The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh · 12-04-2003, 05:53 AM

That's why it's important to speak clearly and precisely. The statement to which I was responding declared that there were no records of Maiar having offspring. This is a statement of fact, not a rule. As such it can have no exceptions, but is either right or wrong. Melian was a Maia, and there are records of her having offspring, so the statement is wrong. I note now that this was mentioned above, but the statement is no more correct for that.

As it happens, in the earlier conceptions of the mythology Fionwë was the son of Manwë, and the Valinorean host was led by 'the sons of the Valar'. Much later, Tolkien declared that the production of offspring was one of those activities that could bind an ëala to its assumed hröa. This statement (from the essay Ósanwe-kenta) may be found in Obloquy's first post in the Ëalar and Incarnation thread.

The clear implication is that Ainur could, if both incarnate, produce offspring between them (although there are no examples in the writings as they have come down to us), but that this would serve to bind both spirits more closely to their assumed hröa. The presence of this concept at widely spaced intervals in the development of the Legendarium is for me a clear indication that it was early conceived and never abandoned. It should be noted that something cannot be assumed to be impossible within Tolkien's mythological framework simply because it lacks precedent in his writings, although as late as the commencement of The Lord of the Rings he clearly had it in his mind that the Valar could conceive and bear children among themselves.

The actual quotation from Myths Transformed, which has been alluded to by various people on this thread is:

<SUB>What of talking beasts and birds? with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show that they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common. But true 'rational' creatures, 'speaking peoples', are all of human / 'humanoid' form. Only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume forms of Arda at will. Huan and Sorontar [Thorondor] could be Maiar - emissaries of Manwë. But unfortunately in The Lord of the Rings Gwaehir and Landroval are said to be descendents of Sorontar.</SUB>

(Morgoth's Ring pp 409-410)

This is about as unambiguous a statement as it can be, although on a cursory reading it might be misconstrued: the Eagles cannot be descended from a Maiarin Thorondor; therefore, since Tolkien has already said in a published work that they are descended from Thorondor, he cannot have been a Maia (or by implication any ëala, as Obloquy's post states). Why Tolkien thought this is dealt with in the same section of Myths Transformed.

Returning very briefly to the subject of the canonicity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I accept those simply because Tolkien himself tried always to avoid contradicting them, as the quotation from Morgoth's Ring indicates. If Tolkien accepted those publications as canon, then I think it only fair for us to do likewise.

[ 3:13 PM December 04, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

12-04-2003, 05:53 AM	#26
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh Spectre of Decay Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bar-en-Danwedh Posts: 2,178	That's why it's important to speak clearly and precisely. The statement to which I was responding declared that there were no records of Maiar having offspring. This is a statement of fact, not a rule. As such it can have no exceptions, but is either right or wrong. Melian was a Maia, and there are records of her having offspring, so the statement is wrong. I note now that this was mentioned above, but the statement is no more correct for that. As it happens, in the earlier conceptions of the mythology Fionwë was the son of Manwë, and the Valinorean host was led by 'the sons of the Valar'. Much later, Tolkien declared that the production of offspring was one of those activities that could bind an ëala to its assumed hröa. This statement (from the essay Ósanwe-kenta) may be found in Obloquy's first post in the Ëalar and Incarnation thread. The clear implication is that Ainur could, if both incarnate, produce offspring between them (although there are no examples in the writings as they have come down to us), but that this would serve to bind both spirits more closely to their assumed hröa. The presence of this concept at widely spaced intervals in the development of the Legendarium is for me a clear indication that it was early conceived and never abandoned. It should be noted that something cannot be assumed to be impossible within Tolkien's mythological framework simply because it lacks precedent in his writings, although as late as the commencement of The Lord of the Rings he clearly had it in his mind that the Valar could conceive and bear children among themselves. The actual quotation from Myths Transformed, which has been alluded to by various people on this thread is: <SUB>What of talking beasts and birds? with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show that they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common. But true 'rational' creatures, 'speaking peoples', are all of human / 'humanoid' form. Only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume forms of Arda at will. Huan and Sorontar [Thorondor] could be Maiar - emissaries of Manwë. But unfortunately in The Lord of the Rings Gwaehir and Landroval are said to be descendents of Sorontar.</SUB> (Morgoth's Ring pp 409-410) This is about as unambiguous a statement as it can be, although on a cursory reading it might be misconstrued: the Eagles cannot be descended from a Maiarin Thorondor; therefore, since Tolkien has already said in a published work that they are descended from Thorondor, he cannot have been a Maia (or by implication any ëala, as Obloquy's post states). Why Tolkien thought this is dealt with in the same section of Myths Transformed. Returning very briefly to the subject of the canonicity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I accept those simply because Tolkien himself tried always to avoid contradicting them, as the quotation from Morgoth's Ring indicates. If Tolkien accepted those publications as canon, then I think it only fair for us to do likewise. [ 3:13 PM December 04, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ] __________________ Man kenuva métim' andúne?