A few questions about the Maiar

[Michael Martinez]

I think you're confusing Ea and Arda. Ea is the universe and is far, far older than Arda, which encompasses Middle-earth. Arda began as a single world, but eventually the Valar created the Sun, the Moon, and Venus, and Iluvatar divided Aman from Middle-earth, making Middle-earth into the round and inescapable Earth where we now dwell.

Tom was an aborigine of Middle-earth, possibly of Arda. His memory of Melkor coming from Outside is probably of Melkor's return to Arda after the Valar had settled on Almaren. Tom should have been alive by then.

I don't believe it was his purpose to guard trees. I think he was there to help the Children in ways the Valar could not be expected to. He was older and wiser than Elves, Dwarves, and Men, but he probably had no direct, personal knowledge of Iluvatar or what lay beyond Arda. So he was in a way like an elder sibling, but not so far beyond the Children in experience that he represented a true danger to them (as Melkor and Sauron did).

[Ñólendil]

Somewhy Michael I think you've misunderstood me. I understand about Ea and Arda.

At first I thought the bit about him remembering the Dark Lord coming from Outside was Melkor's return as well, but I realized it could not have been. Of course Tom was around when that happened, but I suggest his beginning was further back than that. He was Eldest in Time, Time began with Ea, he was thus the first spirit in Ea, before the Ainur. Which was, of course, long before Melkor's return. Tom's comment about the Dark Lord coming from Outside was, then, speaking about the Dark Lord's first coming (into Ea from the Void, as opposed to what you seem to think: into Arda from the spaces around it within Ea).

Why you think he had no knowledge of what was beyond Arda then I don't know.

[Michael Martinez]

Where is it written that Tom is eldest in time?

[Ñólendil]

The Tolkien Letters, #153 (the one to Peter Hastings, the one who thought 'He is' meant Tom was God).

You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday's Epistle -- inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names.

Tolkien continues into explaining Tom's words to Frodo when the latter asked the former 'Who are you', I'm sure you're quite familiar with it.

[Michael Martinez]

You have misunderstood the letter. Tolkien is not saying that Tom is eldest in time. He is showing why Tom cannot be what Mr. Hastings has mistaken Tom for (God). In the preamble to the letter, Humphrey Carpenter writes: "...He also cited the description of Bombadil by Goldberry: 'He is.' Hastings said that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God...."

Tolkien's full response to the Bombadil question (is he or isn't he God) begins with:

As for Tom Bombadil. I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as commentator.) You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me object to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday's Epistle -- inappropriately since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom's words in Vol. I p. 142. You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name -- can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not 'what is Tom Bombadil' but 'Who is he'. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of 'I am that I am' -- which is quite different from he is. She adds as a concession a statement of part of the 'what'. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession of domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.

Tolkien says, "and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time." That is, if he is truly God, then there is no one or thing older than him. He then shows that Goldberry's statement was not an assertion of primevality, but rather an identification of Bombadil, answering the "who is he" not the "what is he" (at first).

In a footnote to the letter, Tolkien writes the following:

Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique. If you say he is there must be more than one, and creaed (sub) existence is implied. I can say 'he is' of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?

So, here, Tolkien even denies the uniqueness of Bombadil. Bombadil is not unique. But he is Bombadil, meaning, presumably, that no one else is Bombadil, or that he is no one other than Bombadil. I am Michael Martinez. I am not unique. There are many other people like me, even many named "Michael Martinez" (at least, so I must believe, as their friends from high school frequently ask me if I am their old bud), but none of them are me, whereas I am (although I am not "I am that I am").

And Tolkien also makes it clear that Tom's knowledge is quite limited. So there is no basis for inferring that Tom's knowledge extended to matters beyond Arda, or even beyond Middle-earth. He claimed to have little knowledge of matters out east, for example.


Regarding Tom's reference to Morgoth's return, Christopher Tolkien writes this in The Return of the Shadow:

Tom Bombadil was 'there' during the Ages of the Stars, before Morgoth came back to Middle-earth after the destruction of the Trees; is it to this event that he referred in his words (retained in FR) 'He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless -- before the Dark Lord came from Outside?...

At this point Christopher delves into the chronology of his father's work on The Silmarillion, noting that (at the time JRRT wrote the above words) Morgoth had only entered the world once. The second entry wasn't composed until after the publication of LoTR. To this, Christopher adds:

...It seems then that either Bombadil must in fact refer to Morgoth's return from Valinor to Middle-earth, in company with Ungoliant and bearing the Silmarils, or else that my father had already at this date developed a new conception of the earliest history of Melkor.

A few pages prior to this passage, Christopher published a note his father made concerning Bombadil (the opening page to Chapter VI, "Tom Bombadil"):

Tom Bombadil is an 'aborigine' -- he knew the land before men, before hobbits, before barrow-wights, yes before the necromancer -- before the elves came to this quarter of the world.

At best, we cannot take Bombadil farther back than the time after the destruction of the Two Lamps. In one of the early texts Tom says he is an "ab origine". The phrase (and name) literally means "from the beginning", but from the beginning of what? Not of Time, for Time began long before there was a Middle-earth. Tom was from the beginning of the land.

After LoTR, Tolkien returned to The Silmarillion and he then introduced the story of the first war between Melkor and the Valar, of Tulkas' late arrival and key role in defeating Melkor, and of the Valar's settling on the isle of Almaren and the creation of the Two Lamps (which Melkor returned to destroy). Either we must conclude that Bombadil's origin retroactively predates the Valar's settlement on Almaren, or else Tom simply doesn't remember anything from before the destruction of the Two Lamps.

Since there were already plants and animals in Middle-earth at the time the Two Lamps were destroyed, it is reasonable to infer that Tom's words would be retrofitted to the earlier period. That is, Tolkien should have implied that Bombadil's beginning lay soon after Valian Year 1500, when the Valar drove Melkor out of Arda and began to prepare it for the plants and animals. Bombadil would have awoken in that early time (or in some way came to self-awareness), which was the beginning of the land. He would therefore have seen the first raindrop and the first acorn, etc., etc.

So, the earliest we can place him is still countless ages after the beginning of Time. Hence, Tom is not eldest in Time. He is eldest in Middle-earth.

[Ñólendil]

Tolkien says, "and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time." That is, if he is truly God, then there is no one or thing older than him. He then shows that Goldberry's statement was not an assertion of primevality, but rather an identification of Bombadil, answering the "who is he" not the "what is he" (at first).

Ooooooooooooooh. That's different, isn't it? I always had trouble understanding the relationship of those particular paragraphs together (but particularly the footnote), now I know why.

So there is no basis for inferring that Tom's knowledge extended to matters beyond Arda, or even beyond Middle-earth.

Just to clarify, though you probably understand, my basis was made upon the 'Eldest in Time' comment; i.e., if Tom existed in Ea before the Ainur came there, he must have existed before Arda and so had knowledge before Arda. But, as you say, this isn't true.

Also I haven't really read much of The Return of the Shadow. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll have to remold my thoughts now .... so, out of curiousity, what's the prime weapon against the 'Tom was an Ainu' idea? 'Tom was in Ea before the Ainur came there' was pretty good, but it doesn't work now. People can't be convinced by logic, you know, one must have a quote or something.

Tom was from the beginning of the land.

A perfect time for an exemplar of True (Real) Natural Science, don't you think?

Tolkien should have implied that Bombadil's beginning lay soon after Valian Year 1500, when the Valar drove Melkor out of Arda and began to prepare it for the plants and animals. Bombadil would have awoken in that early time (or in some way came to self-awareness), which was the beginning of the land.

So I thought at first, and so I must think now. You say he was 'from the beginning'. Look at the time period you just described. Not only was this the beginning of the land, it was the beginning of days. For the time you just described for Tom's beginning, is verily the time seen in the first few paragraphs of Of the Beginning of Days.

Thanks for pointing that out!


Edited: I just figured out what the argument against the 'Tom was an Ainu' idea is. Just the opposite of what it was before, as it turns out: 'Tom began in Arda'.

[Michael Martinez]

You really put me to the test on this one. When I first read that citation you provided, I thought, "I missed the boat here." But then I recalled the "aborigine" citation, and it took me a while to find it. I looked at the Hastings letter again and noted the preamble.

I think there is a lot of justifiable confusion over Bombadil. Tolkien himself doesn't seem to be sure of what he really was. My theory is just like anyone else's theory: a guess, with its flaws and strengths.

But you're probably right. We've most likely come up with the best counter-argument to the "Tom is a Maia/Vala/Ainu" theory (one which I long held to myself).

[Nurvingiel]

I have a few questions about the Maiar myself. (Originally it was just about Balrogs, but then I got reading all those Balrog threads...) Sorry if any of these have actually been answered elsewhere.

1. Did Glorfindel defeat Gothmog (Lord of the Balrogs)?
2. Which Balrog did Gandalf defeat in Moria, or is that not important?
3. At the time of the War of the Ring, where were the other Balrogs? I was under the impression that there were several. (Or, are their whereabouts either irrelevant or unimportant?)
4. Are the Istari also Maia?
5. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry aren't Maia right? The last half of this thread made me wonder about that.

Maybe this will spark some more interesting discussion.

[Radagast The Brown]

I think Nolendil told me long time ago, that although it seems by Tolkien's descriptions that there are many Balrogs - like in the war at the end of the First Age - Tolkien changed his opinion and said (wrote) that there actually weren't many Balrogs at all.
I think that all the other Balrogs were slain in that war by the Valar forces.

Yes, the Istari are all Maiar.

Nobody really knows what Tom Bombadil is... some beleieve he's a Maia. Tehre are many threads about it in the LotR forums.

[Attalus]

I, myself, incline to Michael's argument that he was a guardian spirit, not a maia at all. I have never liked the arguments that Tom was a maia, much less a Vala. We see in the posts above that JRRT explicitly denied that he was Eru, a silly concept if you ask me, as if God would enter into His creation in a trivial manner such as that, predating the Incarnation.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have a few questions about the Maiar myself. (Originally it was just about Balrogs, but then I got reading all those Balrog threads...) Sorry if any of these have actually been answered elsewhere.

1. Did Glorfindel defeat Gothmog (Lord of the Balrogs)?
2. Which Balrog did Gandalf defeat in Moria, or is that not important?
3. At the time of the War of the Ring, where were the other Balrogs? I was under the impression that there were several. (Or, are their whereabouts either irrelevant or unimportant?)
4. Are the Istari also Maia?
5. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry aren't Maia right? The last half of this thread made me wonder about that.

Maybe this will spark some more interesting discussion.

There is a great deal of confusion in Tolkien fandom because some people intermix the various texts as if they were concurrent with one another, and other people are more careful.

As for Glorfindel and who he killed, his Balrog was unnamed. Ecthelion killed Gothmog in "The Fall of Gondolin", but we don't know if that episode would have continued through to a full rewrite of the story.

After Tolkien scribbled a marginal note indicating there were probably no more than seven Balrogs, he didn't bother to go back and change anything. So, when Christopher Tolkien put together The Silmarillion, he didn't catch the passage at the end of the "Quenta Silmarillion" which implied that more than one Balrog may have escaped the War of Wrath.

Most probably (but nonetheless unprovably) Tolkien intended, at some point, to limit the number of surviving Balrogs to one (the one Gandalf slew in Moria).

And despite the fact that many people like my Bombadil theory, it remains nothing more than a theory. We don't know what Bombadil and Goldberry were. Tolkien apparently never wrote any definitive assertions about their natures.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Michael, I always like reading your posts.

EDIT: Oops, I accidentally didn't see your post Radagast. Thanks! And I actually have no more questions now... I wish we could just delete posts, but there it is.

[Lenya]

What ecaxtely do you (Attalus) find different between a guardian spirit and a maia? I believe all guardian spirits are maiar, not that all maiar are guardian spirits.

[Earniel]

This thread pops up just in time! I was considering to make a thread about the Maiar myself.

I have been wondering whether there would have been much Maiar left in Middle-earth. When the Valar retreated to Aman, there is at least mention of one Maia, Melian, that remained behind. I was wondering whether more would have do so too.

I gather the list of Maiar mentioned in the Silmarillion was not exhaustive. So would some of those unnamed Maiar still reside in Middle-earth, even at the time of the War of the Ring? I'd like to hear people's thoughts and ideas on that.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I gather the list of Maiar mentioned in the Silmarillion was not exhaustive. So would some of those unnamed Maiar still reside in Middle-earth, even at the time of the War of the Ring? I'd like to hear people's thoughts and ideas on that.

At least five Maiar were in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring:

Sauron

Saruman

Gandalf

Radagast

the Balrog of Moria

[Earniel]

I may have worded my question wrongly. I didn't reckon with the Istari because they were sent to Middle-earth with a mission and because they didn't remain in Middle-earth since their very arrival. Nor did I consider the Balrog. I was thinking more of the unmentioned Maiar, would any of those have remained in middle-earth while the Valar retreated to Aman? Would there still be Maiar, perhaps servants to Yavanna for example, still tending to forests or fields?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I may have worded my question wrongly. I didn't reckon with the Istari because they were sent to Middle-earth with a mission and because they didn't remain in Middle-earth since their very arrival. Nor did I consider the Balrog. I was thinking more of the unmentioned Maiar, would any of those have remained in middle-earth while the Valar retreated to Aman? Would there still be Maiar, perhaps servants to Yavanna for example, still tending to forests or fields?

Well, if they are unmentioned, then finding references to them is a bit more challenging.

Tom and Goldberry don't qualfy, even if we all agree for the sake of discussion that they could be Maiar (because they are very obviously mentioned).

Orome's huntsmen might have visited Middle-earth with him. But I think the Valar ordered a general withdrawal from Middle-earth when the Noldor were exiled. Ulmo maintained limited contact with the Eldar of Beleriand (and Tuor), but even he did not intervene much.

I think the best window of opportunity for any Maiar to stay behind would be the beginning of the Second Age, when Eonwe remained in Middle-earth to tutor the Edain and to summon all the Elves to sail over Sea. But any leftover Maiar would not be part of the stories -- they aren't mentioned.

It's really an unanswerable question.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Regarding Bombadil & Goldberry, In the absense of definative info on their nature, I lean toward the simplist explainations that fits the know facts (seeming imortality, 'magical power', and a particular attachment to a area of land, and likely their before the elves). I would best guess them to be Maiar, who concerned with the creation of that part of ME, and after having expended much of the being into it, became attached to it, and decided to stay there. Bombadil in his bounds and Goldberry in the river, but later they bound to each other and share their areas. I find no need to create new categories of beings when an existing one will fit the know info well enough.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

Well, if they are unmentioned, then finding references to them is a bit more challenging. [...] It's really an unanswerable question.

I wasn't asking for references, I was just wondering about what people thought about it. Oh, just forget I asked...

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I wasn't asking for references, I was just wondering about what people thought about it. Oh, just forget I asked...

My mistake. However, I do think there would have been undocumented Maiaric activity, at least early in the Second Age, in Tolkien's conception.