that Balrog lurking on the escape path out of
Gondolin, but he destroyed its incarnate form. Either he was its
superior - morally and physically - as an Eldar fresh from the Blessed
REalm; or the Balrog was so damaged - morally and physically - that a mere
Eldar, an incarnate, could destroy its physical form.

Wesley Parish
<snip>

[Dave Stallard]

Post by Stan Brown
"'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I
should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would
gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his
face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish
to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my
heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do
good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe,
unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength.' "

That seems to me to be the hallmark of the wisest and most powerful
"good" characters in LotR: Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Aragorn,
especially where the Ring is concerned. They all know themselves, and
they all know and respect their limitations, including even their moral
ones.

Dave

[Paul S. Person]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:38:28 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
<***@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

<snippo>

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Yes. It seems to me odd that Tolkien's wording here recalls his
descriptions elsewhere of the difference between Maiar and Valar,
although even these are occasionally, described as being of the same
order (e.g. letter #325) -- as is even the Ainur and the Eruhíni
(letter #200).

This would be "of one order" as opposed to "of a different order".
Maiar and Valar are alike when considered in relation to the Eruhini;
Ainur and the Eruhini are alike when considered as being created by
Eru. This reflect what I suppose can be called a difference in
"essence". An individual can be in many such "orders" at the same
time.

The sense used when Gandalf is said to be a member of "the order of
the Istari" is quite different: it is the sense in which I am a member
of "the order of subscribers to r.a.b.t.": it shows membership in a
clearly-defined group, not a contrast in essence.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In letter #246 Gandalf is explicitly said to be 'a creature of the
same order' as Sauron, referring to both them being 'an immortal
spirit taking a visible physical form.'

Which makes both of them "of the same order" as the Valar, who did the
same thing, at least from time to time.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:41:03 -0400, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:38:28 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
<snippo>

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Yes. It seems to me odd that Tolkien's wording here recalls his
descriptions elsewhere of the difference between Maiar and Valar,
although even these are occasionally, described as being of the same
order (e.g. letter #325) -- as is even the Ainur and the Eruhíni
(letter #200).

This would be "of one order" as opposed to "of a different order".
Maiar and Valar are alike when considered in relation to the Eruhini;
Ainur and the Eruhini are alike when considered as being created by
Eru. This reflect what I suppose can be called a difference in
"essence". An individual can be in many such "orders" at the same
time.
The sense used when Gandalf is said to be a member of "the order of
the Istari" is quite different: it is the sense in which I am a member
of "the order of subscribers to r.a.b.t.": it shows membership in a
clearly-defined group, not a contrast in essence.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In letter #246 Gandalf is explicitly said to be 'a creature of the
same order' as Sauron, referring to both them being 'an immortal
spirit taking a visible physical form.'

Which makes both of them "of the same order" as the Valar, who did the
same thing, at least from time to time.

Not quite. Here I think we have cases much more akin to incarnation,
whether voluntary in the case of the Heren Istarion, or involuntary, in
the case of Morgoth and his chief servants. The Valar are not incarnate
in this sense, but free to don and doff visible forms at will.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:41:03 -0400, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:38:28 +0200, Troels Forchhammer

<schnipf>

Post by William Cloud Hicklin

Post by Paul S. Person

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In letter #246 Gandalf is explicitly said to be 'a creature of
the same order' as Sauron, referring to both them being 'an
immortal spirit taking a visible physical form.'

Which makes both of them "of the same order" as the Valar, who
did the same thing, at least from time to time.

Not quite. Here I think we have cases much more akin to
incarnation, whether voluntary in the case of the Heren Istarion,
or involuntary, in the case of Morgoth and his chief servants.
The Valar are not incarnate in this sense, but free to don and
doff visible forms at will.

There seems to be more questions involved here.

First of all Tolkien's statement in letter #246, which is:

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master
[Sauron] -- being an emissary of the Powers and a creature
of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible
physical form.

It seems to me that this description of 'an immortal spirit taking a
visible physical form' is vague enough to describe all the Ainur,
from the Istari over Melian, Sauron and Morgoth to the Valar. Not
that it matters much in this context, though ;)

All of this suddenly reminds me of the frenzy of a few years back,
when the Harry Potter fan community were busy discussing all possible
meanings of 'The Order of the Phoenix' ;)

Tolkien certainly used the words in several ways covering all levels
of creatures from the five Istari (and similar 'orders') up to the
order of all created, free-willed creatures (Ainur and Eruhíni).
Usually it is fairly clear what the intention is, so I don't actually
see this as any problem.

It is, to me, a much more interesting question what the differences,
and similarities, were between the incarnation of the Istari, the
normal self-arrayal of Ainur, and the bound embodiment of e.g. Sauron
and Morgoth (and doubtlessly Melian).

The two latter -- the normal self-embodiment, which is compared to
the clothes of the Eruhíni, which can be donned and doffed at will,
and the bound version of this, which can no longer be doffed at will,
are described in some detail in a note (author's note5) to the essay
/Ósanwe-kenta/ (published in /Vinyar Tengwar/ issue 39), but this
still seems different from what happened to the Istari.

The state of being bound to a particular body is described as 'though
in origin a "self-arrayal", it may tend to approach the state of
"incarnation", especially with the lesser members of that order (the
Maiar).' The Istari, on the other hand, are specifically stated to be
'incarnate' -- which word is usually reserved for the Children
(including Dwarves, Orcs etc.). At the same time the Istari are
described as suffering from a number of weaknesses caused
specifically by this incarnate state, which does not seem to have
affected Sauron and Morgoth etc. In particular a loss of memory and
susceptibility to fear, weariness, pains etc.

I have thought long about the nature of the incarnation of the
Istari, but all that I have become convinced of is that it was
fundamentally different from the usual self-embodiment of the Ainur.

Already, I believe, the use (by Tolkien) of the word 'incarnation' to
describe the state of the Istari suggests something akin to that of
the 'Incarnates' (the Children of all kinds). This is emphasized by
Tolkien's consistent descriptions of the Istari as subject to (many
of) the same weaknesses that plague the Incarnates, and which other
Ainur, even those bound to their physical form, do not share.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Thus, the future of the universe is not completely
determined by the laws of science, and its present state,
as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his
sleeve.
- Stephen Hawking

[Bill O'Meally]

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
At the same time the Istari are

Post by Troels Forchhammer
described as suffering from a number of weaknesses caused
specifically by this incarnate state, which does not seem to have
affected Sauron and Morgoth etc. In particular a loss of memory and
susceptibility to fear, weariness, pains etc.

Ah, but they do! ;-)

"Morgoth at the time of the War of the Jewels had become permanantly
'incarnate': for this reason he was afraid, and waged the war almost
entirely by means of devices, or of subordinates and dominated
creatures." 'Myths Transformed' p 395

"For this reason he [Morgoth] himself came to fear 'death' - the
desctruction of his assumed bodily form - above everything, and sought
to avoid any kind of injury to his own form." ibid, footnote p 396-6

There were also Morgoths cries of anguish at Lammoth when Ungoliant
emmeshed him in her nets to strangle him. The text doesn't specify
whether these were cries of pain or of fear. I would suggest both.

Morgoth again cries 'in anguish' with the seven wounds inflicted upon
him by Fingolfin. In addition, he never escapes the pain of his wounds:
his face, marred by Thorondor, and of his foot, hewed by Fingolfin.

Then, regarding Sauron, there is the passage in LotR (RotK? Sorry, I'm
having trouble tracking down my books as they are in storage during a
remodel :-() where Gandalf tells the Captains of the West that Sauron
has fears and doubts.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Bill O'Meally

At the same time the Istari are described as suffering from a
number of weaknesses caused specifically by this incarnate
state, which does not seem to have affected Sauron and Morgoth
etc. In particular a loss of memory and susceptibility to fear,
weariness, pains etc.

Ah, but they do! ;-)

<snip examples of fear>

Yes, you're right, they do feel the fear (I should have researched more
thoroughly before making that broad statement), and they possibly also
feel pain (I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to accept Morgoth's cries of
anguish during the duel with Fingolfin as pain), and they might even
feel the weariness of the body.

The main point is to do with the loss of memory and other, more vague,
limitations imposed on the Istari, who obviously did not, as was usual,
get more power over the matter of Arda by taking a physical body.

I still think that the incarnation of the Istari was fundamentally
different from the usual self-embodiment, though I suppose it would
'stand to reason' that there are also strong similarities (some of the
weaknesses of the flesh discussed above) ;)

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The main point is to do with the loss of memory and other, more vague,
limitations imposed on the Istari, who obviously did not, as was
usual, get more power over the matter of Arda by taking a physical
body.

Do we know that to be true? They were forbidden to do so. Their bodies
dampened their *native* power, but being incarnate theoretically would
allow them, if they wanted, to manipulate matter and therefore the
Morgoth Element present in all matter.

Morgoth maintained a physical form, and eventually became incarnate as a
result of using that form for so long, in order to utilize this power.
First of all, unlike the Istari (even Saruman at first) he /wanted/ to
tap into that power, whereas the Istari were forbidden to. Secondly, he
was much more powerful than they were. Thirdly, it was *his* native
power that he was tapping into.

Regarding Saruman, in the scheme of things the few hundred years that he
had to learn how to tap into the Morgoth Element was miniscule compared
to the amount of time that Morgoth (and even Sauron) had spent
manipulating it. Given time, I think it likely that he could have become
as powerful as Sauron. Sauron is described in MR as maintaining physical
form for the same purpose, and especially so that he could make use of
the Ring.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I still think that the incarnation of the Istari was fundamentally
different from the usual self-embodiment,

Agreed. Incarnation implies a more permanant and intimate bonding to the
spirit than self-embodiment. However, Morgoth at the time of the War of
the Jewels is explicitly described as 'incarnate' by Tolkien. He was no
longer simply self-arrayed. Therefore, he is just as subject to the
"weaknesses of the flesh", if you will, as the Eruhini and the Istari:
he has fear, he can be hurt. Morgoth could be *killed*, and he was: "He
was judged, and eventually /executed/: that is /killed/ like one of the
incarnates" (MR p 403).

[Stan Brown]

Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:15:27 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The main point is to do with the loss of memory and other, more vague,
limitations imposed on the Istari, who obviously did not, as was
usual, get more power over the matter of Arda by taking a physical
body.

Do we know that to be true? They were forbidden to do so. Their bodies
dampened their *native* power, but being incarnate theoretically would
allow them, if they wanted, to manipulate matter and therefore the
Morgoth Element present in all matter.

I think we do know that, because in his rebellion Saruman would
surely have used the powers he had. Instead he had to do everything
with slaves and machines.

Post by Bill O'Meally
Regarding Saruman, in the scheme of things the few hundred years that he
had to learn how to tap into the Morgoth Element was miniscule compared
to the amount of time that Morgoth (and even Sauron) had spent
manipulating it. Given time, I think it likely that he could have become
as powerful as Sauron.

Well, maybe, if you mean that Saruman would have needed ages of time
to remember how to use his powers. But I have some trouble with that.
Essentially it seems to me you're saying that he had his Curunir-
powers all along, but as Saruman he had lost memory of how to use
them because he was forbidden to use them. It doesn't seem logical to
me that he'd keep the *powers* but not the *memory*.

And I don't think he ever forgot that he came from Valinor and had
formerly been a powerful spirit. I think he would have spent much of
his time studying how to recover the use of his powers, if he still
had them. But instead he went the other way, becoming more and more
dependent on his slaves and his devices.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 04:52:43 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown
I think he would have spent much of
his time studying how to recover the use of his powers, if he still
had them. But instead he went the other way, becoming more and more
dependent on his slaves and his devices.

Although the distinction might not be clear-cut between 'powers' on the
one hand and 'slaves and devices' on the other. Tolkien subscribed to a
version of Clarke's Law, but with a negative spin: magic and technology
are largely aspects of the same thing. To this day we're not certain what
exactly blew up the wall at Helm's Deep. Saruman was, after all, a Maia of
Aule- so to what extent does his 'power' not include technology? As to
slaves: this is a hallmark of Evil throughout Tolkien, since the
domination of other created beings is fundamentally sinful; and Saruman
already has a 'power' which inclines that way, his Voice.

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:39:13 GMT from William Cloud Hicklin

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 04:52:43 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown
I think he would have spent much of
his time studying how to recover the use of his powers, if he still
had them. But instead he went the other way, becoming more and more
dependent on his slaves and his devices.

Although the distinction might not be clear-cut between 'powers' on the
one hand and 'slaves and devices' on the other. Tolkien subscribed to a
version of Clarke's Law, but with a negative spin: magic and technology
are largely aspects of the same thing. To this day we're not certain what
exactly blew up the wall at Helm's Deep. Saruman was, after all, a Maia of
Aule- so to what extent does his 'power' not include technology? As to
slaves: this is a hallmark of Evil throughout Tolkien, since the
domination of other created beings is fundamentally sinful; and Saruman
already has a 'power' which inclines that way, his Voice.

I would read Clarke's Law slightly differently: there's a large
danger of mistaking unfamiliar technology for magic, but a much
smaller danger of mistaking magic for technology.

I think the point of all the machines under Isengard is that Saruman
could have done as much if he were not a Maia. Indeed, for all we
know, that technology wasn't even his but was developed by renegade
Noldor or especially clever Orcs of the northern Misty Mountains.
Remember what Tolkien says about the "goblins" that Bilbo and Thorin
& Co. met: "It is not unlikely that they invented some of the
machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious
devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and
engines and explosions always delighted them, and also not working
with their own hands more than they could help." I don't maintain
that this is the most likely theory, for Tolkien went on to say "but
in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is
called) so far." On the other hand, Saruman did transform Isengard in
the years after Bilbo's adventure, so he could have brought in the
cleverest Orcs and set them to work, instructing them and using their
own initiative.

On the other hand, if we want to look at the technology of Aulë, I
think has a much more magical feel. The premier examples would be the
making of the Silmarils and the making of the Great Rings. Both of
these were beyond Saruman.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
Although the distinction might not be clear-cut between 'powers'
on the one hand and 'slaves and devices' on the other. Tolkien
subscribed to a version of Clarke's Law, but with a negative
spin: magic and technology are largely aspects of the same thing.

The Machine, yes -- a good point.

And the Machine is largely (or so I think) to do with the forceful
domination of others -- so the slaves, too, can point both ways: they
are dominated through either magic or devices (though in Saruman's case
abuse of the power of his Voice is a likely candidate).

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
To this day we're not certain what exactly blew up the wall at
Helm's Deep. Saruman was, after all, a Maia of Aule- so to what
extent does his 'power' not include technology?

Yes. And I am naturally drawn also to the description of the 'goblins'
in /The Hobbit/ as loving 'wheels and engines and explosions' and a
likely source of 'the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of
people at once'.

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
As to slaves: this is a hallmark of Evil throughout Tolkien, since
the domination of other created beings is fundamentally sinful; and
Saruman already has a 'power' which inclines that way, his Voice.

Indeed.

Morgoth and Sauron ultimately represent two different versions of Evil:
the former wishing to destroy Creation, and the latter (along with
Saruman) wishing to dominate it.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown
Well, maybe, if you mean that Saruman would have needed ages of time
to remember how to use his powers. But I have some trouble with that.
Essentially it seems to me you're saying that he had his Curunir-
powers all along, but as Saruman he had lost memory of how to use
them because he was forbidden to use them. It doesn't seem logical to
me that he'd keep the *powers* but not the *memory*.

I was not referring to Saruman remembering how to use his native power.
I don't think remembering was as much an issue with the Istari as that
their physical forms dampened their ability to use those powers. Rather,
I was referring to his learning how to use the Morgoth Element for his
purposes. Both Sauron and Morgoth are described as maintaining physical
forms for that very purpose. They were incorporated into matter in order
to better manipulate matter. In this case (and this is my speculation)
rather than being a hindrance, Saruman's having physical form could work
to his advantage. He simply did not have the millennia of experience at
tapping into it that S and M had.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:15:27 -0500 from Bill O'Meally

<reinstating earlier parts that I wish to comment upon>

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The main point is to do with the loss of memory and other, more
vague, limitations imposed on the Istari, who obviously did
not, as was usual, get more power over the matter of Arda by
taking a physical body.

Do we know that to be true? They were forbidden to do so. Their
bodies dampened their *native* power, but being incarnate
theoretically would allow them, if they wanted, to manipulate
matter and therefore the Morgoth Element present in all matter.

It is definitely true that e.g. Morgoth and Sauron chose to be embodied
because this allowed them to exercise more power over the physical
world, but that is one aspect where I believe that the incarnation of
the Istari differed fundamentally from the usual self-embodiment, even
as it approached the state of incarnation as per Ósanwe-kenta.

The Istari are generally described in terms that seem to me different
from e.g. Sauron and Melian (to stay with the Maiar), but that is a
rather vague feeling and difficult to actually base an argument upon.

I find the description in letter #246 of the possibilities in a direct
encounter, 'self to self', between Gandalf and Sauron telling. The
description suggests to me that the two would be very nearly balanced,
and that the outcome would be decided by whom in the end would succeed
in Mastering the One Ring. To me this suggests that the Istar Gandalf
was on par with the Maia Sauron without the power in the One Ring
(basically the "S-R" quoted in
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Rapport>). Gandalf, as
the other Istari, were chosen as 'mighty, peers of Sauron', but
evidently, when they arrived in Middle-earth, they were far less mighty
than that, and I am confident that their forgoing power happened in
more ways than what is explicitly described, including a reduction of
their power over the physical world (compared to that of e.g. Sauron
just before he made the One Ring).

There is another passage, in letter #156, that I find telling:

[...] the crisis had become too grave and needed an
enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was
accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the
name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in
personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and
power are much greater. When he speaks he commands
attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with
Théoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the
obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather
than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical
powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of
the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as
an 'angel' - no more violently than the release of St
Peter from prison.
[Letters #156, To Robert Murray, SJ. (draft), 1954]

Gandalf, when he returns as the White, is more powerful, also in terms
of physical powers, than the Grey, but still not as physically powerful
as a self-arrayed Maia of a comparable Valinórean stature (e.g. Melian
or Sauron).

Finally another passage from letter #156:

By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical
bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting
the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed',
though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure
long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.
Why they should take such a form is bound up with the
'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this
fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose
was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of
'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should
do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise,
instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those
threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own
strengths; and not just to do the job for them.

Here the idea of the physical bodies of the Istari /limiting/ and
/hindering/ their 'exhibition of "power" on the physical plane' is made
explicit, contrasting the physical bodies of the Istari to the bodies
of Morgoth and Sauron, which the took in order to /increase/ their
ability to exercise power over the matter of Arda.

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
I think we do know that, because in his rebellion Saruman would
surely have used the powers he had. Instead he had to do
everything with slaves and machines.

Precisely exploiting the powers that we are explicitly told that he was
forbidden to use: 'to match his power with power, or to seek to
dominate Elves and Men by force or fear.' (I don't think it made a
difference that Saruman sought to 'dominate /Orcs/ and Men by force or
fear' [my emphasis]). But he obviously couldn't match 'power with
power' (neither Sauron's or Gandalf the White's), as witnessed by his
fears and his defeats both in the Palantir and in Isengard.

I would say that the more interesting in this is that even when Saruman
disregarded all prohibitions (those that relied only on his willing
abiding by them), he didn't have more 'power' than the enhanced Gandalf
the White.

[...]

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally
Regarding Saruman, in the scheme of things the few hundred years
that he had to learn how to tap into the Morgoth Element was
miniscule compared to the amount of time that Morgoth (and even
Sauron) had spent manipulating it. Given time, I think it likely
that he could have become as powerful as Sauron.

We can, of course, agree that even a couple of millennia wouldn't teach
Saruman to tap into the Morgoth element as effectively as Sauron had
learned it, but I don't think that such a difference suffices to
explain the vast differences in physical power between the Istari and
both Melian and Sauron (let alone Morgoth).

Sauron's power obviously was enhanced by his knowledge of the Morgoth
Element (this is most likely an important part of creating the One
Ring, for instance), but in terms of physical power, I don't think that
it made a significant contribution.

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
Well, maybe, if you mean that Saruman would have needed ages of
time to remember how to use his powers. But I have some trouble
with that. Essentially it seems to me you're saying that he had
his Curunir- powers all along, but as Saruman he had lost memory
of how to use them because he was forbidden to use them. It
doesn't seem logical to me that he'd keep the *powers* but not
the *memory*.

I was not referring to Saruman remembering how to use his native
power. I don't think remembering was as much an issue with the
Istari as that their physical forms dampened their ability to use
those powers.

I'm reminded of Tolkien's comment in letter #131, that the Ainur's
'power and wisdom is derived from their Knowledge of the cosmogonical
drama, [...]'.

This sounds to me as if their memory of the Music and the Vision are
particular 'sources' of 'power' for the Ainur, possibly suggesting that
the loss of their memory of this would affect the Istari's ability to
tap into that particular font of innate powers. Hmm . . . it's a bother
when some quotation makes you stop up and consider changing track in
the middle of writing a post ;)

Post by Bill O'Meally
Rather, I was referring to his learning how to use the Morgoth
Element for his purposes. Both Sauron and Morgoth are described
as maintaining physical forms for that very purpose.

I can't right now find the place where this is described, but me
recollection is slightly different: that they were embodied in order to
enhance their power over the physical world, yes, but not that this
depended on the Morgoth Element (Morgoth, as I recall it, only started
dissipating his power, creating the Morgoth Element, after he had
embodied himself for the purpose of better controlling the physical
matter of Arda).

But since it is definite that Sauron took advantage of the Morgoth
Element, and since the Morgoth Element was in the very /hröa/ of Arda,
it probably enhanced his control of the Morgoth Element to be embodied,
so the difference may very well be moot ;)

Post by Bill O'Meally
They were incorporated into matter in order to better manipulate
matter. In this case (and this is my speculation) rather than
being a hindrance, Saruman's having physical form could work to
his advantage. He simply did not have the millennia of experience
at tapping into it that S and M had.

I agree entirely with this, but as stated above, I don't think that it
would create enough of a difference, so combined with the passage from
letter #165 which states that the physical bodies of the Istari had the
opposite effect on 'their exhibition of "power" on the physical plane',
I confident that this cannot be the whole answer.

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I still think that the incarnation of the Istari was
fundamentally different from the usual self-embodiment,

Agreed. Incarnation implies a more permanant and intimate
bonding to the spirit than self-embodiment.

It seems to me also that Tolkien describes their physical bodies as
having some fairly unusual effects on their minds and powers. I am, for
instance, not aware of anything suggesting that Morgoth ever lost his
'Knowledge of the Cosmogonic drama', as the Istari for whom 'the memory
of the Blessed Realm was [...] a vision from afar off'.

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally
However, Morgoth at the time of the War of the Jewels is
explicitly described as 'incarnate' by Tolkien.

That is a good point ;)

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally
He was no longer simply self-arrayed.

And he had squandered the majority of his native power in his attempt
to control all of Arda.

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally
Therefore, he is just as subject to the "weaknesses of the
flesh", if you will, as the Eruhini and the Istari: he has fear,
he can be hurt.

Yes, there are obviously weaknesses that are 'immanent in the flesh' so
to speak, and to which the spirit becomes subject as its state approach
that of incarnation. Sauron, too, was subject to the same weaknesses,
and I don't think that he ever became, in this sense, as completely
bound to his shape as was Morgoth.

It is, to me at least, unclear whether Morgoth's physical weakness at
the end was a result of his loss of powers (having created the Morgoth
Element) or whether his incarnate body also inhibited his ability to
exercise power over the physical world.

[Stan Brown]

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:34:48 GMT from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I would say that the more interesting in this is that even when Saruman
disregarded all prohibitions (those that relied only on his willing
abiding by them), he didn't have more 'power' than the enhanced Gandalf
the White.

And it is because of this fact that I maintain the five Istari did
not just *promise* not to use their full power, but in some way they
actually gave up that power.

Since Saruman was a rebel, if he had been able to use his native
Valinorean power he would have done so. Since he didn't, he must not
have been able to.

In this view, Gandalf, too, had been limited when he became an Istar.
It took Eru's direct action to remove that limitation.

I wonder what would have happened if some of the other four Istari
had not failed, and had returned to Valinor. Would they have been
restored to their pre-Istar status and abilities?

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Stan Brown
Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:34:48 GMT from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I would say that the more interesting in this is that even when Saruman
disregarded all prohibitions (those that relied only on his willing
abiding by them), he didn't have more 'power' than the enhanced Gandalf
the White.

And it is because of this fact that I maintain the five Istari did
not just *promise* not to use their full power, but in some way they
actually gave up that power.
Since Saruman was a rebel, if he had been able to use his native
Valinorean power he would have done so. Since he didn't, he must not
have been able to.
In this view, Gandalf, too, had been limited when he became an Istar.
It took Eru's direct action to remove that limitation.

That's the way I have understood it all the time, too.

Post by Stan Brown
I wonder what would have happened if some of the other four Istari
had not failed, and had returned to Valinor. Would they have been
restored to their pre-Istar status and abilities?

I think so -- otherwise the incentive for them to undertake this task
would have been pretty small :-)

- Dirk

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The two latter -- the normal self-embodiment, which is compared to
the clothes of the Eruhíni, which can be donned and doffed at will,
and the bound version of this, which can no longer be doffed at will,
are described in some detail in a note (author's note5) to the essay
/Ósanwe-kenta/

Where does it say there that the hroa, even if "bound", cannot be
given up at will? The note reads (in part):

"It is said that the longer and the more the same hröa is used, the
greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed'
desire to leave it. As raiment may soon cease to be adornment, and
becomes (as is said in the tongues of both Elves and Men) a 'habit', a
customary garb. Or if among Elves and Men it be worn to mitigate heat
or cold, it soon makes the clad body less able to endure these things
when naked". Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a "spirit" (that
is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a hröa for the
furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the
enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to
operate without the hröa. The things that are most binding are
those that in the Incarnate have to do with the life of the hröa
itself, its sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking
are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most
binding is begetting or conceiving.

Note "habit" and "find it difficult to operate without". IMHO, it
doesn't follow they couldn't give up their body, diminishing
themselves in the process, and then return to their old
"un-incarnated" state (though with a loss), as Melian did.

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<news:***@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
Thierbach <***@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Where does it say there that the hroa, even if "bound", cannot be

That is rather what is meant by the word 'bound', I'd say. And it is
said in /The Silmarillion/ about Melkor as he eluded the pursuit after
he had had words with Fëanor at Formenos:

For he was yet as one of the Valar, and could change his
form, or walk unclad, as could his brethren; though that
power he was soon to lose for ever.
[Silm QS,8 'Of the Darkening of Valinor']

The note from Ósanwe-kenta from which you quote make it clear that the
binding business is the same for all Ainur, Valar as well as Maiar, so
it would follow that they all, when bound to their body, also lost
their ability to 'walk unclad', i.e. unembodied.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Where does it say there that the hroa, even if "bound", cannot be

That is rather what is meant by the word 'bound', I'd say.

I don't think so, because Melian can give up her body. So I understand
"bound" to mean "have a firm connection", one that cannot be *as easily*
given up without destroying something. But it may still be given up
at will, though at a cost.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
And it is said in /The Silmarillion/ about Melkor as he eluded the
For he was yet as one of the Valar, and could change his
form, or walk unclad, as could his brethren; though that
power he was soon to lose for ever.
[Silm QS,8 'Of the Darkening of Valinor']
The note from Ósanwe-kenta from which you quote make it clear that the
binding business is the same for all Ainur, Valar as well as Maiar, so
it would follow that they all, when bound to their body, also lost
their ability to 'walk unclad', i.e. unembodied.

Yes, but again that only means that they cannot give up their body
*easily*, the way they could do before. It doesn't mean that it's
now impossible to them to give up their body at all.

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<news:***@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
Thierbach <***@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Yes, but again that only means that they cannot give up their body
*easily*, the way they could do before. It doesn't mean that it's
now impossible to them to give up their body at all.

No. The quotation from /The Silmarillion/ is quite clear that Morgoth
lost the ability to walk unclad. The reference to 'Ósanwe-kenta' is
merely to argue that this would apply to all Ainur who became bound to
a body, not just to Morgoth.

It follows from the description of Morgoth's situation that they needed
some external 'force' to free them from the body: usually the killing
of the body by violence, but I suppose that the body might also die
from other causes.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Yes, but again that only means that they cannot give up their body
*easily*, the way they could do before. It doesn't mean that it's
now impossible to them to give up their body at all.

No. The quotation from /The Silmarillion/ is quite clear that Morgoth
lost the ability to walk unclad.

Sorry, I still read it differently: Morgoth had now become so firmly
bound to his body that any attempt to give it up would have resulted
in the same thing that happened to him later as "punishment": If he
lost his body, then he would diminish so much that he never would be
able to embody hisself again, and so would become helpless. That's the
reason he didn't do not, not because it needs an external influence to
destroy his body. (After all, if the problem is just the external
influence, he could have easily used some knife or other tool to
commit suicide, or asked some of his Orcs to do it, or whatever).

So it's in this sense that he "lost his power" to do that.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It follows from the description of Morgoth's situation that they needed
some external 'force' to free them from the body: usually the killing
of the body by violence, but I suppose that the body might also die
from other causes.

Again, I don't read it that way. I think this approach has the
following problems: First, you convert a gradual process (the link
between fea and hroa tightening further and further by "habit") into a
binary one. At some precise point there, the ability to free the fea
from the hroa must go away completely, while just before that it's
still possible. The alternative, that this ability just becomes
gradually more and more difficult, until it is so difficult that the
result would be desaster for anyone who attempts it, feels a lot more
natural.

Second, you'd have to explain Melian: The description "she vanished
out of Middle-earth" exactly fits what would happen if she just gave up
her body (diminishing herself in the process, but, since she took the
body on only because of her love to Thingol, maybe a loss she even
welcomed). If she was firmly bound to her body and couldn't escape it
save by external influences, then she must have gone back to Valinor
by ship. That contradicts somewhat the "thereafter Melian spoke to
none save to Mablung only" part; it's hard to imagine her walking
into a port, silently pointing at a ship and waving her hands to indicate
that she'd like to go on board.

Third, the requirement that *external* violence is necessary seems
very arbitrary. As said above, one can easily fulfill that condition
by asking someone else for help, so it doesn't really make a big
difference. And when even humans like Aragorn have the ability to give
up life voluntarily if they want to, so it seems strange that "greater"
beings like the Ainur should loose this ability just as they became
closer to humans.

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<snip>

Post by Troels Forchhammer
No. The quotation from /The Silmarillion/ is quite clear that
Morgoth lost the ability to walk unclad.

For he was yet as one of the Valar, and could change his
form, or walk unclad, as could his brethren; though that
power he was soon to lose for ever.
[Silm QS,8 'Of the Darkening of Valinor']

We can always quibble about the precise interpretation (I suppose
that we aren't all that far from each other as it may seem), but this
statement explicitly states that Morgoth lost the power to 'change
his form, or walk unclad'. I don't see how this statement can be read
any other way?

Morgoth had now become so firmly bound to his body that any attempt
to give it up would have resulted in the same thing that happened
to him later as "punishment": If he lost his body, then he would
diminish so much that he never would be able to embody hisself
again, and so would become helpless.

The effects of losing the body to which he had become bound is
described in the Ósanwe-kenta, so there is no argument there, either.
The only question is whether the Ainu would be able to leave that
body by an act of will, of if it would require lethal violence: i.e.
killing the body (quite possibly through an act of active suicide).

I am of the opinion that the description in /The Silmarillion/ quoted
above describes the latter. I believe that the explicit statement
that Morgoth lost the power to 'change his shape, or walk unclad',
must mean that he lost the ability to leave his body merely by an act
of will -- to me must be what is entailed in the power to walk
unclad: after all, we agree that it cannot mean that he was unable to
exist at all without a body, or that his spirit, without the body,
would pass out of Arda (both are refuted by the examples of Sauron).

This means that I agree that he (and any other Ainu bound to the
body) did have a possibility of leaving the body, but that this would
necessitate an act of suicide very different from the usual act of
will involved when Ainur leave a bodily form.

That's the reason he didn't do not, not because it needs an
external influence to destroy his body.

I agree, at least, that it was the consequences of disembodying that
prevented him rather than the necessity for killing the body.

After all, if the problem is just the external influence, he could
have easily used some knife or other tool to commit suicide, or
asked some of his Orcs to do it, or whatever.

Of course. Well -- perhaps not the orcish solution, but something
could certainly be arranged ;)

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It follows from the description of Morgoth's situation that they
needed some external 'force' to free them from the body: usually
the killing of the body by violence, but I suppose that the body
might also die from other causes.

Again, I don't read it that way. I think this approach has the
following problems: First, you convert a gradual process (the link
between fea and hroa tightening further and further by "habit")
into a binary one.

Not at all -- or not necessarily, at least. It is a quite common
experience for humans as they grow older that some tasks become
increasingly difficult until, at last, they become impossible. There
is nothing binary about that, and a similar process could be involved
in this.

As for the case of Morgoth specifically, the description of how he
became bound to his bodiy does indeed seem to me to suggest a sudden
onset. It is clear that he did lose the power to walk unclad or
change his form in connection with the rape of the Two Trees, and
though the use of 'soon to lose for ever' doesn't pin-point the time,
nor rule out that it was a gradual process starting when he
approached Ungoliant, it nevertheless means that it all happened
within a rather brief span of time.

<snip>
Perhaps the easiest explanation would be to say that she took the
same route as the Noldor, and that the enchantments didn't affect her
(just as they obviously didn't affect e.g. Ossë).

The description "she vanished out of Middle-earth" exactly fits
what would happen if she just gave up her body (diminishing herself
in the process, but, since she took the body on only because of her
love to Thingol, maybe a loss she even welcomed).

As Christoper Kreuzer was so kind to point out, it also exactly fits
what would happen if she just walked away. The passage also, to me,
implies that she left her body behind (though it is not, IMO, a
strong bias), but that has already been explained elsewhere in the
this thread: she died of grief (possibly she did so consciously and
deliberately, but it would not have been possible for her had she not
been bowed down with grief -- her will alone was not enough: it had
to be helped by her grief).

Third, the requirement that *external* violence is necessary seems
very arbitrary.

Well, I'd agree to that, and wish to change that to anything that
would kill an Elda -- I believe it was Stan who quoted the list from
the Silm somewhere (and, IIRC, it doesn't even say that the list is
complete -- other causes of death might be imaginable). What I wanted
to convey was the idea that an Ainu who has become bound to a body
cannot leave that body by an act of will alone: it takes something
more to overcome the binding.

And when even humans like Aragorn have the ability to give up
life voluntarily if they want to, so it seems strange that
"greater" beings like the Ainur should loose this ability just
as they became closer to humans.

As I read the texts, this ability is particular to humans and rely on
a desire to go beyond the circles of Arda (I see now that my .sig is
aptly chosen). This is not an ability that is shared with e.g. Elves
or Dwarves, and the bound state of an Ainu is much closer to the
Eldar than to Men (the spirit, for instance, is bound to Arda for
them both).

[Emma Pease]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
Perhaps the easiest explanation would be to say that she took the
same route as the Noldor, and that the enchantments didn't affect her
(just as they obviously didn't affect e.g. Ossë).

Except that would mean getting a ship and I can't quite see her doing
that without speaking to anyone (or for that matter sailing it on her
own). Now it could be she called upon Ulmo for help getting back to
Valinor bodily. If he could turn Elwing into a sea bird, he could
probably change Melian also. Also why was Melian so grieved over
Thingol's death. She knew he would be reborn in Valinor and as one of
the Ainur she could presumably visit the Halls of Mandos while he was
awaiting that rebirth. Her great grief is her daughter choosing
mortality. Was it the loss of what she and Thingol had built in
Doriath?

Post by Troels Forchhammer

The description "she vanished out of Middle-earth" exactly fits
what would happen if she just gave up her body (diminishing herself
in the process, but, since she took the body on only because of her
love to Thingol, maybe a loss she even welcomed).

As Christoper Kreuzer was so kind to point out, it also exactly fits
what would happen if she just walked away. The passage also, to me,
implies that she left her body behind (though it is not, IMO, a
strong bias), but that has already been explained elsewhere in the
this thread: she died of grief (possibly she did so consciously and
deliberately, but it would not have been possible for her had she not
been bowed down with grief -- her will alone was not enough: it had
to be helped by her grief).

Agreed.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Perhaps the easiest explanation would be to say that she took the
same route as the Noldor, and that the enchantments didn't affect her
(just as they obviously didn't affect e.g. Ossë).

Except that would mean getting a ship and I can't quite see her doing
that without speaking to anyone (or for that matter sailing it on her
own).

Why not the Helcaraxe? It would not be a hardship for here as it was for
Fingolfin's host. After all, she got to Middle-earth somehow!

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
No. The quotation from /The Silmarillion/ is quite clear that
Morgoth lost the ability to walk unclad.

For he was yet as one of the Valar, and could change his
form, or walk unclad, as could his brethren; though that
power he was soon to lose for ever.
[Silm QS,8 'Of the Darkening of Valinor']
[...] but this statement explicitly states that Morgoth lost the
power to 'change his form, or walk unclad'. I don't see how this
statement can be read any other way?

Well, I've tried to explain it: One need not interpret it literally,
one can also interpret it, hm, figuratively. Some silly examples,
but maybe they illustrate the point: If I break my leg, I "loose the
power to walk". Not because some innate power of walking has been
taken away from me, but just because it hurts to much, so I don't.
If I have a very sore throat, I "loose the power to sing". Etc.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It follows from the description of Morgoth's situation that they
needed some external 'force' to free them from the body: usually
the killing of the body by violence, but I suppose that the body
might also die from other causes.

Again, I don't read it that way. I think this approach has the
following problems: First, you convert a gradual process (the link
between fea and hroa tightening further and further by "habit")
into a binary one.

Not at all -- or not necessarily, at least. It is a quite common
experience for humans as they grow older that some tasks become
increasingly difficult until, at last, they become impossible.

Ok, that would be essentially the same explanation as mine -- it takes
more and more effort to break the bond, until the effort is so great
that too much would be destroyed by breaking it, so it becomes
essentially suicide. But note that this implies exactly the point I am
trying to make: If the process is gradual, then Melian could very well
be at some point in the process where it is difficult, but not
impossible, to leave her body behind.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
As for the case of Morgoth specifically, the description of how he
became bound to his bodiy does indeed seem to me to suggest a sudden
onset.

No, not at all. Morgoth dispersed much if his power into ME. This
is a gradual process, again, and during this process he would become
more and more bound to his body. It's just that we don't have
any description of Morgoth in the middle of the process, and hence
it seems "sudden".

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Perhaps the easiest explanation would be to say that she took the
same route as the Noldor, and that the enchantments didn't affect her
(just as they obviously didn't affect e.g. Ossë).

But she very probably would have been seen by some people in that case.
Not what I would associate with "vanish".

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
The description "she vanished out of Middle-earth" exactly fits
what would happen if she just gave up her body (diminishing herself
in the process, but, since she took the body on only because of her
love to Thingol, maybe a loss she even welcomed).

As Christoper Kreuzer was so kind to point out, it also exactly fits
what would happen if she just walked away.

I don't think so: Imagine Melian walking from Menegroth to the
Helcaraxe. Many people would have seen her, many people would have
recognized her, she would have had the chance to talk to quite a lot
of people. That's not what you expect from reading the description
on the SIL.

Of course, one could speculate that she could have used her powers
to cloak herself so nobody could see her, but all this adding of
more unecessary entities makes this explanation not more likely.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
she died of grief

If she died of grief, then where is her body? And if the body is
still there, would you call that "vanishing"?

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Third, the requirement that *external* violence is necessary seems
very arbitrary.

What I wanted to convey was the idea that an Ainu who has become

And that's exactly what you haven't convinced me of so far :-)

I really see a lot of difficulties with that explanation, while
the only disadvantage of my explanation is that you cannot read
one passage strictly literally (which is no big deal IMHO).

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
And when even humans like Aragorn have the ability to give up
life voluntarily if they want to, so it seems strange that
"greater" beings like the Ainur should loose this ability just
as they became closer to humans.

As I read the texts, this ability is particular to humans

Well, Elves could also "die of grief", which looks like a very similar
mechanism. So both for Elves and for some Man the fea seems to be able
to control the bond with the hroa, and the fea can release that bond
at will. Why should this suddenly be impossible for the Ainur, who had
this ability to such a much greater degree in their original state?

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
[...] but this statement explicitly states that Morgoth lost the
power to 'change his form, or walk unclad'. I don't see how this
statement can be read any other way?

Well, I've tried to explain it: One need not interpret it
literally, one can also interpret it, hm, figuratively.

Ah, but that is a matter of interpretation of what exactly it means
to lose for ever the power to walk unclad -- not a discussion of
whether he did or not. My confusion was over your objection to my
substitution of 'ability' for 'power' in Tolkien's wording.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Some silly examples, but maybe they illustrate the point: If I
break my leg, I "loose the power to walk". Not because some innate
power of walking has been taken away from me, but just because it
hurts to much, so I don't. If I have a very sore throat, I "loose
the power to sing". Etc.

Good examples, except that in this case we're told that the new state
is permanent, so we'd be talking about having the legs removed, the
tongue cut out or something similar. It doesn't matter if you haven't
lost your innate ability to walk -- if you don't have any legs, it
isn't going to happen.

I don't care about the exact mechanism that prevented Morgoth from
abandoning his body by an act of will, but that it became impossible
for him seems to me certain.

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Not at all -- or not necessarily, at least. It is a quite common
experience for humans as they grow older that some tasks become
increasingly difficult until, at last, they become impossible.

Ok, that would be essentially the same explanation as mine -- it
takes more and more effort to break the bond, until the effort is
so great that too much would be destroyed by breaking it, so it
becomes essentially suicide. But note that this implies exactly
the point I am trying to make: If the process is gradual, then
Melian could very well be at some point in the process where it is
difficult, but not impossible, to leave her body behind.

That is obviously a possibility, although, IMO, at best a theoretical
one, since we know that she had engaged in the most binding
activities of all. Melian was doubtlessly as bound to her body as
Morgoth were when he returned to Middle-earth.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
As for the case of Morgoth specifically, the description of how
he became bound to his bodiy does indeed seem to me to suggest a
sudden onset.

No, not at all. Morgoth dispersed much if his power into ME. This
is a gradual process, again, and during this process he would
become more and more bound to his body. It's just that we don't
have any description of Morgoth in the middle of the process, and
hence it seems "sudden".

You appear to be right to some extent. It was already painful to
Morgoth to change around before he went to Ungoliant. The late LQ2
version has:

§55b This indeed Melkor had expected; but he had other
things to do before he would return to Middle-earth, and
ere the pursuit set out, indeed ere the messengers came to
Valmar, he had turned back and in great secrecy passed
away far to the South. For Melkor was yet as one of the
Valar, and he could still (though with pain) change his
form, or walk unclad, as could his brethren; though that
power he was soon to lose for ever.
[/Morgoth's Ring/ (HoMe 10), LQ2, p283-4]

Not that it matters for the understanding of the end-state, where the
changing went from painful and difficult to impossible (as I said, I
don't worry about the exact mechanism -- it might have because the
pain became too intense for him to be able to maintain his will on
abandoning the body -- I neither know nor care.

I would, however, argue that this shows a very clear distinction
between the intermediate state (it is painful to do it) and the end-
state (the power to do it has been lost) -- I don't think this could
be consistent with 'he could do it, but it would be even more
painful'.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Perhaps the easiest explanation would be to say that she took the
same route as the Noldor, and that the enchantments didn't affect
her (just as they obviously didn't affect e.g. Ossë).

But she very probably would have been seen by some people in that
case. Not what I would associate with "vanish".

By whom? Beleriand, except for the Fëanorians and the settlement at
the mouths of Sirion, was essentially deserted (except from Morgoth's
servants). We are, after all, speaking of a period /after/ the fall
of Nargothrond and Gondolin.

Of course it wouldn't be a problem for Melian to simply disappear if
she wanted to -- she wouldn't even have to use any special powers.
Regardless of whether she went all the way to Helcaraxë or merely
found a place to lie down and die, she could obviously do so without
being seen or found by anyone.

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
she died of grief

If she died of grief, then where is her body? And if the body is
still there, would you call that "vanishing"?

'Vanish' simply means that those who composed the story didn't know
what happened to her further.

Furthermore the use of 'vanish' is, as far as I can discover, a part
of that which CJRT wrote. The last version that I can find of JRRT's
writings are from version D2 of 'The Tale of Years' (/The War of the
Jewels/ [HoMe 11], part V):

504 Dior returns to Doriath, and with the power of the
Silmaril restores it; but Melian departed to Valinor.
Dior now publicly wore the Nauglamir and the Jewel.
(p. 351)

This, even stronger than the pre-LotR versions, suggest that Melian
went bodily to Valinor rather than going there unclad (version D1 has
her delivering the Silmaril to Beren and Lúthien and then 'She
forsook Middle-earth and returned to Valinor').

I do agree that the wording in the published /Silmarillion/ suggests
that she went back unclad, but I am coming to the conclusion that
this is an error with respect to Tolkien's intention, since I can
find no such suggestion in any of the versions that he wrote.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
What I wanted to convey was the idea that an Ainu who has become

And that's exactly what you haven't convinced me of so far :-)

Well, at least your counter-arguments haven't shaken my confidence
either ;)

Post by Dirk Thierbach
I really see a lot of difficulties with that explanation,

Whereas I don't see any whatsoever. There is, to the best of my
knowledge, no suggestion of any Ainu leaving a body to which they
were bound by an act of will alone. And I don't just mean explicit
statements, but any event that might fit (the description of Melian
in the published /Silmarillion/ is dealt with above).

Post by Dirk Thierbach
while the only disadvantage of my explanation is that you cannot
read one passage strictly literally (which is no big deal IMHO).

You are, IMHO, advocating a non-natural interpretation both of
'bound' and of loosing the power -- at least you have to explain why
these phrases shouldn't mean what they imply at face value. But then
again, I suppose you'd argue that I suffer similar problems ;)

<snip>

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:***@130.133.1.4> Troels
Forchhammer <***@ThisIsFake.invalid> spoke these staves:
A correction:

<snip>

We are, after all, speaking of a period /after/ the fall of
Nargothrond and Gondolin.

Not Gondolin -- the death of Thingol, and Melian leaving Middle-earth
was before the Fall of Gondolin, but after the fall of Nargothrond, and
the sack of Brithombar and Eglarest. Thus there were no settlements of
Eldar between Doriath and the sea, and of the Edain only the people of
Haleth hiding in their wood. In all the area earlier ruled by Finrod
and Círdan, the Enemy ruled.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Love while you've got
love to give.
Live while you've got
life to live.
- Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
[...] but this statement explicitly states that Morgoth lost the
power to 'change his form, or walk unclad'. I don't see how this
statement can be read any other way?

Well, I've tried to explain it: One need not interpret it
literally, one can also interpret it, hm, figuratively.

Ah, but that is a matter of interpretation of what exactly it means
to lose for ever the power to walk unclad --

Yes, of course. I thought that this was the question?

Post by Troels Forchhammer
not a discussion of whether he did or not. My confusion was over
your objection to my substitution of 'ability' for 'power' in
Tolkien's wording.

I am now confused, too :-) So let's try again: What I object to is the
statement "once 'bound' to a body, an Ainu cannot give up the body
just by willing it." The alternative I propose is "the binding to a
body is gradual for Ainu. They never loose the ability (or power, or
whatever) to give up the body at will, but, because of the bond, this
may cause so much damage to their 'substance' (or fea, or whatever)
that it isn't considered an option".

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I don't care about the exact mechanism that prevented Morgoth from
abandoning his body by an act of will, but that it became impossible
for him seems to me certain.

But it's exactly the mechanism which is the point. I do agree that
Morgoth wouldn't consider to abandon his body in the end, but I don't
see how it follows that this is because every Ainu looses the
*abilitity* to do so at will once bound to a body.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Ok, that would be essentially the same explanation as mine -- it
takes more and more effort to break the bond, until the effort is
so great that too much would be destroyed by breaking it, so it
becomes essentially suicide. But note that this implies exactly
the point I am trying to make: If the process is gradual, then
Melian could very well be at some point in the process where it is
difficult, but not impossible, to leave her body behind.

That is obviously a possibility, although, IMO, at best a theoretical
one, since we know that she had engaged in the most binding
activities of all.

But since "becoming bound" is a process, the "most binding activity"
mentioned in the O-K just means that this activity takes the Ainu
a big step forward in this process. It doesn't necessarily mean
that it immediately crossess your "binary" threshold and at once
leads to the loss of the ability to give up the body at will.

Try to think of it the following way: Melian took on a body for
the love of Thingol, and to conceive Luthien. If she now abandons
her body, she'll leave those parts behind, she sort of rips them
out of her identity. But there's still enough left of her to
continue being an Ainu.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Melian was doubtlessly as bound to her body as Morgoth were when he
returned to Middle-earth.

I disagree. Morgoth is a different case, because he spent so much of
his "substance" perverting Middle-Earth that he had become so weak
that the desctruction of his body, by external means or by abandoning
it at will, would make him nearly powerless, "a spirit of hatred borne
on a dark wind".

And Sauron is again different: He didn't put his "substance" directly
into the physical world, but into the Ring, where he was still able to
make use of it. So as long as the Ring existed, he could never be
reduced to a state of complete lack power. He would become weaker as
his bodies were destroyed, first not having enough "power" left to
make his body beatiful contrary to his inner nature, and then needing
more and more time to make a body at all.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It was already painful to Morgoth to change around before he went to
Ungoliant.

Thanks, I didn't remember that passage.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Not that it matters for the understanding of the end-state, where the
changing went from painful and difficult to impossible (as I said, I
don't worry about the exact mechanism -- it might have because the
pain became too intense for him to be able to maintain his will on
abandoning the body -- I neither know nor care.

Then I guess we agree, because it was on the point of the exact
mechanism where I disagreed :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I would, however, argue that this shows a very clear distinction
between the intermediate state (it is painful to do it) and the end-
state (the power to do it has been lost) -- I don't think this could
be consistent with 'he could do it, but it would be even more
painful'.

Well, "painful" is again just a description -- humans suffer pain
because their body warns them that they are attempting an action that
could be too taxing or damaging for the body. If that is similar
for Ainur, then it would be "painful" for Morgoth because he had
to spend too much "energy" or "substance" to make a body for him.
So in the end-state, there'd just be no enough "substance" left
to make a new body if the current body was destroyed.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
But she very probably would have been seen by some people in that
case. Not what I would associate with "vanish".

By whom? Beleriand, except for the Fëanorians and the settlement at
the mouths of Sirion, was essentially deserted (except from Morgoth's
servants). We are, after all, speaking of a period /after/ the fall
of Nargothrond and Gondolin.

Mm. Maybe a good point, but my understanding of population density
in Beleriand in different times is too vague to be able to comment.

But if the area was mainly populated by Orcs, then it wouldn't be
especially safe for her to walk all the way to the Helcaraxe,
would it? Morgoth certainly would have been delighted if he had taken
her captive. Especially if she really were not able to leave her
body at will. Easy game for him in this case.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Regardless of whether she went all the way to Helcaraxë or merely
found a place to lie down and die, she could obviously do so without
being seen or found by anyone.

Well, there's not much point in walking just some way and then dying,
is it? She could have done this back in Menegroth.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
If she died of grief, then where is her body? And if the body is
still there, would you call that "vanishing"?

'Vanish' simply means that those who composed the story didn't know
what happened to her further.

Possible, but they seemed to know at least that Mablung was the last
she spoke to.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Furthermore the use of 'vanish' is, as far as I can discover, a part
of that which CJRT wrote.

[...]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
504 Dior returns to Doriath, and with the power of the
Silmaril restores it; but Melian departed to Valinor.
Dior now publicly wore the Nauglamir and the Jewel.
(p. 351)
This, even stronger than the pre-LotR versions, suggest that Melian
went bodily to Valinor rather than going there unclad (version D1 has
her delivering the Silmaril to Beren and Lúthien and then 'She
forsook Middle-earth and returned to Valinor').

Good point. Could you track down where the "Thereafter Melian spoke to
none save to Mablung only" part came from? That doesn't look like
something CT would just interpolate.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
What I wanted to convey was the idea that an Ainu who has become

And that's exactly what you haven't convinced me of so far :-)

Well, at least your counter-arguments haven't shaken my confidence
either ;)

But at least you have indicated above that you're not really interested
in the mechanism :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
I really see a lot of difficulties with that explanation,

Whereas I don't see any whatsoever.

*Shrug*. Shall I repeat the three points?

Post by Troels Forchhammer
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no suggestion of any Ainu
leaving a body to which they were bound by an act of will alone.

Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

OTOH we do know that Ainu were able to change bodies freely in
their original state.

So not a lot evidence either way.

(And I still object to the idea that you seem to think of it as a
"binary" state :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
while the only disadvantage of my explanation is that you cannot
read one passage strictly literally (which is no big deal IMHO).

You are, IMHO, advocating a non-natural interpretation both of
'bound' and of loosing the power

No, *you* are, IMHO, advocating a non-natural interpretation of
"bound" :-) It's a *process*, not a state. It's not like someone
presses a switch and then suddenly the fea becomes "bound" and cannot
leave the hroa. The O-K describes that quite explicitely.

As for "loosing the power", I tried to explain it, and I find it
quite natural. Tolkien rarely describes the exact "world mechanics"
in the primary texts. OTOH he does use archaic and "high" language,
so I am quite comfortable with accepting "to loose power" as an
idiomatic expression, same as "to suffer pain".

(And if I had some more time, I could probably remember some other
place where one cannot take such things literally, too.)

Post by Troels Forchhammer
-- at least you have to explain why these phrases shouldn't mean
what they imply at face value.

I tried to do that. See above.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
But then again, I suppose you'd argue that I suffer similar problems ;)

Yes :-) Maybe we can agree that both readings are possible, and which
to prefer is a matter of taste?

- Dirk

[Stan Brown]

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:59:22 +0200 from Dirk Thierbach

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

Six cases, I think: you forgot Olórin and Curunir.

That raises your violence proportion to 5 out of 6.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Stan Brown
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:59:22 +0200 from Dirk Thierbach

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

Six cases, I think: you forgot Olórin and Curunir.

I omitted them because the way the Istari are bound to their
body for their task is not necessarily the same bond that develops
through habit etc. as described in O-K. I am not sure if the Istari
where *permitted* to "give up" and leave their body voluntarily.

Post by Stan Brown
That raises your violence proportion to 5 out of 6.

Not that the proportion tells a lot either way...

- Dirk

[Larry Swain]

Post by Stan Brown
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:59:22 +0200 from Dirk Thierbach

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

Six cases, I think: you forgot Olórin and Curunir.
That raises your violence proportion to 5 out of 6.

Sauron 3x: Fall of Numenor, Last Alliance Battle, War of the Ring.
That's 7 total then. Would the loss of his body at Numenor count as
"violence"?

There are actually more: the other 3 Istari, but since we don't know how
or when they left their bodies, we can't use them as evidence. But in
the interests of being thorough, they ought to be mentioned.

Related question: is shape shifting considered to be the "same" body or
different bodies? I'm inclined to the former, but don't know if Tolkien
ever commented on it.

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:lL-***@rcn.net>
Larry Swain <***@operamail.com> spoke these staves:
<snip>

Post by Larry Swain
Related question: is shape shifting considered to be the "same"
body or different bodies? I'm inclined to the former, but don't
know if Tolkien ever commented on it.

Based on the description of Morgoth losing the power (singular) to
'change his form, or walk unclad', I would venture that changing form
or disembodying are two sides of the same issue.

Sauron's exact reproduction in the Third Age of the shape in which he
had become bound at the end of the Second Age (including one missing
finger) also implies that the binding is related to one particular
shape.

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
I am now confused, too :-) So let's try again: What I object to is
the statement "once 'bound' to a body, an Ainu cannot give up the
body just by willing it." The alternative I propose is "the
binding to a body is gradual for Ainu. They never loose the
ability (or power, or whatever) to give up the body at will, but,
because of the bond, this may cause so much damage to their
'substance' (or fea, or whatever) that it isn't considered an
option".

OK. It might be mostly a matter of wording then ;)

I don't think we know enough about the matter to do anything but
conclude that it eventually becomes impossible for the Ainu to leave
the body by an act of will. As far as I am concerned, the precise
reason for this isn't very interesting, but clearly it must be seen
as the end-result of a process that finally crosses some threshold
(which possibly is individual). For Morgoth this happened about the
time of the Darkening.

The use of 'though with pain' makes pain a convenient metaphor for
the threshold: there are actions that I wouldn't be able to complete
because I would simply pass out from the pain if I tried (pass out
before the action was complete). Somewhat similar to why one cannot
strangle oneself with the bare hands (except that I would pass out
from lack of oxygen rather than from pain).

I have used the word 'ability' to mean the capacity of being able to
complete the action. In that sense I don't have the ability to
strangulate myself, nor to do any action that would cause me to e.g.
pass out from pain before I could complete it. It is in that sense
that I mean that Morgoth, and hence other Ainur, lose the ability to
abandon their body.

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Try to think of it the following way: Melian took on a body for
the love of Thingol, and to conceive Luthien. If she now abandons
her body, she'll leave those parts behind, she sort of rips them
out of her identity. But there's still enough left of her to
continue being an Ainu.

I really don't think that that is a good way of describing it. It is
the body itself that becomes habitual to the Ainu through the bodily
functions carried out in it. Love and identity isn't relevant in that
sense: these would, as I read Ósanwe-kenta, be on par with 'the
delight in beauty of sound or form.'

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
No, *you* are, IMHO, advocating a non-natural interpretation of
"bound" :-) It's a *process*, not a state.

No. The /binding/ is a process, but /bound/ is a state.

Ósanwe-kenta tells us that 'Melkor alone of the Great became at last
bound to a bodily form', which clearly has 'bound' as a state -- the
result of the binding process.

So, 'bound' is a state which is reached when the binding process
exceeds some threshold as per above: a state which Morgoth alone of
'the Great' ever reached.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
It's not like someone presses a switch and then suddenly the fea
becomes "bound" and cannot leave the hroa. The O-K describes that
quite explicitely.

Actually it doesn't ;)

What it describes are actions that are 'binding' (i.e. furthers the
binding process), and the state of being 'bound' (as Morgoth).
Melian's case is described with different words, and though I read it
to mean that she, too, became 'bound' to the body she used (that her
'spirit /must/ dwell in the body that it used, and be under the same
necessities as the Incarnate'; my emphasis), I agree that this is
probably not the only possibly reading.

The Ósanwe-kenta isn't explicit about the effect of the bound state
of Morgoth -- the nearest is the description above that the spirit
must inhabit that particular body, but this is where the passage from
/The Silmarillion/ (or even more the one from /Morgoth's Ring/)
enlightens our reading with the explicit statement that Morgoth lost
the power to 'change is form, or walk unclad' (for whatever reasons).
This, then, is what is meant in Ósanwe-kenta by Morgoth becoming
bound to a body.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

We're leaving WISDOM
to starve and thirst
when we cultivate
KNOWLEDGE as such.
The very best comes
to the very worst
WHEN IGNORANTS
KNOW TOO MUCH.
- Piet Hein, /When Ignorants --/

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

In Morgoth's case, I think you are referring to the point when he left Aman
after Feanor humilated him with his "jail-crow of Mandos" words, and "the
Elves had seen him pass in wrath as a thundercloud" and:

"Thereafter the watch was redoubled along the northern fences of Aman; but
to no purpose, for ere ever the pursuit set out Melkor had turned back, and
in secrecy passed away far to the south. For he was yet as one of the Valar,
and could change his form, or walk unclad, as could his brethren; though
that power he was soon to lose for ever. [...] Now Melkor came to Avathar
and sought her out; and he put on again the form that he had worn as the
tyrant of Utumno: a dark Lord, tall and terrible. In that form he remained
ever after." (Of the Darkening of Valinor)

I think these changing of forms refer to a time _before_ Melkor became bound
to his form, so I think that once Morgoth became bound to his form he never
left it. I presume he was still in that form when: "the Valar thrust [him]
through the Door of Night beyond the Walls of the World, into the Timeless
Void". If we are to include changes of form like this, there are many more
examples, such as Arien:

"Too bright were the eyes of Arien for even the Eldar to look on, and
leaving Valinor she forsook the form and raiment which like the Valar she
had worn there, and she was as a naked flame, terrible in the fullness of
her splendour." (Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of Valinor)

Others have pointed out the examples of the Istari, and I agree they should
be treated separately. And Sauron's shape-shifting in the First Age seems
like the sort of thing that an unbound Ainu could do.

So the examples of a bound Ainu leaving their body would seem to be:

Melian (possibly)
Sauron (after Numenor)
Sauron (after Last Alliance defeat)
Sauron (after War of the Rings defeat)

Though maybe it is debatable as to whether Sauron was bound into his body at
the time of Numenor - it was precisely the power of that fall that meant
Sauron lost the ability to take on fair form again: "his fair semblance had
departed for ever when he was cast into the abyss at the drowning of
Numenor".

I would suggest that, even if Melian did depart her body, she was not bound
into it to the extent that Sauron was, and not to the extent that she would
have lost her ability to take on fair form again.

Christopher

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by
violence.

In Morgoth's case, I think you are referring to the point when he
left Aman after Feanor humilated him with his "jail-crow of
Mandos" words,

I think Dirk refers to the execution of Morgoth after the War of
Wrath -- 'that is /killed/ like one of the Incarnates.' (MR, 'Myths
Transformed' text VII).

The texts in the 'Myths Transformed' part of /Morgoth's Ring/ (HoMe
10) also contain other things that are relevant to the present
discussion:

Morgoth at the time of the War of the Jewels had become
permanently 'incarnate': for this reason he was afraid,
and waged the war almost entirely by means of devices, or
of subordinates and dominated creatures.
[Text VII, section (i)]

Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He
did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' or
physical matter of Arda.
[ibid, section (ii)]

In both cases the use of 'permanently' is interesting. It cannot mean
mere 'indefinitely', since the text also contains the description of
how this incarnation was ended.

The war was successful, and ruin was limited to the
small (if beautiful) region of Beleriand. Morgoth was thus
actually /made captive in physical form/, and in that form
taken as a mere criminal to Aman and delivered to Námo
Mandos as judge -- and executioner. He was judged, and
eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and /executed/:
that is /killed/ like one of the Incarnates. It was then
made plain (though it must have been understood beforehand
by Manwë and Námo) that, though he had 'disseminated' his
power (his evil and possessive and rebellious will) far
and wide into the matter of Arda, he had lost direct
control of this, and all that 'he', as a surviving remnant
of integral being, retained as 'himself and under control
was the terribly shrunken and reduced spirit that
inhabited his self-imposed (but now beloved) body. When
that body was destroyed he was weak and utterly
'houseless', and for that time at a loss and 'unanchored'
as it were.
[ibid, section (iii)]

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I would suggest that, even if Melian did depart her body, she was
not bound into it to the extent that Sauron was, and not to the
extent that she would have lost her ability to take on fair form
again.

I suppose that you mean 'even if Meliant /didn't/ depart her body/
(my emphasis)? Obviously if she did, she wouldn't have been 'bound
into it to the extent that Sauron was' :)

My understanding of the hideousness of Morgoth's and Sauron's final
forms is that it is an aspect of their loss of control that they
cannot hide the hideousness of their spirits. Melian, in the same
situation, would still, IMO, be beautiful to behold because her
spirit was beautiful, but she might nevertheless have lost her
ability to control her appearance.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by
violence.

In Morgoth's case, I think you are referring to the point when he
left Aman after Feanor humilated him with his "jail-crow of
Mandos" words,

I think Dirk refers to the execution of Morgoth after the War of
Wrath -- 'that is /killed/ like one of the Incarnates.' (MR, 'Myths
Transformed' text VII).

<snip>

Post by Troels Forchhammer
[though] he had 'disseminated' his
power (his evil and possessive and rebellious will) far
and wide into the matter of Arda, he had lost direct
control of this, and all that 'he', as a surviving remnant
of integral being, retained as 'himself and under control
was the terribly shrunken and reduced spirit that
inhabited his self-imposed (but now beloved) body. When
that body was destroyed he was weak and utterly
'houseless', and for that time at a loss and 'unanchored'
as it were.

So Tolkien is describing the Valar's reaction to the unexpected "weak and
utterly houseless" Morgoth? The "for that time" implies he was reanchored
again. Can we speculate that Angainor anchored him? Or was he allowed to
take on a body again briefly to face trial and judgement, and then thrust
out of the Door of Night? This also seems to imply that they effectively
only exiled a small portion of Morgoth, the self-aware and conscious
element, and that the greater portion remained behind, disseminated
throughout Arda, as the Morgoth Element.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I would suggest that, even if Melian did depart her body, she was
not bound into it to the extent that Sauron was, and not to the
extent that she would have lost her ability to take on fair form
again.

I suppose that you mean 'even if Meliant /didn't/ depart her body/
(my emphasis)? Obviously if she did, she wouldn't have been 'bound
into it to the extent that Sauron was' :)

No, I mean "even if Melian did depart her body". Sauron, despite being bound
into his body, was forced to depart it. Melian's departure could have been
partly voluntary and partly involuntary. The death of Thingol is said to
have caused a change in her - but it not made clear whether this is
voluntary, or enforced. Even if enforced, I am saying that the departure may
have been less 'painful' for her than, say, Morgoth or Sauron.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
My understanding of the hideousness of Morgoth's and Sauron's final
forms is that it is an aspect of their loss of control that they
cannot hide the hideousness of their spirits. Melian, in the same
situation, would still, IMO, be beautiful to behold because her
spirit was beautiful, but she might nevertheless have lost her
ability to control her appearance.

I still think the simplest thing is to say that she departed, arrived in
Valinor somehow, and there she exists in a body that has the appearance of
the one she had in Doriath. When I think of Melian musing on her sorrows in
Lorien, I think of her in the Elf body she had in Doriath (maybe
'reconstructed' again after her passage), and not as some ethereal spirit
form haunting the gardens. Similarly, I think of Gandalf in Aman as some
super-Gandalf the White, or at least _able_ to take on that form again and
appear to Frodo and Bilbo that way, though maybe appearing more as a shining
figure of white in the halls of Valmar at feasts of the Valar and Vanyar.

Christopher

[Dirk Thierbach]

I still think the simplest thing is to say that [Melian] departed,
arrived in Valinor somehow, and there she exists in a body that has
the appearance of the one she had in Doriath.

Assuming she was able to give up her body voluntarily, why should she
choose to embody herself again in the same form?

When I think of Melian musing on her sorrows in Lorien, I think of
her in the Elf body she had in Doriath (maybe 'reconstructed' again
after her passage), and not as some ethereal spirit form haunting
the gardens.

Why not of her old Ainu-self, now somewhat diminished, but still
able to clothe herself into any form she likes?

Similarly, I think of Gandalf in Aman as some super-Gandalf the
White,

Same here. I would suppose that Gandalf reverts to his former Ainu-state,
and can choose to appear in any body (or none at all).

or at least _able_ to take on that form again and appear to Frodo
and Bilbo that way,

Well, that's certainly included :-)

-Dirk

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:46:22 +0200 from Dirk Thierbach
<***@usenet.arcornews.de>
[in Aman, in the Fourth Age]

Post by Dirk Thierbach
I would suppose that Gandalf reverts to his former Ainu-state,
and can choose to appear in any body (or none at all).

I agree that he would have that ability, but I suspect for his love
of the Elves, some of whom he would know personally, he would choose
some Gandalf-like appearance

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message

Post by Dirk Thierbach

I still think the simplest thing is to say that [Melian]
departed, arrived in Valinor somehow, and there she exists in a
body that has the appearance of the one she had in Doriath.

Assuming she was able to give up her body voluntarily, why should
she choose to embody herself again in the same form?

Because she was /bound/ in that form, and if it was killed she became
'nullified' until she had build a new 'copy' of that form.

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Similarly, I think of Gandalf in Aman as some super-Gandalf the
White,

Same here. I would suppose that Gandalf reverts to his former
Ainu-state, and can choose to appear in any body (or none at all).

Aye. I would agree to that, but Gandalf had not become 'bound' to his
body in the sense discussed here. When he assumed his shape as Gandalf
he was, from the beginning, beyond 'bound' -- he was incarnate.

This interference into his core being could, of course, not be
maintained after he returned, and so I can only imagine that he was
somehow reinstated into his former nature -- probably with a higher
'Valinórean stature' than before.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

Post by Dirk Thierbach

I still think the simplest thing is to say that [Melian]
departed, arrived in Valinor somehow, and there she exists in a
body that has the appearance of the one she had in Doriath.

Assuming she was able to give up her body voluntarily, why should
she choose to embody herself again in the same form?

Because she was /bound/ in that form, and if it was killed she became
'nullified' until she had build a new 'copy' of that form.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. But wouldn't this only
apply if she was already bound strongly enough that she wouldn't be
able to give up her body voluntarily?

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
Why Melian should 'choose' her 'Queen of Doriath' shape in any later

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Because she was /bound/ in that form, and if it was killed she
became 'nullified' until she had build a new 'copy' of that form.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. But wouldn't this only
apply if she was already bound strongly enough that she wouldn't
be able to give up her body voluntarily?

It may be, but in that case I would argue that she had /certainly/
become bound (as I have, of course, previously argued that she was),
since it is said in the Ósanwe-kenta note that her
'spirit /must/ dwell in the body that it used, and be under
the same necessities as the Incarnate.
[/Vinyar Tengwar/ issue 39, 'Ósanwe-kenta', author's note 5]
(my emphasis).

Melian is emphasized as an example (the only) of this, which is
mentioned as 'an /axan/ or maybe necessary consequence' of conceiving.
The use of 'must' implies a compulsion: that the necessity to 'dwell in
the body that it used' is no longer a matter of a free choice.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Why Melian should 'choose' her 'Queen of Doriath' shape in any later

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Assuming she was able to give up her body voluntarily, why should
she choose to embody herself again in the same form?

Because she was /bound/ in that form, and if it was killed she
became 'nullified' until she had build a new 'copy' of that form.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. But wouldn't this only
apply if she was already bound strongly enough that she wouldn't
be able to give up her body voluntarily?

It may be, but in that case I would argue that she had /certainly/
become bound

That's why I said "assuming she was able to give up her body
voluntarily". If she didn't, she must have gone to valinor with her
body intact, so the whole question is moot.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
(as I have, of course, previously argued that she was),
since it is said in the Ósanwe-kenta note that her
'spirit /must/ dwell in the body that it used, and be under
the same necessities as the Incarnate.
Melian is emphasized as an example (the only) of this, which is
mentioned as 'an /axan/ or maybe necessary consequence' of conceiving.
The use of 'must' implies a compulsion: that the necessity to 'dwell in
the body that it used' is no longer a matter of a free choice.

Yes, but I understood this axan only to apply to the body that was
"used" at the time when the actions that imply a "binding" are
performed. In other words, my mental image is that you get used more
and more to the body, by some actions more than by others, until
finally it has become so much part of yourself that it's nearly the
same as for "incarnates". But if you give up that part of yourself
(and your body with it), then you're free to return to the former
Ainu-state, as far as your remaining "power", "will", "substance" or
whatever you call it allows. That includes the ability to take on
bodies as mere "clothing", or to make a new "incarnate" body.

And both Morgoth and Sauron had lost so much "power" through various
means that they were no longer able to make an "incarnate" body for
themselves that was in opposition to their inner self (think Oscar
Wilde). IIRC Tolkien even says something like this somewhere in
Letters.

But that restriction needn't apply to Melian, if she had enough
"power" left (which we don't know).

- Dirk

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

For some reason, the number of cases seems to attract more interest
than the rest of the discussion...

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In Morgoth's case, I think you are referring to the point when he left Aman
after Feanor humilated him with his "jail-crow of Mandos" words,

No, I was referring to his final judgement when the Valar "thrust
[him] into the Timeless Void". As the hroa is part of Arda, Morgoth
couldn't take his body with him into that place. So he must have lost
his body, either at this stage, or already before in the battle.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Melian (possibly)
Sauron (after Numenor)
Sauron (after Last Alliance defeat)
Sauron (after War of the Rings defeat)

Since this has come up twice now: I excluded the last case, because
it's not Sauron's body which is destroyed, but it's the destruction of
*Ring* which causes his body to be destroyed, too. So that seems special.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I would suggest that, even if Melian did depart her body, she was
not bound into it to the extent that Sauron was, and not to the
extent that she would have lost her ability to take on fair form
again.

I agree, and have tried to suggest it as well :-)

- Dirk

[Larry Swain]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

For some reason, the number of cases seems to attract more interest
than the rest of the discussion...

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In Morgoth's case, I think you are referring to the point when he left Aman
after Feanor humilated him with his "jail-crow of Mandos" words,

No, I was referring to his final judgement when the Valar "thrust
[him] into the Timeless Void". As the hroa is part of Arda, Morgoth
couldn't take his body with him into that place. So he must have lost
his body, either at this stage, or already before in the battle.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Melian (possibly)
Sauron (after Numenor)
Sauron (after Last Alliance defeat)
Sauron (after War of the Rings defeat)

Since this has come up twice now: I excluded the last case, because
it's not Sauron's body which is destroyed, but it's the destruction of
*Ring* which causes his body to be destroyed, too. So that seems special.

I'm not so sure it is any more "special" in that sense than Morgoth
keepng his body because he put so much of his power into Arda that he
was unable any longer to decarnate.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Since this has come up twice now: I excluded the last case, because
it's not Sauron's body which is destroyed, but it's the destruction of
*Ring* which causes his body to be destroyed, too. So that seems special.

I'm not so sure it is any more "special" in that sense than Morgoth
keepng his body because he put so much of his power into Arda that he
was unable any longer to decarnate.

It's special in the sense that it worked the other way round: As long
as the Ring existed, Sauron couldn't be wholly destroyed, because part
of his "substance" existed. So it was by destroying the *substance*
(not his body) that Sauron was killed.

In the other cases, the *bodies* were destroyed (at various stages of
"boundedness"), which caused a weakening of the "substance", in some
cases beyond the point where they could form a new body.

And the question we were discussing is whether the Ainur could leave
behind their body "at will", destroying their body and diminishing
their "substance" voluntarily in this process.

- Dirk

[Larry Swain]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Since this has come up twice now: I excluded the last case, because
it's not Sauron's body which is destroyed, but it's the destruction of
*Ring* which causes his body to be destroyed, too. So that seems special.

I'm not so sure it is any more "special" in that sense than Morgoth
keepng his body because he put so much of his power into Arda that he
was unable any longer to decarnate.

It's special in the sense that it worked the other way round: As long
as the Ring existed, Sauron couldn't be wholly destroyed, because part
of his "substance" existed. So it was by destroying the *substance*
(not his body) that Sauron was killed.

But he wasn't killed. The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate
to reincarnate, was lost to him because he had transferred so much his
power into the Ring, not unlike Morgoth also losing that ability because
he transferred his power into Arda.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the *bodies* were destroyed (at various stages of
"boundedness"), which caused a weakening of the "substance", in some
cases beyond the point where they could form a new body.

Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred it into
the Ring. If he had the Ring, he still had access to it. If he didn't
have the Ring he was weakened, but the substance still existed. But the
substance was destroyed in the Cracks of Doom, weakening him even
further. The destruction of that part of his substance embodied in the
ring did indeed go violently into the chaotic night, as did the removal
of Sauron's body in the crash of barad dur and all else he created with
that substance.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
And the question we were discussing is whether the Ainur could leave
behind their body "at will", destroying their body and diminishing
their "substance" voluntarily in this process.

So reacting to a specific raised point in the grater context is now taboo?

[Stan Brown]

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:18:41 -0600 from Larry Swain

Post by Larry Swain
So reacting to a specific raised point in the grater context is now taboo?

Was that about hard cheeses, or firm vegetables like carrots?
:-)

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
It's special in the sense that it worked the other way round: As long
as the Ring existed, Sauron couldn't be wholly destroyed, because part
of his "substance" existed. So it was by destroying the *substance*
(not his body) that Sauron was killed.

But he wasn't killed.

Sorry, I meant "reduced to impotency". Yes, I know that Ainur cannot
be killed. My fault for being unclear.

Post by Larry Swain
The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate to reincarnate,
was lost to him because he had transferred so much his power into
the Ring,

That is definitely wrong. He was able to reincarnate after Numenor,
when he already had made the Ring.

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the *bodies* were destroyed (at various stages of
"boundedness"), which caused a weakening of the "substance", in some
cases beyond the point where they could form a new body.

Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred it into
the Ring.

No, he was weakened because he lost an incarnate body, and had to
rebuild a new one. This is explictely described in letter #200:

After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while
to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Númenor
(I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent
energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the
effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the
realization of its imagination). The impossibility of re-building
after the destruction of the Ring is sufficiently clear
'mythologically' in the present book.

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
And the question we were discussing is whether the Ainur could leave
behind their body "at will", destroying their body and diminishing
their "substance" voluntarily in this process.

So reacting to a specific raised point in the grater context is now taboo?

Of course not. But then please make clear you bring it in as a new
point, and not as additional point in the old discussion. If you now
want to discuss all cases where an Ainur has been disembodied, fine
with me, but at the moment I don't see the purpose behind that.
The old list had the purpose to maybe come to a better understanding
what exactly happend when Melian "vanished".

- Dirk

[Larry Swain]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
It's special in the sense that it worked the other way round: As long
as the Ring existed, Sauron couldn't be wholly destroyed, because part
of his "substance" existed. So it was by destroying the *substance*
(not his body) that Sauron was killed.

But he wasn't killed.

Sorry, I meant "reduced to impotency". Yes, I know that Ainur cannot
be killed. My fault for being unclear.

Post by Larry Swain
The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate to reincarnate,
was lost to him because he had transferred so much his power into
the Ring,

That is definitely wrong. He was able to reincarnate after Numenor,
when he already had made the Ring.

Sorry, old chap, but its definitely right. You'll note both up thread
and in the previous message I sent that the point of the discussion that
I raised was specifically your characterization of Sauron's loss of ody
at the end of the War of the Ring as being "special", and so the point
of my remarks has been toward that characterization. We can certainly
discuss if the loss of body at the fall of Numenor was "special" in your
terms or not as well, but the conversation between you and I in this
thread so far has been the end of the War of the Ring.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the *bodies* were destroyed (at various stages of
"boundedness"), which caused a weakening of the "substance", in some
cases beyond the point where they could form a new body.

Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred it into
the Ring.

No, he was weakened because he lost an incarnate body, and had to
After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while
to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Númenor
(I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent
energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the
effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the
realization of its imagination). The impossibility of re-building
after the destruction of the Ring is sufficiently clear
'mythologically' in the present book.

This point is not disputed, in fact the focus of my remarks comes from
the last sentence of your quotation.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
And the question we were discussing is whether the Ainur could leave
behind their body "at will", destroying their body and diminishing
their "substance" voluntarily in this process.

So reacting to a specific raised point in the grater context is now taboo?

Of course not. But then please make clear you bring it in as a new
point, and not as additional point in the old discussion.

I did. I quote SPECIFICALLY one comment of yours to which I reacted.
If that isn't clear than including a long preamble about what I'm
intending isn't going to make it any clearer.


If you now

Post by Dirk Thierbach
want to discuss all cases where an Ainur has been disembodied, fine
with me, but at the moment I don't see the purpose behind that.

Judging from what I've written, I'd say that what I've been discussing
is Sauron's disembodiment at the end of the War of the Ring and whether
it was "special". As I read back over my comments to you on this, I can
see no other understanding as being reasonable.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate to reincarnate,
was lost to him because he had transferred so much his power into
the Ring,

That is definitely wrong. He was able to reincarnate after Numenor,
when he already had made the Ring.

Sorry, old chap, but its definitely right. You'll note both up thread
and in the previous message I sent that the point of the discussion that
I raised was specifically your characterization of Sauron's loss of ody
at the end of the War of the Ring as being "special", and so the point
of my remarks has been toward that characterization.

Sorry, I don't see what that has to do with your claim that Sauron
lost the power to reincarnate because he had transferred power into
his ring. He had already made the Ring and transferred power into it
before his body was destroyed in Numenor. He was able to reincarnate
after this. Hence, the fact that he has transferred power into his
ring cannot have affected his ability to reincarnate.

What does affect his ability to reincarnate is the complete *destruction*
of the Ring: With that, all the power he has transferred into it
originally is lost, and hence he is really weakened beyond the point
where he can reincarnate. But the point is not the *transfer*, the
point is the *destruction* of the transferred power.

For "special", see below.

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the *bodies* were destroyed (at various stages of
"boundedness"), which caused a weakening of the "substance", in some
cases beyond the point where they could form a new body.

Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred it into
the Ring.

No, he was weakened because he lost an incarnate body, and had to
After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while
to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Númenor
(I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent
energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the
effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the
realization of its imagination). The impossibility of re-building
after the destruction of the Ring is sufficiently clear
'mythologically' in the present book.

This point is not disputed,

If the point is not disputed, then why do you say that Sauron was
weakened because he transferred power into the Ring, when we know
explicitely a different reason for it?

Post by Larry Swain
in fact the focus of my remarks comes from the last sentence of your
quotation.

And I never disputed that after the desctruction of the Ring, he isn't
able to incarnate any more because he lost the power that he had
transferred into it. In fact, I mentioned this myself.

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Of course not. But then please make clear you bring it in as a new
point, and not as additional point in the old discussion.

Judging from what I've written, I'd say that what I've been discussing
is Sauron's disembodiment at the end of the War of the Ring and whether
it was "special".

In a general context, of course it wasn't "special". It was special
only as far as the mechanism is different from the other cases:

In the final victory over Sauron, the Ring was destroyed, which lead
to the loss of power transferred to the Ring, which lead to a weaking
beyond the point where Sauron could maintain a body, or reincarante into
a new one.

In the other cases, the body was destroyed, which in turn lead to
a weakening as described in letter #200.

The difference is that the direction of causality in the one case
is the opposite of the direction of causality in the other cases:
Loss of power leads to loss of body, vs. loss of body leads to loss
of power.

That's what I meant by "special". If you don't like the word "special",
fine with me, but it was the above difference I wanted to point out.

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
What does affect his ability to reincarnate is the complete
*destruction* of the Ring: With that, all the power he has
transferred into it originally is lost, and hence he is really
weakened beyond the point where he can reincarnate.

Which is what Larry has been saying, since every comment has been
directed specifically to the situation where the One Ring was
destroyed.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
But the point is not the *transfer*, the point is the
*destruction* of the transferred power.

I don't agree. The point is the transfer itself leading to the risk
of losing access to the power, not necessarily by its destruction. We
learn specifically that in dissipating his power into the substance
of Arda, Morgoth lost the ability to control the power, to access it
specifically.

Sauron retained that ability as long as the Ring existed and no-one
else had mastered it. The last is important, and we learn in letter #
246 that if Gandalf had succeeded in winning the mastery of the One
Ring 'the result would have been for Sauron the same as the
destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken
from him for ever.' Further development can be found in letter #131:

But to achieve this [being 'almost supreme in Middle-
earth', TFo] [Sauron] had been obliged to let a great part
of his own inherent power (a frequent and very significant
motive in myth and fairy-story) pass into the One Ring.
While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced.
But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was
in 'rapport' with himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless
some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that
happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong
and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of
all that he had learned or done since the making of the
One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place. This
was the essential weakness he had introduced into his
situation in his effort (largely unsuccessful) to enslave
the Elves, and in his desire to establish a control over
the minds and wills of his servants. There was another
weakness: if the One Ring was actually /unmade/,
annihilated, then its power would be dissolved, Sauron's
own being would be diminished to vanishing point, and he
would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious
will. But that he never contemplated nor feared. The Ring
was unbreakable by any smithcraft less than his own. It
was indissoluble in any fire, save the undying
subterranean fire where it was made -- and that was
unapproachable, in Mordor. Also so great was the Ring's
power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by
it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own)
to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. So he thought.
It was in any case on his finger.
[Letters #131, to Milton Waldman, ?late 1951]

In this is a parallel between Morgoth and Sauron, though also a
difference. While they both lessened their core being, weakened
themselves in the effort to control Middle-earth, Morgoth immediately
lost the 'rapport' with his power, and so was immediately weakened in
his ability to exercise power in the physical world, while Sauron,
only wishing to control the /conscious minds/ of Middle-earth,
externalized his power in such a way that it remained in rapport with
him, and he could access it, but he nevertheless had to weaken his
core being in doing so.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred
it into the Ring.

No, he was weakened because he lost an incarnate body, and had
to rebuild a new one. This is explictely described in letter

Actually he was weakened /in his substance/ by both actions, but by
far the most because he transferred the majority of his power into
the Ring.

Could you (or I?) be misunderstanding what Larry means by
'substance' here? As I read it, he refers to the 'core being' of
Sauron: that which was left to him when you remove all external
devices (Machines), including the One Ring. After Sauron had
transferred most of his power into the One Ring, he had dramatically
weakened his own 'substance', but that had been the cost of
strengthening his ability to exercise power in the physical world,
which he did through the external 'Machine' of the Master Ring.

<snip quotation from letter #200>

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
This point is not disputed,

If the point is not disputed, then why do you say that Sauron was
weakened because he transferred power into the Ring, when we know
explicitely a different reason for it?

No we don't. We know that he also lost a small amount of power in
other ways, but the truly significant weakening of Sauron's
'substance' was in the /transfer/ of power into the One Ring.

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In a general context, of course it wasn't "special". It was
special only as far as the mechanism is different from the other
In the final victory over Sauron, the Ring was destroyed, which
lead to the loss of power transferred to the Ring, which lead to a
weaking beyond the point where Sauron could maintain a body, or
reincarante into a new one.

The weakening of Sauron's substance had occurred with the transfer of
power into the One Ring. After that time, Sauron could use the One
Ring as an /external/ Machine, but the power he had transferred into
it was /not/ a part of himself any longer, but subject to being
'stolen' by another, or even destroyed.

The differences between Sauron and Morgoth are that Morgoth was
immensely more 'powerful' than Sauron in their beginning, and so,
even after dissipating nearly all of his power into the matter of
Arda, still possessed greater power than Sauron in the Third Age,
when compared 'core substance' to 'core substance'. But Sauron had
managed to delay his loss of rapport with and control over the power
he had externalized, and therefore Sauron had /access/ to more power
than Morgoth, even if he didn't hold the Ring (but it still wasn't
mastered by someone else).

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the body was destroyed, which in turn lead to
a weakening as described in letter #200.

This would also obviously have happened when Sauron was killed at the
end of the Third Age, leading to a further diminishment of his core
being.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
The difference is that the direction of causality in the one case
Loss of power leads to loss of body, vs. loss of body leads to
loss of power.

It is not clear that it was the loss of power that led to the death
of Sauron's physical body. It is quite possible that Sauron was
killed in the collapse of Barad-dûr after the foundations crumpled
that were only sustained by the destroyed power of the One Ring. One
might argue that the body he inhabited was 'made or begun with that
power' and hence would also crumple upon its destruction: such would
even be consistent with the statement that without that power, he
would be unable to rebuild his body, but it is not because he didn't
have enough power to sustain his body.

However, whether Sauron's body was destroyed in the fall of the Black
Tower, or because it was made with the power of the One Ring, his
body was still 'killed' by external events, not involving any change
in Sauron's core being.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
That's what I meant by "special". If you don't like the word
"special", fine with me, but it was the above difference I wanted
to point out.

Basically I disagree that this is a significant difference between
Sauron and Morgoth. We can agree that their situation /after/ being
violently disembodied was significantly different from that of
Melian, because they had deliberately squandered the majority of
their power in their bid for control over Middle-earth, but I don't
think that this affects the actual disembodiment itself.

There is, of course, also a difference in the situation of Morgoth
and Sauron after they were last killed: Because of his much greater
stature in the beginning, Morgoth was able to eventually gather again
most of his power, and so rise against the Valar once more, but that
is only on the very long term ;)

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
What does affect his ability to reincarnate is the complete
*destruction* of the Ring: With that, all the power he has
transferred into it originally is lost, and hence he is really
weakened beyond the point where he can reincarnate.

Which is what Larry has been saying,

Well, maybe I misunderstand him completely, but if he and I are
saying the same thing, then there's no need for discussion, is there? :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
But the point is not the *transfer*, the point is the
*destruction* of the transferred power.

I don't agree. The point is the transfer itself leading to the risk
of losing access to the power, not necessarily by its destruction.

I agree, but we're not talking about the *risk*, we're talking about
the actual *mechanism* that leads to the weakening (or at least I am
talking about that). And that cannot be the transfer itself, for the
reasons now given twice.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
We learn specifically that in dissipating his power into the
substance of Arda, Morgoth lost the ability to control the power, to
access it specifically.
Sauron retained that ability as long as the Ring existed and no-one
else had mastered it.

Yes. So the "mechanism" here is different.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The last is important, and we learn in letter # 246 that if Gandalf
had succeeded in winning the mastery of the One Ring 'the result
would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring;
for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever.'

Yes, certainly. But since the Ring was never mastered by anyone else,
I didn't think it was important here.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
But to achieve this [being 'almost supreme in Middle-
earth', TFo] [Sauron] had been obliged to let a great part
of his own inherent power (a frequent and very significant
motive in myth and fairy-story) pass into the One Ring.
While he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced.
But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was
in 'rapport' with himself: he was not 'diminished'.

In other words, he was *not* weakened by the transfer itself.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that
happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong and
heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he
had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so
overthrow him and usurp his place.

Which didn't happen in the "history". We could of course add this to
the list as a new example of how an Ainu could be in theory weakened
to the point where he could no longor maintain a body, but this has
also the wrong causal relationship to compare it to the case of
Melian (see below).

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In this is a parallel between Morgoth and Sauron, though also a
difference. While they both lessened their core being, weakened
themselves in the effort to control Middle-earth, Morgoth immediately
lost the 'rapport' with his power, and so was immediately weakened in
his ability to exercise power in the physical world, while Sauron,
only wishing to control the /conscious minds/ of Middle-earth,
externalized his power in such a way that it remained in rapport with
him, and he could access it, but he nevertheless had to weaken his
core being in doing so.

Well, he *externalized* his core. I took "weaken" to mean "diminish
his power, make it for example more difficult to build up a new
body". In this sense, he is not "weakened" (and that is the sense I
have always been using, because it is the important point if one wants
to understand the mechanism). Of course Sauron weakened himself in a
different sense, by becoming more vulnerable to an attack. But as
Larry used "weaken" in connection with "unable to reincarnate", I
though he was using it in the first sense, too.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred
it into the Ring.

No, he was weakened because he lost an incarnate body, and had
to rebuild a new one. This is explictely described in letter

Actually he was weakened /in his substance/ by both actions, but by
far the most because he transferred the majority of his power into
the Ring.
Could you (or I?) be misunderstanding what Larry means by
'substance' here? As I read it, he refers to the 'core being' of
Sauron: that which was left to him when you remove all external
devices (Machines), including the One Ring.

Ah. It least I use it differently: By "substance", "power", "will"
(or whatever name you would like to give it) I meant some mystical
"force-of-life" that affects the ability of the Ainur to do various
things, like make themselves a new incarnate body.

I didn't take "substance" to have any connection with "core being".

Post by Troels Forchhammer
After Sauron had transferred most of his power into the One Ring, he
had dramatically weakened his own 'substance',

Yes, with your definition of "substance". In my phrasing, that
would become:

After he had transferred his power, he had now re-distributed his
"substance": There is less in the "core", and a good part in the
Ring. But the "substance" itself had not weakened or "diminished" (as
stated in the letter), it was just somewhere else.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
If the point is not disputed, then why do you say that Sauron was
weakened because he transferred power into the Ring, when we know
explicitely a different reason for it?

No we don't. We know that he also lost a small amount of power in
other ways, but the truly significant weakening of Sauron's
'substance' was in the /transfer/ of power into the One Ring.

Yes, with your definition of "substance". But that now less "power"
was available in the core didn't diminish his ability to reincarnate.
Which was what Larry claimed (unless I misunderstood him completely).

I guess I can snip now a somewhat bigger part, I think most of the
rest solves itself once we have sorted out the different meanings of
"substance".

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
The difference is that the direction of causality in the one case
Loss of power leads to loss of body, vs. loss of body leads to
loss of power.

It is not clear that it was the loss of power that led to the death
of Sauron's physical body.

Well, you quoted the letter yourself:

: [...] if the One Ring was actually unmade, annihilated, then its
: power would be dissolved, Sauron's own being would be diminished to
: vanishing point, and he would be reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of
: malicious will.

I took "reduced to a shadow" to mean "to weak to maintain a body, or
to make any impression on ME at all".

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It is quite possible that Sauron was killed in the collapse of
Barad-dûr after the foundations crumpled that were only sustained
by the destroyed power of the One Ring.

I didn't think of that possibility, but I don't think this is very
likely. The above passage doesn't include the provision "if his
body is killed by unlucky events". It says that once the Ring is
destroyed, Sauron becomes completely powerless. A Sauron with
a body quite intact wouldn't be "a mere memory of malicious will".

Post by Troels Forchhammer
However, whether Sauron's body was destroyed in the fall of the Black
Tower, or because it was made with the power of the One Ring, his
body was still 'killed' by external events, not involving any change
in Sauron's core being.

I think we can rule out the first case, and in the second case, it's
exactly my point that his body was not killed by violence to his
body (as in the other cases when the Ainur were killed), but it was
violence to his "life-force" (externalized in the Ring) which lead
to the loss of the body. So while that is still an external event,
the target of the violence is different.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
That's what I meant by "special". If you don't like the word
"special", fine with me, but it was the above difference I wanted
to point out.

Basically I disagree that this is a significant difference between
Sauron and Morgoth.

It's not a difference between Sauron and Morgoth, it's a difference
between the events when the ring was destroyed, and the events
when Sauron's body (twice) resp. Morgoth's body was destroyed.

If you want, it's a difference between Sauron and Sauron :-)

Post by Troels Forchhammer
We can agree that their situation /after/ being
violently disembodied was significantly different from that of
Melian, because they had deliberately squandered the majority of
their power in their bid for control over Middle-earth,

That never was the point.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
but I don't think that this affects the actual disembodiment itself.

So do I.

- Dirk

[Larry Swain]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate to reincarnate,
was lost to him because he had transferred so much his power into
the Ring,

That is definitely wrong. He was able to reincarnate after Numenor,
when he already had made the Ring.

Sorry, old chap, but its definitely right. You'll note both up thread
and in the previous message I sent that the point of the discussion that
I raised was specifically your characterization of Sauron's loss of ody
at the end of the War of the Ring as being "special", and so the point
of my remarks has been toward that characterization.

Sorry, I don't see what that has to do with your claim that Sauron
lost the power to reincarnate because he had transferred power into
his ring. He had already made the Ring and transferred power into it
before his body was destroyed in Numenor.

Oi. I give up. I don't know how to make it any more explicit than I
already have, but I will try once more for the dolt among us: THE
REMARKS AS MADE CLEAR BOTH BY CONTEXT AND *EXPLICIT* STATEMENTS DEAL
WITH THE LOSS OF SAURON'S BODY AT THE END OF THE WAR OF THE RING!!!!!
GET IT YET??????? WHAT IS DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS?
a
Besides, at the Fall of Numenor, he had the Ring, which I pointed out in
my OP.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
What does affect his ability to reincarnate is the complete *destruction*

Which I again, explicitly pointed out. Again not sure what is difficult
for you to understand about this.

With that, all the power he has transferred into it

Post by Dirk Thierbach
originally is lost, and hence he is really weakened beyond the point
where he can reincarnate. But the point is not the *transfer*, the
point is the *destruction* of the transferred power.

Which I again explicitly pointed out. What is so difficult for you to
understand?

Post by Dirk Thierbach
For "special", see below.

It is this that has been focus of my comments: your claim of the
"special" status, as explicitly stated several times now. What is so
difficult to understand about that?

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the *bodies* were destroyed (at various stages of
"boundedness"), which caused a weakening of the "substance", in some
cases beyond the point where they could form a new body.

Sauron was "weakened" in his substance because he transferred it into
the Ring.

No, he was weakened because he lost an incarnate body, and had to
After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while
to re-build, longer than he had done after the Downfall of Númenor
(I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent
energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the
effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the
realization of its imagination). The impossibility of re-building
after the destruction of the Ring is sufficiently clear
'mythologically' in the present book.

This point is not disputed,

If the point is not disputed, then why do you say that Sauron was
weakened because he transferred power into the Ring, when we know
explicitely a different reason for it?

Well, first, because that is explicitly what Tolkien tells us: its in
this little book I read called Lord of the Rings. I invite you to read
it, specifically Book I, chap. 2 and Book 2, chap. 2. Second, as stated
below, and in my original comments, and everything in between, my
comments are pointed toward your claim that Sauron's disembodiment at
the War of the Rings qualifies as "special".

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
in fact the focus of my remarks comes from the last sentence of your
quotation.

And I never disputed that after the desctruction of the Ring, he isn't
able to incarnate any more because he lost the power that he had
transferred into it. In fact, I mentioned this myself.

And I never said you did. AS EXPLICITLY STATED. Dirk, if you can't
read and understand the language, don't participate.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Of course not. But then please make clear you bring it in as a new
point, and not as additional point in the old discussion.

Judging from what I've written, I'd say that what I've been discussing
is Sauron's disembodiment at the end of the War of the Ring and whether
it was "special".

In a general context, of course it wasn't "special". It was special

But then that makes every case "special", since no two disembodiments
result from the same mechanism.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the final victory over Sauron, the Ring was destroyed, which lead
to the loss of power transferred to the Ring, which lead to a weaking
beyond the point where Sauron could maintain a body, or reincarante into
a new one.
In the other cases, the body was destroyed, which in turn lead to
a weakening as described in letter #200.

Actually no. Just sticking with Sauron for a moment, Sauron's body died
in the wreck of Numenor, it was not destroyed, it died like the mortal
bodies of men in that disaster. Similarly at the end of the Last
Alliance on the slopes of Mount Doom, if the body bearing the Ring was
yet alive, it suffered from battle wounds just as Elendil and Gil-Galad
did, and the removal of the Ring from the body weakened whatever hold
Sauron still had on it. Again, the body was not destroyed, it died, and
it died in battle. I. E. each mechanism is different, and the bodies
were not "destroyed".

Post by Dirk Thierbach
The difference is that the direction of causality in the one case
Loss of power leads to loss of body, vs. loss of body leads to loss
of power.

Only in one case: at the fall of Numenor, loss of body lead to loss of
power. On Mt. Doom, it isn't until Isildur takes the Ring that Sauron's
hold on the body is weakened and he leaves to regather his strength. I.
E. Loss of the Ring, and so access to a large part of his substance, in
combination with a body already weakened and wounded, led to loss of
body--i. e. loss of power led to loss of body (Loss of Ring=Loss of
Power, Weakened state due to battle="Loss of Power).

Post by Dirk Thierbach
That's what I meant by "special". If you don't like the word "special",
fine with me, but it was the above difference I wanted to point out.

And which is incorrect.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Larry Swain
The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate to reincarnate,
was lost to him because he had transferred so much his power into
the Ring,

THE REMARKS AS MADE CLEAR BOTH BY CONTEXT AND *EXPLICIT* STATEMENTS
DEAL WITH THE LOSS OF SAURON'S BODY AT THE END OF THE WAR OF THE
RING!!!!! GET IT YET??????? WHAT IS DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO
COMPREHEND ABOUT THIS?

It's difficult for me to comprehend why you make statements that are
wrong in general, and at most misleading when applied to the third
"death" of Sauron.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
What does affect his ability to reincarnate is the complete *destruction*

Which I again, explicitly pointed out. Again not sure what is difficult
for you to understand about this.

Ok, fine, then we are in violent agreement. Just change the sentence
above to

: The power to remain incarnate, and once decarnate to reincarnate,
: was lost to him because the power he had transferred into the Ring
: was lost with destruction of the Ring.

Problem solved? If I express myself in ways that can be misunderstood
(which is easy enough on Usenet), I just correct the phrasing, and
that's the end of it. Why is that so difficult?

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In a general context, of course it wasn't "special". It was special

But then that makes every case "special", since no two disembodiments
result from the same mechanism.

The first two disembodiments of Sauron result from the same mechanism:
His body is killed (see below for the second case).

But in the third case, it's the reversion of causality which makes
it different from all the other cases. What's so difficult to understand
about that? If you don't think that this justifies the name "special",
fine with me. I won't quibble over names.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
In the other cases, the body was destroyed, which in turn lead to
a weakening as described in letter #200.

Actually no. Just sticking with Sauron for a moment, Sauron's body died
in the wreck of Numenor, it was not destroyed, it died like the mortal
bodies of men in that disaster.

Sorry, by "his body was destroyed" I meant "his body was killed". I
didn't use "killed" because that already had lead to a
misunderstanding, but the alternative apparently wasn't any better.
There's of course no complete destruction of the body into little
pieces, or something similar ridiculous.

Post by Dirk Thierbach
The difference is that the direction of causality in the one case
Loss of power leads to loss of body, vs. loss of body leads to loss
of power.

Only in one case: at the fall of Numenor, loss of body lead to loss of
power. On Mt. Doom, it isn't until Isildur takes the Ring that Sauron's
hold on the body is weakened and he leaves to regather his strength.

No. At that point, the body is already dead. Letter #131:

Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of SLAYING SAURON. Isildur,
Elendil's son, cuts die ring from Sauron's hand, and his power
departs, and his spirit flees into the shadows.

[my emphasis]. He really only departs (and "is vanquished" as stated
in LotR) when the Ring is taken into possession by Isildur, maybe
because at that stage he has no hope of taking the Ring with him,
maybe because with the loss of the "rapport" of the Ring he sees
that the situtation as it is now is hopeless.

But the loss of his body and with it the loss of the "power" he
had invested into this body occurs before, when his body is slain
by Gil-galad and Elendil. At least that's how I read the letter.

- Dirk

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Well, we only know about four cases where an Ainu left a body to
which they were bound (Melian, Morgoth, Sauron twice). The first
is the one we're discussing, the other three were all by violence.

For some reason, the number of cases seems to attract more interest
than the rest of the discussion...

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In Morgoth's case, I think you are referring to the point when he
left Aman after Feanor humilated him with his "jail-crow of Mandos"
words,

No, I was referring to his final judgement when the Valar "thrust
[him] into the Timeless Void". As the hroa is part of Arda, Morgoth
couldn't take his body with him into that place. So he must have lost
his body, either at this stage, or already before in the battle.

Ah, OK. That makes sense now.

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Melian (possibly)
Sauron (after Numenor)
Sauron (after Last Alliance defeat)
Sauron (after War of the Rings defeat)

Since this has come up twice now: I excluded the last case, because
it's not Sauron's body which is destroyed, but it's the destruction of
*Ring* which causes his body to be destroyed, too. So that seems special.

Wouldn't the destruction of his body at Numenor be special also? That seems
to be the tipping point, after which he had limited reincarnation options.
Also, the fact that the Ring existed when his body was destroyed at
Numenor/Last Alliance, might be an important point. It is interesting to
speculate what would have happened if the Ring hadn't existed and Sauron's
body had been destroyed - would Luthien's threat make in the First Age have
come true? (The bit about stripping Sauron of his raiment and sending him
back 'naked' and quaking to endure Morgoth's scorn).

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I would suggest that, even if Melian did depart her body, she was
not bound into it to the extent that Sauron was, and not to the
extent that she would have lost her ability to take on fair form
again.

I agree, and have tried to suggest it as well :-)

:-)

Christopher

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Sauron (after Numenor)
Sauron (after Last Alliance defeat)
Sauron (after War of the Rings defeat)

Wouldn't the destruction of his body at Numenor be special also?

Why? The difference between drowning and a sword through your heart
isn't so big: In both cases, the body dies.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
That seems to be the tipping point, after which he had limited
reincarnation options.

That can already explained by the gradual loss of "substance" with
each death.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Also, the fact that the Ring existed when his body was destroyed at
Numenor/Last Alliance, might be an important point.

Maybe, but the parallel with Morgoth (one weakened by disseminating
his substance, so first suffering "pain" when trying to incarnate and
finally unable to take on a beautiful body, the other weakened by the
loss of his bodies and so going through similar restrictions) seems to
suggest that in this respect it wasn't very important.

- Dirk

[Stan Brown]

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:07:56 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
That is obviously a possibility, although, IMO, at best a theoretical
one, since we know that she had engaged in the most binding
activities of all. Melian was doubtlessly as bound to her body as
Morgoth were when he returned to Middle-earth.

Something I haven't seen anywhere in this thread is explicit mention
of the big difference between Melian and Morgoth: she used her bodily
form for good, and he used his for evil.

I don't know of anywhere Tolkien says that makes a difference, but I
bet it does. I suspect Tolkien took it for granted that it does.

Morgoth had lost the ability to leave his body voluntarily and walk
unclad. He could still do it by violence, but as he was a bit of a
coward I can't see him voluntarily ending that level of pain.

Melian may or may not have lost the ability to leave hers
voluntarily. I still like Troels' explanation, that she lay down and
died of grief. But I think it's also possible that she still had the
ability to walk unclad voluntarily. I know Tolkien said having a
child bound one to the fea more than anything else, but that's still
not the same as binding with no possibility of a split.

What I can't accept is her making her way bodily through Beleriand
and then taking ship to Valinor. At the time she left, no ships were
making it through; and walking through Beleriand doesn't seem much
like "vanished out of Middle-earth".

[Stan Brown]

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:21:27 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

And when even humans like Aragorn have the ability to give up
life voluntarily if they want to, so it seems strange that
"greater" beings like the Ainur should loose this ability just
as they became closer to humans.

As I read the texts, this ability is particular to humans and rely on
a desire to go beyond the circles of Arda

I think Firiel (Mrs. Finwë) is a counterexample. She lay down and
dies, on purpose.

However, hers might be characterized as an act of rebellion, and the
Valar were much perplexed because they didn't know hat to do with an
Elda who had voluntarily disembodied and refused reincarnation.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Stan Brown
Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:21:27 +0200 from Troels Forchhammer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
As I read the texts, this ability is particular to humans and
rely on a desire to go beyond the circles of Arda

I think Firiel (Mrs. Finwë) is a counterexample. She lay down and
dies, on purpose.

Good point.

Post by Stan Brown
However, hers might be characterized as an act of rebellion, and
the Valar were much perplexed because they didn't know hat to do
with an Elda who had voluntarily disembodied and refused
reincarnation.

It was definitely unforeseen and even against the intentions of Eru
that the Eldar should do such a thing: a result specifically of the
Marring.

But it is nevertheless clear that her exhaustion would give her the
same ability to leave her body behind as would grief. On this basis
I'd guess that the Eldar had the ability to leave the body and 'die'
if they strongly desired it -- not only when the desire was a result
of grief (what they could never have would be a desire to leave the
body and 'move on' -- to leave the world in contentment of a good
life).

[Tom Hook]

<snip>
That word "order" is a slippery one, and Tolkien uses it in different
ways. Sometimes Gandalf's "order" is the Istari; sometimes it's the
Maiar.
<snip>

Some speculations on my part:

In letter 156, Tolkien goes into great detail about Gandalf and his own
authorial "cheating" (Tolkien's word) by having Gandalf return after
his death from the battle with the Balrog. Tolkien also calls this
enhancement of Gandalf's powers a "defect", one that he "did not work
hard enough to mend." He explains this by saying he wanted to keep "all
allusions to highest matters down to the merest hints" and keep "them
under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods only
peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo..."

It therefore seems clear to me that Tolkien saw the value of keeping
the reader in the dark when it came to explicit definitions of orders
and levels of power especially since it allowed him to perform a
literary sleight of hand as he might have realized - in medias res -
that the story needed a more robust Gandalf. Slippery seems a good word
to use here, for Tolkien does seem to allow precise definitions to
"slip our grasp" in this area of what actually constitutes the powers
of the Isatari.

However, in the same letter, he suddenly becomes very clear when he
says of Gandalf: "There are naturally no precise modern terms to say
what he was. I would venture to say he was an incarnate angel. - a
messenger ... an emissary from the lords of the West. ... by incarnate
I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and
weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of
being 'killed''.

Tolkien then expands to include "... all the angelic powers concerned
with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing
between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his
satellite, Sauron and the faineance of some of the other powers or
'gods'. The wizards were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more
likely to stray, or err."

Tolkien is giving himself a lot of wiggle room here saying - "ALL the
angelic powers were capable of MANY degrees of error (my emphases)" -
again giving us the slip through the artful use of inexactitude, or
perhaps to say more aptly, through the artful use of a divine protean
power that shifts shapes or enhances the spirit to the degree necessary
at the moment.

After the death of Gandalf the Gray and the moral failings of Saruman,
Tolkien goes on to say: "The wizards as such had failed, or if you
like: the crisis became too grave and needed an enhancement of power.
So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and
returned." The notion that Gandalf would sacrifice himself is an
interesting one, almost as if he had to go back into the West for a
tune-up. But Tolkien's words here imply that Gandalf made a choice,
that his original package of powers was not sufficient for the problem
at hand and he needed an upgrade.

I wonder again: did Tolkien create this twist in the plot to satisfy
what may have been an evolving storyline that up to that point he had
not yet fully thought through? Reading HOME VI through VIII, he seemed
to have a gift for transforming the direction his characters might take
as things changed and evolved.

Tolkien describes the new, improved Gandalf: "Both his wisdom and power
are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention: the old Gandalf
could not have dealt so with Theoden nor with Saruman. He is still
under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather
than forcing or dominating wills, but where physical powers of the
Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective
he can act in emergency as an 'angel' ".

Finally this, in the end Gandalf sums himself up "as the enemy of
Sauron". Tolkien then says "he could have added 'For that purpose I was
sent to Middle-earth.' But by that he would at the end have meant more
than at the beginning."

A slippery notion indeed!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Post by Tom Hook

<snip>
That word "order" is a slippery one, and Tolkien uses it in different
ways. Sometimes Gandalf's "order" is the Istari; sometimes it's the
Maiar.
<snip>

In letter 156, Tolkien goes into great detail about Gandalf and his own
authorial "cheating" (Tolkien's word) by having Gandalf return after his
death from the battle with the Balrog. Tolkien also calls this
enhancement of Gandalf's powers a "defect", one that he "did not work
hard enough to mend." He explains this by saying he wanted to keep "all
allusions to highest matters down to the merest hints" and keep "them
under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods only
peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo..."

[snip very interesting argument; refer to OP]

I really don't read #156 that way at all. Tolkien doesn't use 'cheating'
of himself here in either place: the first instance, he's referring to Fr.
Murray and another reader's use of the word; in the next paragraph the use
is subjunctive, i.e. 'It would have been "cheating" to treat Death as
making no difference, but I didn't do that.'

I think it's fairly clear that JRRT isn't saying that Gandalf's return is
itself the 'defect,' but rather that the way he handled it in 'The White
Rider' could have been done better. He plainly realizes that Gandalf's
account of what happened to him holds up the narrative, but that it's an
inadequate explanation; yet to go on at greater length would have brought
the narrative to a dead stop.

It's in presenting Fr Murray with this explnation that Tolkien returns to
'cheating' and the difference that Death makes. Gandalf *had* to be
changed; to do otherwise would have been 'cheating.' This is the sense of
narrative mandate which Tolkien intends here. Story-internally, he then
relates how it came to be: Gandalf the Grey was an emissary of the Valar,
but Gandalf the White was an emissary of Iluvatar, and so naturally was
greatly enhanced beyond his original stature. I suspect something of the
sort underlay Tolkien's thought years later when discussing Glorfindel,
and concluding that Glorfindel redivivus would have been enhanced nearly
to the level of a Maia.

[Tom Hook]

On 2007-04-03 11:33:39 -0400, "William Cloud Hicklin"

Post by William Cloud Hicklin

Post by Tom Hook

<snip>
That word "order" is a slippery one, and Tolkien uses it in different
ways. Sometimes Gandalf's "order" is the Istari; sometimes it's the
Maiar.
<snip>

In letter 156, Tolkien goes into great detail about Gandalf and his own
authorial "cheating" (Tolkien's word) by having Gandalf return after
his death from the battle with the Balrog. Tolkien also calls this
enhancement of Gandalf's powers a "defect", one that he "did not work
hard enough to mend." He explains this by saying he wanted to keep "all
allusions to highest matters down to the merest hints" and keep "them
under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods only
peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo..."

[snip very interesting argument; refer to OP]
I really don't read #156 that way at all. Tolkien doesn't use
'cheating' of himself here in either place: the first instance, he's
referring to Fr. Murray and another reader's use of the word; in the
next paragraph the use is subjunctive, i.e. 'It would have been
"cheating" to treat Death as making no difference, but I didn't do
that.'

<snip>

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
It's in presenting Fr Murray with this explnation that Tolkien returns
to 'cheating' and the difference that Death makes. Gandalf *had* to
be changed; to do otherwise would have been 'cheating.'

<snip>

You have taken me back to the text to re-read what is a complicated
letter. I had read the mood as indicative when he actually does use
the word "cheating" in paragraph 3 by saying:

"Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only
real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as
making no difference."

As I think about it now, you're right. This sentence is awkwardly
constructed but Tolkien does not concede the point saying instead it
would only be cheating if Gandalf did not change. The placement of the
colon in the above quote makes all that follows after it one
conditional thought, and since Gandalf's death did make a difference
because he was changed, it was not cheating.

It is a subtle use of the subjunctive.

That it comes as a surprise when Gandalf re-appears argues for a minor
defect and perhaps even an implausible one as it comes almost as a
contrivance (deus ex machina?) but it is not a cheat. I say contrivance
here because there is little in the reader's mind up to that point to
accept such a change, a change described by Tolkien as happening "at
the turn of the tide". The transformation and return of Gandalf is the
pivot upon which the plot turns. A lot of new information about Gandalf
is thrown at the reader in "The White Rider", a reader one must assume
who has not read the appendices or any other works concerning the first
and second ages.

At the beginning of paragraph 7, Tolkien's third use of the word
"cheating" is clearly subjunctive again but it is not clear to me what
he is talking about when he says: "But if it is 'cheating' to treat
'death' as making no difference, embodiment must not be ignored."

If the question argues for the implied negative, is this to say that
"if it is not cheating to treat death as making a difference,
embodiment can be ignored?"

As I said, the letter is complicated when it addresses this issue.

Tom

[Christopher Kreuzer]

"Tom Hook" <***@hookwork.com> wrote:

<snip>

[a belated response to a point raised in this interesting subthread - which
was started by Tom's interesting post on letter 156]

Post by Tom Hook
That it comes as a surprise when Gandalf re-appears argues for a minor
defect and perhaps even an implausible one as it comes almost as a
contrivance (deus ex machina?) but it is not a cheat.

Funnily enough, I always saw this return of Gandalf as _less_ of a deus ex
machina than the later one where Sam and Frodo are rescued by Gandalf and
the Eagles. When I first read LotR, I had read /The Hobbit/ and of course
recognised the symmetry (made explicit by Pippin at the Black Gate) of the
appearance of the Eagles. It was this that made the Eagles appearance seem
contrived to me - "oh, he (Tolkien) is just repeating what happened at the
Battle of the Five Armies" and then I carried on reading the story.

My reaction to the return of Gandalf must have been less memorable, because
I don't remember what it was! (If I'm totally honest, I probably don't
really remember my initial reaction to the appearance of the Eagles at the
Battle of the Morannon either - let's call that 'recollection' an educated
guess!) But I do remember, after the Moria chapters, not really believing
that Gandalf was dead. Even back then, on my initial readings, I had an
inkling that Gandalf was something special, and that we maybe hadn't seen
the last of him at the Bridge, or heard the last of him when Sam talked
about his fireworks, and when Aragorn, at Parth Galen, agonised over what
Gandalf's advice would have been.

I do remember though that Gandalf, on my initial readings, was one of my
favourite characters - the one whose dialogue I would endlessly read out
aloud; the character I instinctively knew was the prime mover of what was
going on; the one that everyone looked up to. And when he returned, as
Pippin said, he was even better than before, telling us more than he used to
and being even more authoritative. The scene in 'The White Rider' when
Gandalf is acknowledged by Aragorn as their captain and banner, who has been
through the fire and the abyss, is visceral in its appeal.

There are many other moments that follow as Gandalf the White stamps his
quiet (and sometimes not so quiet) authority on those around him in the
ensuing scenes - first in the Golden Hall, then in the throne room of Minas
Tirith, then in battle for the city, at the Last Debate, and at the scenes
before the Black Gate. I remember the thrill I felt near the end, at
Aragorn's coronation, when first Frodo, and then Gandalf bring the crown to
Aragorn, and Gandalf invokes the name of the Valar as he crowns Aragorn -
that frisson of excitement, even though I had no clue at the time who or
what the Valar were.

The final revelations come when Gandalf and Aragorn, from that hallow high
on the slopes of Mount Mindolluin, survey Aragorn's realm, and Gandalf
quietly says that he, Gandalf, was the Enemy of Sauron, and that this Third
Age has been _his_ age.

Post by Tom Hook
I say contrivance here because there is little in the reader's mind up to
that
point to accept such a change, a change described by Tolkien as happening
"at the turn of the tide". The transformation and return of Gandalf is the
pivot upon which the plot turns. A lot of new information about Gandalf is
thrown at the reader in "The White Rider", a reader one must assume who
has not read the appendices or any other works concerning the first and
second ages.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of this information isn't directly
there. But I think the atmosphere and tone of the writing succeeds in
transmitting the feel of the power of Gandalf the White, at least to readers
receptive to such things. And such a change, for want of a better phrase,
feels _right_ in Tolkien's world. It doesn't seem strange that powerful
beings can seemingly come back from the dead with enhanced powers. It
_could_ seem strange, but I think Tolkien manages (just) to make it seem
natural enough to not be too disjointed.

Turning from Gandalf, to another topic altogether, you mention Tolkien's use
of the phrase "turn of the tide". Tolkien's use of a 'tide' metaphor is very
interesting, and is indeed another topic altogether. Tolkien uses this
metaphor quite a lot, in battles mainly, but also in other places. I have a
feeling that such repetitive use has an important literary function. The
reader may not consciously register each instance, but I feel that
subconsciously, the repeated imagery is reinforced with each use of the
metaphor, and the overall impact is greater than the sum of its parts.

As early as 'The Council of Elrond', Boromir says:

"Mayhap the Sword-that-was-Broken may still stem the tide - if the hand that
wields it has inherited not an heirloom only, but the sinews of the Kings of
Men."

In 'The Mirror of Galadriel' chapter, Galadriel uses tide metaphors as well,
albeit in a different sense, that of fate rather than power struggles:

"In the morning you must depart for now we have chosen, and the tides of
fate are flowing."

Eomer repeats it again in 'The Riders of Rohan':

"The Heir of Elendil would be a strength indeed to the Sons of Eorl in this
evil tide"

And the Riders indeed overtake the 'Uruk-Hai' in that chapter:

"gaining on the Orcs, gaining on them like a tide over the flats on folk
straying in a quicksand"

Then we have the classic use by Gandalf, that you pointed out in 'The White
Rider':

"We meet again. At the turn of the tide. The great storm is coming, but the
tide has turned." [and later, concerning the anger of the Ents:] "it will
soon be running like a flood; but its tide is turned against Saruman and the
axes of Isengard."

Then at 'Helm's Deep':

"Hundreds and hundreds more [orcs] were pouring over the Dike and through
the breach. The dark tide flowed up to the walls from cliff to cliff"

And then Gandalf, having ridden on the wings of the storm, cries aloud to
the gate guards of Minas Tirith:

"Whatever betide, you have come to the end of the Gondor that you have
known. Let me pass!"

Here, betide is an archaic word meaning "comes to pass", but the
associations with the ebb and flow of a tide would make for an interesting
etymological discussion.

Hirgon, delivering grim news and the Red Arrow to Theoden, says in 'The
Muster of Rohan':

"For it is before the walls of Minas Tirith that the doom of our time will
be decided, and if the tide be not stemmed there, then it will flow over all
the fair fields of Rohan, and even in this Hold among the hills there shall
be no refuge."

When, in response to this plea from Gondor, the Riders of Rohan arrive at
the Fields of Pelennor, we are told:

"Now silently the host of Rohan moved forward into the field of Gondor,
pouring in slowly but steadily, like the rising tide through breaches in a
dike that men have thought secure." [and later] "gathering speed like a
great tide their battle swept about their fallen king and passed, roaring
away southwards" [and later still] "But the hosts of Mordor were seized with
bewilderment [...] the tides of fate had turned against them and their doom
was at hand"

[Note the use of fate again here, as in Galadriel's example. The next
example is also, arguably, a use of the word tide in the sense of fate.]

At the end of the battle, Aragorn says:

"Behold the Sun setting in a great fire! It is a sign of the end and fall of
many things, and a change in the tides of the world."

[ie. a change in the fates of the world]

Earlier, at Pelargir:

"the Shadow Host that had hung back at the last came up like a grey tide,
sweeping all away before it"

And at the Last Debate, Imrahil and Gandalf use the metaphor again:

"...would have us retreat to Minas Tirith, or Dol Amroth, or to Dunharrow,
and there sit like children on sand-castles when the tide is flowing?" ...
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world"

[ie. to master all the fates of the world]

Aragorn bids Merry farewell:

"you will come also to a last stand, either here or wherever the black tide
overtakes you. Farewell!"

And then at the Morannon:

"The onslaught of Mordor broke like a wave on the beleaguered hills, voices
roaring like a tide amid the wreck and crash of arms."

Individually, all these instances are powerful enough, but I contend that,
taken together, subconsciously, or even consciously, registered by the
reader of the book, the continual reinforcement of this tide metaphor
extends throughout the book, and has an even more powerful collective
effect. Indeed, this argument could be extended to cover other instances of
repeated use of the same metaphor, theme, trope, motif, or whatever. To make
it even more interesting, there is a fate connotation being mixed up here in
several of the tide metaphors.

Maybe, when reading out favourite passages, we are subconsciously recalling
the other instances in the text where similar language is used, and a
literary resonance effect is being produced?

Yeah. I have no idea what a "literary resonance effect" is either. :-) Maybe
I need to find the right terminology, but does anyone recognise the feeling
I am describing?

Christopher

[Tom Hook]

On 2007-04-03 18:48:00 -0400, "Christopher Kreuzer"

<snip>
[a belated response to a point raised in this interesting subthread - which
was started by Tom's interesting post on letter 156]

Post by Tom Hook
That it comes as a surprise when Gandalf re-appears argues for a minor
defect and perhaps even an implausible one as it comes almost as a
contrivance (deus ex machina?) but it is not a cheat.

Funnily enough, I always saw this return of Gandalf as _less_ of a deus ex
machina than the later one where Sam and Frodo are rescued by Gandalf and
the Eagles. When I first read LotR, I had read /The Hobbit/ and of course
recognised the symmetry (made explicit by Pippin at the Black Gate) of the
appearance of the Eagles. It was this that made the Eagles appearance seem
contrived to me - "oh, he (Tolkien) is just repeating what happened at the
Battle of the Five Armies" and then I carried on reading the story.
My reaction to the return of Gandalf must have been less memorable, because
I don't remember what it was! (If I'm totally honest, I probably don't
really remember my initial reaction to the appearance of the Eagles at the
Battle of the Morannon either - let's call that 'recollection' an educated
guess!) But I do remember, after the Moria chapters, not really believing
that Gandalf was dead. Even back then, on my initial readings, I had an
inkling that Gandalf was something special, and that we maybe hadn't seen
the last of him at the Bridge, or heard the last of him when Sam talked
about his fireworks, and when Aragorn, at Parth Galen, agonised over what
Gandalf's advice would have been.
I do remember though that Gandalf, on my initial readings, was one of my
favourite characters - the one whose dialogue I would endlessly read out
aloud; the character I instinctively knew was the prime mover of what was
going on; the one that everyone looked up to. And when he returned, as
Pippin said, he was even better than before, telling us more than he used to
and being even more authoritative. The scene in 'The White Rider' when
Gandalf is acknowledged by Aragorn as their captain and banner, who has been
through the fire and the abyss, is visceral in its appeal.
There are many other moments that follow as Gandalf the White stamps his
quiet (and sometimes not so quiet) authority on those around him in the
ensuing scenes - first in the Golden Hall, then in the throne room of Minas
Tirith, then in battle for the city, at the Last Debate, and at the scenes
before the Black Gate. I remember the thrill I felt near the end, at
Aragorn's coronation, when first Frodo, and then Gandalf bring the crown to
Aragorn, and Gandalf invokes the name of the Valar as he crowns Aragorn -
that frisson of excitement, even though I had no clue at the time who or
what the Valar were.
The final revelations come when Gandalf and Aragorn, from that hallow high
on the slopes of Mount Mindolluin, survey Aragorn's realm, and Gandalf
quietly says that he, Gandalf, was the Enemy of Sauron, and that this Third
Age has been _his_ age.

Post by Tom Hook
I say contrivance here because there is little in the reader's mind up to
that
point to accept such a change, a change described by Tolkien as happening
"at the turn of the tide". The transformation and return of Gandalf is the
pivot upon which the plot turns. A lot of new information about Gandalf is
thrown at the reader in "The White Rider", a reader one must assume who
has not read the appendices or any other works concerning the first and
second ages.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of this information isn't directly
there. But I think the atmosphere and tone of the writing succeeds in
transmitting the feel of the power of Gandalf the White, at least to readers
receptive to such things. And such a change, for want of a better phrase,
feels _right_ in Tolkien's world. It doesn't seem strange that powerful
beings can seemingly come back from the dead with enhanced powers. It
_could_ seem strange, but I think Tolkien manages (just) to make it seem
natural enough to not be too disjointed.

Here your words remind me of the unconscious suspension of disbelief
(hardly willing and here I must disagree with Coleridge) without which
this scene might otherwise suffer. I agree with you, when first reading
the chapter, I bought into the return of Gandalf without a blink of an
eye. It is only upon reflection and re-reading that suspension becomes
more difficult (as I become less unconscious). Reading from HOME and
other sources tells me more than I might need to know and thereby can
spoil the magical effect of simply losing myself in the story.

Turning from Gandalf, to another topic altogether, you mention Tolkien's use
of the phrase "turn of the tide". Tolkien's use of a 'tide' metaphor is very
interesting, and is indeed another topic altogether. Tolkien uses this
metaphor quite a lot, in battles mainly, but also in other places. I have a
feeling that such repetitive use has an important literary function. The
reader may not consciously register each instance, but I feel that
subconsciously, the repeated imagery is reinforced with each use of the
metaphor, and the overall impact is greater than the sum of its parts.
"Mayhap the Sword-that-was-Broken may still stem the tide - if the hand that
wields it has inherited not an heirloom only, but the sinews of the Kings of
Men."
In 'The Mirror of Galadriel' chapter, Galadriel uses tide metaphors as well,
"In the morning you must depart for now we have chosen, and the tides of
fate are flowing."
"The Heir of Elendil would be a strength indeed to the Sons of Eorl in this
evil tide"
"gaining on the Orcs, gaining on them like a tide over the flats on folk
straying in a quicksand"
Then we have the classic use by Gandalf, that you pointed out in 'The White
"We meet again. At the turn of the tide. The great storm is coming, but the
tide has turned." [and later, concerning the anger of the Ents:] "it will
soon be running like a flood; but its tide is turned against Saruman and the
axes of Isengard."
"Hundreds and hundreds more [orcs] were pouring over the Dike and through
the breach. The dark tide flowed up to the walls from cliff to cliff"
And then Gandalf, having ridden on the wings of the storm, cries aloud to
"Whatever betide, you have come to the end of the Gondor that you have
known. Let me pass!"
Here, betide is an archaic word meaning "comes to pass", but the
associations with the ebb and flow of a tide would make for an interesting
etymological discussion.
Hirgon, delivering grim news and the Red Arrow to Theoden, says in 'The
"For it is before the walls of Minas Tirith that the doom of our time will
be decided, and if the tide be not stemmed there, then it will flow over all
the fair fields of Rohan, and even in this Hold among the hills there shall
be no refuge."
When, in response to this plea from Gondor, the Riders of Rohan arrive at
"Now silently the host of Rohan moved forward into the field of Gondor,
pouring in slowly but steadily, like the rising tide through breaches in a
dike that men have thought secure." [and later] "gathering speed like a
great tide their battle swept about their fallen king and passed, roaring
away southwards" [and later still] "But the hosts of Mordor were seized with
bewilderment [...] the tides of fate had turned against them and their doom
was at hand"
[Note the use of fate again here, as in Galadriel's example. The next
example is also, arguably, a use of the word tide in the sense of fate.]
"Behold the Sun setting in a great fire! It is a sign of the end and fall of
many things, and a change in the tides of the world."
[ie. a change in the fates of the world]
"the Shadow Host that had hung back at the last came up like a grey tide,
sweeping all away before it"
"...would have us retreat to Minas Tirith, or Dol Amroth, or to Dunharrow,
and there sit like children on sand-castles when the tide is flowing?" ...
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world"
[ie. to master all the fates of the world]
"you will come also to a last stand, either here or wherever the black tide
overtakes you. Farewell!"
"The onslaught of Mordor broke like a wave on the beleaguered hills, voices
roaring like a tide amid the wreck and crash of arms."
Individually, all these instances are powerful enough, but I contend that,
taken together, subconsciously, or even consciously, registered by the
reader of the book, the continual reinforcement of this tide metaphor
extends throughout the book, and has an even more powerful collective
effect. Indeed, this argument could be extended to cover other instances of
repeated use of the same metaphor, theme, trope, motif, or whatever. To make
it even more interesting, there is a fate connotation being mixed up here in
several of the tide metaphors.

Your ability to recall all these instances of the tidal metaphors is
impressive - truly! The tides produce such a dramatic change. I can't
make a connection as I write this between the tides and fate except the
inexorable force that comes and goes with a will of its own.

As I read through the list you have cited, I wonder about the moon
however, that power that causes the seas to move while creating such a
clear elvish light. I am reminded of that great description from one of
the lays described the ethereal moth-white moonlight of the night sky.

Maybe, when reading out favourite passages, we are subconsciously recalling
the other instances in the text where similar language is used, and a
literary resonance effect is being produced?
Yeah. I have no idea what a "literary resonance effect" is either. :-) Maybe
I need to find the right terminology, but does anyone recognise the feeling
I am describing?

Resonance is a fine word to describe the effect of one image or feeling
reverberating into distance places and coloring those places with a
trace and echo of itself. That Tolkien was captivated by the tides
seems evident from your citing so many sources. I don't know why he was
so captivated but he certainly used it to good effect.

Christopher

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Yeah. I have no idea what a "literary resonance effect" is either.
Maybe
I need to find the right terminology, but does anyone recognise the feeling
I am describing?
Resonance is a fine word to describe the effect of one image or feeling
reverberating into distance places and coloring those places with a
trace and echo of itself. That Tolkien was captivated by the tides seems
evident from your citing so many sources. I don't know why he was so
captivated but he certainly used it to good effect.

For whatever reason, doubtless personal and biographical, Tolkien was
always entranced by the Sea, which plays such an enormous role in his
mythology,* and I expect that the Tide metaphor is an extension thereof-
not really a conscious thing, but an image close to the front of his mind.

* e.g. that the sound of water preserves a memory of the Great Music; that
Ulmo is that Vala most concerned with the Eruhini's welfare; and of course
the almost mystical role of Belegaer as barrier, pathway, and agent of
destruction.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:48:00 -0400, Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Tom Hook
That it comes as a surprise when Gandalf re-appears argues for a minor
defect and perhaps even an implausible one as it comes almost as a
contrivance (deus ex machina?) but it is not a cheat.

Funnily enough, I always saw this return of Gandalf as _less_ of a deus ex
machina than the later one where Sam and Frodo are rescued by Gandalf and
the Eagles. When I first read LotR, I had read /The Hobbit/ and of course
recognised the symmetry (made explicit by Pippin at the Black Gate) of the
appearance of the Eagles. It was this that made the Eagles appearance seem
contrived to me - "oh, he (Tolkien) is just repeating what happened at the
Battle of the Five Armies" and then I carried on reading the story.

It didn't bother me on my initial reading; but then I was a kid at the
time. By the time I was reading critically, it was post-Silmarillion, and
I immediately saw it as the intervention of Manwe- both the Eagles and the
great wind, without which the Eagles would never have reached Mt Doom in
time. Similarly, the 'wind from the sea' that arises at the Pelennor
Fields seemed to reflect Manwe and Ulmo both at work, breaking Sauron's
Darkness prematurely, and wafting Aragorn's fleet northward.

[Peter Knutsen]

Stan Brown wrote:
[...]

Post by Stan Brown
Or else it was just an error. It's not clear to me that Gandalf was
actually much inferior to Sauron, natively. Yes, until his death he
was "cloaked" and as an Istar had given up much of his power. But
after his death, when he came back resembling the spirit he had been

I think the Valar gave Gandalf some severe buffs, before sending him back.

Post by Stan Brown
in Valinor, it seemed he was the equal of Sauron, or pretty nearly.
Gandalf de-Maiarized Saruman and nearly blasted a Nazgûl out of the
sky; could Sauron have done more?

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Stan Brown
Or else it was just an error. It's not clear to me that Gandalf
was actually much inferior to Sauron, natively. Yes, until his
death he was "cloaked" and as an Istar had given up much of his
power. But after his death, when he came back resembling the
spirit he had been

I think the Valar gave Gandalf some severe buffs, before sending him back.

Eru, actually, but yes ;)

I would, however, prefer to put it differently: I think that the
significant change was in loosening restrictions and limitations
imposed on Gandalf -- he became closer to what he might have been as a
naturally self-embodied Maia.

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by William Cloud Hicklin
It's clear that Tolkien envisioned the Maiar as varying greatly in
their individual "stature" and innate powers. Some, like Osse, were

[...]

Likewise, of the 15 (or 14 if you ignore Melkor) Valar, some were
considered to be particularly great. IIRC there were 8 or 9 of these,
i.e. more than half.