Boldogs, Gothmogs and Sauron's New Clothes

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Neithan]

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Obloquy

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

No, the definition of eala is clearly quoted above.

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

[Petty Dwarf]

No, the definition of eala is clearly quoted above.

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

Obviously embodied, Ungoliant was no longer an ëala.

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

[obloquy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This may be a bit late, but...

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

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

[Neithan]

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

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

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Neithan

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

Since Sauron gets his own ranking, we might as well make a separate ranking for each individual Umaia, since all Maiar (and thus all Balrogs) were not created equal.