[Legolas]

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

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

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

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

About "white wizards":

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

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

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

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

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