COTW - the Valaquenta
Gregory Hernandez
to the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis. The first paragraph of the
Valaquenta, in fact, retells the story of the Ainulindale. As in the book
of Genesis, the Valaquenta begins with the words "in the beginning".
Tolkien being who he is, he immediately begins a digression into names. So
we are informed that the One is known as both Eru and Illuvatar, the secret
fire at the heart of the world was called Ea, and Arda was the name of the
kingdom of Earth.
The Ainu are broken down into further classifications, with the greatest of
these angel-like beings given names and called the Valar. The Valar
basically correspond to archangels in Judeo-Christian cosmology. As in the
story of the angels, there is one among them who is the greatest and who is
the first to fall. In the case of Tolkien's middle-earth, the Ainu's name
is Melkor.
Because of Tolkien's Christian faith, many writers go on to find many
parallels with the Judeo-Christian cosmology, but the truth is that the
Valaquenta echoes many other faiths and mythologies as well. We have echoes
of Greek and Roman myths, not to mention correspondences with stories in the
Hindu Vedas and Egyptian mystics.
So for example we have Varda the Valar lady of the Stars corresponding to
Roman Sophia, Ulmo as an analogue for Poseidon/Neptune, and Oiolossė the
tallest mountain paralleling Mount Olympus, home of the Gods, etc.
The Valar are named in the Valaquenta and they are seven in number: Manwe
lord of the lord of the breezes, and the air, and all creatures that take
wing, and lord of the Valar. Next comes Ulmo, lord of the waters. Aulė,
master of crafts and craftmanship. Namo, summoner of the spirits of the
slain. Irmo, master of visions and dreams. Tulkas, who delights in
wrestling and contests of strength. And lastly there is Oromė, who has a
dreadful temperament and whose parvenu is the lands of Middle Earth.
In addition to the Valar, there are also the Valier, the queens of the Ainu.
The greatest of these queens is Varda, who is most often spoken of in the
Lord of the Rings as Elbereth. She is, as noted above, the Lady of the
stars. She is the spouse of Manwė and they are seldom apart. Yavanna is
called the giver of fruits and corresponds to the earth mother archetype.
She is called the spouse of the craftsman Aulė. Vairė the Weaver, who
corresponds to the goddess Fate, is the spouse of the Pluto-esque Valar
Namo. Estė the healer of hurts and weariness, is coupled with Irmo, the
giver of dreams and visions. These last two couplings, IMHO, are truly
inspired. The lord of the waters is said to dwell alone, and in order to
keep the significant number seven for both lords and ladies, Tolkien came up
with a Valier who also dwells alone. She is Nienna, sister of Namo and Irmo
(the three together referred to as the Fėanturi, the masters of spirits).
During the music of the making of the music of the Ainu, when Melkor began
weaving his discordant themes into the music, it was she whose song turned
to sorrow and lamentation. She is grieves for the wounds of the earth, the
disharmony in the choir of the Ainu and its subsequent coming to pass in the
realm of Arda. With Tulkas, the Apollonian/Mercury hybrid, goes Nessa, who
seems to be his exact female counterpart. To Oromė the dark Ainu of earth
and wrath is espoused the Valier Vana, who is the epitome of Spring.
Now as has been pointed out, there are seven Valar and seven Valier.
Nowhere among these great powers of the world has Melkor been named. He
arose before there was a world. He is left until last. His original name,
it is told, meant "he who arises in might", but it is not by this name that
he is written about in the legends of the elves and of men. There he is
referred to as Morgoth, the Dark Enemy. He is, as has been seen in the
previous book, the Ainulindalė, as powerful as - and in many ways
corresponding to - Manwė, the leader of the Valar. Because of his lust,
envy, and malice, Melkor has squandered much of what was inherently
available to him due to the grace of Eru. A line from the Valaquenta I'll
quote here, since it seems most appropriate in describing Melkor: "From
splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself
[becoming] a spirit wasteful and pitiless".
Along with the Valar/Valier, the Valaquenta also tells of the spirits akin
to them but less powerful. These are the Maiar. The Maiar are unnumbered
and go mostly unnamed, except for five: Ilmarė, handmaid of Varda and
Eonwė; Ossė, vassal of Ulmo; Uinen, his spouse; Melian, servant of Vana and
Estė (of whom more is said in the Simarillion proper), and Olorin. Although
little is said in the early legends of this latter Maiar, he is perhaps
because of activities in Third Age, where he was known by a different name:
Gandalf.
Conrad Dunkerson
> The first paragraph of the Valaquenta, in fact, retells the story of the
> Ainulindale.
Valaquenta was originally the first chapter of the Quenta Silmarillion,
which was written separately from Ainulindale. This is likely the reason
for the slight repetition here.
> So we are informed that the One is known as both Eru and Illuvatar, the secret
> fire at the heart of the world was called Ea, and Arda was the name of the
> kingdom of Earth.
I think the "...; and it was called Ea" is referring back to "gave to
their vision Being" rather than the Secret Fire. We know from other
texts that 'Ea' means 'let it be'.
> The Ainu are broken down into further classifications, with the greatest of
> these angel-like beings given names and called the Valar. The Valar
> basically correspond to archangels in Judeo-Christian cosmology. As in the
> story of the angels, there is one among them who is the greatest and who is
> the first to fall. In the case of Tolkien's middle-earth, the Ainu's name
> is Melkor.
This is, of course, deliberate and Tolkien directly equates Melkor with
'Satan' in letters. In the early texts there are also clear connections
to Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and purgatory.
That said, as you note, the Valar are also compared to pagan gods.
Indeed, Tolkien drew direct connections between some of them and deities
of actual historical myths. It is sometimes interesting to speculate on
which Valar correspond to which gods / archangels.
The connections I can recall JRRT having stated at some point are;
Melkor ? Lucifer
Manwe Odin ?
Tulkas Thor ?
? Tyr ?
CT described the name of the Ainu connected to 'Tyr' as indecipherable.
Chris Kern
The Valaquenta was originally Chapter 1 of the QS, and remained so
until 1958 when JRRT split it off into its own work (the Darkening of
Valinor was the only other chapter reworked heavily in this period of
revision, and it also received its own title with no chapter number).
It is unknown why he did this. But it was only in this revision that
some important concepts like Maiar entered the tradition.
CT is unusually descriptive about his editorial changes to this
chapter; for those who don't have Morgoth's Ring, here is a rundown of
the most important ones:
- "Namo the elder dwells in Mandos, which is westward in Valinor" --
JRRT's text read "northward", this change was based on a faulty
understanding of the geography of Valinor by CT which he explains in
HoME I.
- "Aldaron" should not have been printed as a name of Orome; this was
rejected by JRRT. "..by the Sindar Tauron" should read "Tauron he is
called in Middle-Earth."
- After the words "for the pursuit of the evil creatures of Melkor", a
sentence was accidentally omitted in the published Silm: "But the
Valaroma is not blown, and Nahar runs no more upon the Middle-earth
since the change of the world and the waning of the Elves, whom he
loved."
- The statement about Eonwe ("whose might in arms is surpassed by none
in Arda") was an editorial addition of CT's. He did this because
originally Eonwe was Fionwe, the son of Manwe, and one of the most
powerful of the "children of the Gods" -- when Fionwe was changed to
Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, the final story of Fionwe leading the
hosts of the Valar to attack Melkor was not changed. CT felt uneasy
about this, and added the sentence here (and removed some references
to Fionwe in the Akallabeth).
- A sentence about Olorin was wrongly omitted ("He was humble in the
Land of the Blessed; and in Middle-earth he sought no renown. His
triumph was in the uprising of the fallen, and his joy was in the
renewal of hope.")
- The Valaquenta as JRRT wrote it ended with a passage that CT placed
at the end of the QS ("Here ends The Valaquenta. If it has passed
from the high and beautiful...")
CT also says at the end of this section of MR that the tenses of the
descriptions changed from past to present and back during the Vq, and
he smoothed over this difficulty, but he regrets doing so.
-Chris
Christopher Kreuzer
> Gregory Hernandez wrote:
>> The first paragraph of the Valaquenta, in fact, retells the story of
>> the Ainulindale.
>
> Valaquenta was originally the first chapter of the Quenta
> Silmarillion, which was written separately from Ainulindale. This is
> likely the reason for the slight repetition here.
>
>> So we are informed that the One is known as both Eru and Illuvatar,
>> the secret fire at the heart of the world was called Ea, and Arda
>> was the name of the kingdom of Earth.
>
> I think the "...; and it was called Ea" is referring back to "gave to
> their vision Being" rather than the Secret Fire. We know from other
> texts that 'Ea' means 'let it be'.
Possibly the semi-colon separating the clause about Ea from the clause
about the Secret Fire, makes it clearer:
"Therefore Iluvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the
Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World;
and it was called Ea."
So the "it was called Ea" bit is offset from the rest of the sentence by
the semi-colon. It is related to the sentence, but not as directly
related as the clauses separated only by commas. So the 'it' probably
refers to the main subject of the pre-colonic clause "Therefore [...]
World", and the subject of that clause is not the Secret Fire, but is
the 'it' in "set it amid", which refers back to the "vision" that had
been given Being.
In the Ainulindale we read:
"Therefore I say: Ea! Let these things Be! And I will send forth into
the Void the Flame Imperishable, and it shall be at the heart of the
World, and the World shall Be [...] Iluvatar had made a new thing: Eä,
the World that Is.""
>> The Ainu are broken down into further classifications, with the
>> greatest of these angel-like beings given names and called the
>> Valar. The Valar basically correspond to archangels in
>> Judeo-Christian cosmology. As in the story of the angels, there is
>> one among them who is the greatest and who is the first to fall. In
>> the case of Tolkien's middle-earth, the Ainu's name
>> is Melkor.
>
> This is, of course, deliberate and Tolkien directly equates Melkor
> with 'Satan' in letters. In the early texts there are also clear
> connections to Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and purgatory.
By early texts, you mean not the published Silmarillion? Or did traces
of this heaven, hell and purgatory make it into the published
Silmarillion?
> That said, as you note, the Valar are also compared to pagan gods.
> Indeed, Tolkien drew direct connections between some of them and
> deities of actual historical myths. It is sometimes interesting to
> speculate on which Valar correspond to which gods / archangels.
>
> The connections I can recall JRRT having stated at some point are;
Are the question marks because you can't recall whether JRRT definitely
made these statements? I'm just going to add what I know (very little)
about the gods you've named. Maybe others can add to this?
> Melkor ? Lucifer
Did he use the word Lucifer or Satan. The word Lucifer can mean other
things, IIRC. Something to do with Venus? In any case, Lucifer is in
origin an arch-angel of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or does the name
date back further than that?
> Manwe Odin ?
Odin was the chief of the Norse gods. Seems appropriate for the chief of
the Valar. And Tolkien also called Gandalf an Odinic wanderer, didn't
he? Which may make some connection with Manwe.
> Tulkas Thor ?
Thor is a Norse god, he of the famous hammer and drinking the oceans
dry, and many other stories. Very war-like and plays much the same role
(big strongman) that we see Tulkas play. Though there are more stories
about Thor than about Tulkas.
> ? Tyr ?
>
> CT described the name of the Ainu connected to 'Tyr' as
> indecipherable.
May I ask, who is Tyr? Maybe we can speculate which Ainu would be most
likely connected to Tyr??
http://www.unc.edu/~reddeer/god_dess_es/norse.html
"TYR God of battle, the only god with the strength and courage to bind
Fenris. Warriors marked their swords with a T to gain the god's
protection. Tyr was originally was Tiwaz, retained in a later pantheon
but overshadowed by Odin and Thor."
Oh. Seems like the question becomes a bit irrelevant. Unless Tolkien had
something in mind for Tyr/? other than being overshadowed by Odin/Manwe
and Tulkas/Thor? I used to think that Orome was overshadowed a bit by
Tulkas, but then Orome gets to be one of the Aratar, unlike Tulkas. So
Orome is actually overshadowing Tulkas.
Or maybe the point at which comparing pagan gods to the Valar becomes
meaningless is reached sooner, rather than later?
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Christopher Kreuzer
> The Valaquenta was originally Chapter 1 of the QS, and remained so
> until 1958 when JRRT split it off into its own work (the Darkening of
> Valinor was the only other chapter reworked heavily in this period of
> revision, and it also received its own title with no chapter number).
> It is unknown why he did this. But it was only in this revision that
> some important concepts like Maiar entered the tradition.
Are you saying that the Maiar were worked backwards into 'The
Silmarillion' after the writing of LotR? What had Melian, Osse, Uinen
and Olorin (Gandalf) been called before this? Were they called Maiar or
something different? Or are you saying that he only conceived of the
Maiar after writing the earlier forms of Valaquenta, and didn't get
around to updating the Valaquenta ("the tradition") until 1958?
> CT is unusually descriptive about his editorial changes to this
> chapter; for those who don't have Morgoth's Ring, here is a rundown of
> the most important ones:
>
> - "Namo the elder dwells in Mandos, which is westward in Valinor" --
> JRRT's text read "northward", this change was based on a faulty
> understanding of the geography of Valinor by CT which he explains in
> HoME I.
Hmm. I've just been reading about the way that Hammond and Scull
suggested changes/corrections to LotR, and the standards they had for
accepting or rejecting changes (under Christopher Tolkien's
supervision). It got me thinking about whether anything similar could be
done for 'The Silmarillion' (ie. an Annotated Silmarillion). Then I
realised that HoME _is_ largely an annotated Silmarillion!
But I guess a list of the simpler changes might be possible. Maybe this
is similar to what Steuard was suggesting in the Wikipedia thread?
> - "Aldaron" should not have been printed as a name of Orome; this was
> rejected by JRRT. "..by the Sindar Tauron" should read "Tauron he is
> called in Middle-Earth."
Do you mean "for which reason he is called Aldaron, and by the Sindar
Tauron, the Lord of Forests." should be replaced by "Tauron he is called
in Middle-Earth."? Just changing the "...by the Sindar Tauron" bit
leaves the Aldaron bit unchanged.
> - After the words "for the pursuit of the evil creatures of Melkor", a
> sentence was accidentally omitted in the published Silm: "But the
> Valaroma is not blown, and Nahar runs no more upon the Middle-earth
> since the change of the world and the waning of the Elves, whom he
> loved."
Oh, that is a lovely sentence! It does speak a bit more too to the way
the Valar become more distant and removed from Middle-earth as the ages
pass.
> - The statement about Eonwe ("whose might in arms is surpassed by none
> in Arda") was an editorial addition of CT's. He did this because
> originally Eonwe was Fionwe, the son of Manwe, and one of the most
> powerful of the "children of the Gods" -- when Fionwe was changed to
> Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, the final story of Fionwe leading the
> hosts of the Valar to attack Melkor was not changed. CT felt uneasy
> about this, and added the sentence here (and removed some references
> to Fionwe in the Akallabeth).
What was the sytory behind JRRT moving away from the concept of the
Valar having "children". Were they ever conceived of having real
"children", or was this relationship of parent to child something
different for them? In the published Silmarillion, the only real
reference to relationships between the Ainur are where they are called
"brethren", and of course the fact that they were all the "offspring of
[Iluvatar's] thought".
> - A sentence about Olorin was wrongly omitted ("He was humble in the
> Land of the Blessed; and in Middle-earth he sought no renown. His
> triumph was in the uprising of the fallen, and his joy was in the
> renewal of hope.")
Where precisely should that sentence be inserted? It is also a lovely
sentence, and I vaguely seem to recall that it should go after the bit
about Olorin learning patience and pity from Nienna, and before the bit
about Olorin not being mentioned in Quenta Silmarillion.
> - The Valaquenta as JRRT wrote it ended with a passage that CT placed
> at the end of the QS ("Here ends The Valaquenta. If it has passed
> from the high and beautiful...")
What?!?! :-)
_Christopher_ Tolkien placed that passage at the end of QS? It fits so
nicely there that I would never have thought that this was an example of
editorial tweaking.
> CT also says at the end of this section of MR that the tenses of the
> descriptions changed from past to present and back during the Vq, and
> he smoothed over this difficulty, but he regrets doing so.
I seem to recall thinking that the tense changes a lot at the beginning
of 'The Silmarillion', but can't recall whether I thought this for
Ainulindale, the Valaquenta, or 'Of the Beginning of Days'? Where does
this change of tense remain in the published Silmarillion (assuming I'm
not imagining it)? I suppose that this would reinforce the sense of the
texts being amalgamated from several different sources and traditions?
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Tolkien being who he is, he immediately
> begins a digression into names.
Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
> So we are informed that the One is
> known as both Eru and Illuvatar
Apologies for picking up on this, but for many years I spelt Iluvatar as
Illuvatar. I was shocked to discover that it was one 'l' and not two.
Has anyone else made this mistake?
<snip>
> Because of Tolkien's Christian faith, many writers go on to find many
> parallels with the Judeo-Christian cosmology, but the truth is that
> the Valaquenta echoes many other faiths and mythologies as well. We
> have echoes of Greek and Roman myths, not to mention correspondences
> with stories in the Hindu Vedas and Egyptian mystics.
And with the Norse mythologies as well. What connections do you see with
the Hindu and Egyptian mythologies?
> So for example we have Varda the Valar lady of the Stars
> corresponding to Roman Sophia, Ulmo as an analogue for
> Poseidon/Neptune, and Oiolossë the tallest mountain paralleling Mount
> Olympus, home of the Gods, etc.
The parallels I've seen, are Manwe=Zeus, Ulmo=Poseidon, and
Aule=Hades/Vulcan. Plus Mandos=Hades. And Melkor=Vulcan as well!
A better fit seems to come from the quartet of Air, Water, Earth, Fire
(the classical Greek elements), as fitting Manwe, Ulmo, Aule, Melkor.
Other than that, I've found that the matches between Valar and other
gods don't really work, or I don't know enough to make such comparisons.
The Tulkas/Thor connection is one I should have made, but didn't.
<snip>
More later. You didn't mention the Aratar. What do you think of this
subset within the Valar, eight of greatest power?
Mästerkatten
news:M9Ebf.2380$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> "TYR God of battle, the only god with the strength and courage to bind
> Fenris. Warriors marked their swords with a T to gain the god's
> protection. Tyr was originally was Tiwaz, retained in a later pantheon
> but overshadowed by Odin and Thor."
I recall I heard that the following philological relationship exists
(Thinko caveat: it was more than a decade ago I heard this):
Tyr - Tiwaz - Dyaus (cf. Teos, Dios) Pitar (cf. Jupiter) - Zeus
The Swedish weekday "tisdag" is named after Tyr. Maybe
the same is true about "Tuesday", the English name for the same day?
> Oh. Seems like the question becomes a bit irrelevant. Unless Tolkien
> had something in mind for Tyr/? other than being overshadowed by
> Odin/Manwe and Tulkas/Thor? I used to think that Orome was
> overshadowed a bit by Tulkas, but then Orome gets to be one of the
> Aratar, unlike Tulkas. So Orome is actually overshadowing Tulkas.
>
> Or maybe the point at which comparing pagan gods to the Valar becomes
> meaningless is reached sooner, rather than later?
IIRC, Tyr is the chief god of an older pantheon, that was incorporated
into, and subordinated by, the asa gods (Oden, Tor, Balder and others).
Thus he may have played roles that coincide with what later was
attributed to one or more of the asa gods.
--
Mästerkatten
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Hmm. I've just been reading about the way that Hammond and Scull
> suggested changes/corrections to LotR, and the standards they had for
> accepting or rejecting changes (under Christopher Tolkien's
> supervision). It got me thinking about whether anything similar could be
> done for 'The Silmarillion' (ie. an Annotated Silmarillion). Then I
> realised that HoME _is_ largely an annotated Silmarillion!
>
> But I guess a list of the simpler changes might be possible. Maybe this
> is similar to what Steuard was suggesting in the Wikipedia thread?
Why didn't CRT incorporate the known changes in the soi-disant Second
Edition of /The Silmarillion/? (Or did he, and I'm just confused?)
By the time that "Second Edtion" came out, he knew he had made a few
mistakes visible by hindsight, and most of them would have been very
simple textual changed -- the numbering of Ar-Pharazon, for instance.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net
> By early texts, you mean not the published Silmarillion? Or did traces
> of this heaven, hell and purgatory make it into the published
> Silmarillion?
Traces certainly survived into Silm, but in the earlier 'Lost Tales'
drafts the connections were much more clearly drawn. In Silm we learn
that 'Utumno' means 'hell', but in earlier drafts there is reference to
Melkor dragging off spirits to eternal torment in Utumno. Silm has
reference to spirits waiting in the Halls of Mandos, but in earlier
forms this is more clearly drawn as a Purgatory.
> Are the question marks because you can't recall whether JRRT definitely
> made these statements?
Sorry, might have helped if I included column headings;
Tolkien Norse Christian
So, Tolkien definitely connected Manwe with Odin, but not to my
recollection with any Christian figure. Melkor was definitely
connected to Satan, but not to any Norse figure. Et cetera.
> Did he use the word Lucifer or Satan. The word Lucifer can mean other
> things, IIRC. Something to do with Venus?
Yes, it's an old name for Venus - which is also connected to Tolkien;
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/e56244819928be9b
As to Tolkien's usage... Lucifer was my word choice, Tolkien described
Morgoth as "Satan" and "Diabolus". I can't recall Tolkien calling him
"Lucifer" offhand.
> In any case, Lucifer is in origin an arch-angel of the Judeo-Christian
> tradition, or does the name date back further than that?
As per the link, the name Lucifer had nothing to do with Jewish
mythology. It was just the name of the planet Venus in Latin...
referencing the fact that Venus is visible shining brightly on the
horizon just before dawn. Hence 'light bringer'. Lucifer entered into
Christian tradition because it was used (incorrectly) to translate the
phrase 'son of the morning'... which was actually a title taken by a
mortal king. This was later linked to the concept of Satan as an evil
force and thus 'Lucifer' became a name of the devil.
> Odin was the chief of the Norse gods. Seems appropriate for the chief of
> the Valar. And Tolkien also called Gandalf an Odinic wanderer, didn't
> he? Which may make some connection with Manwe.
Odin and Manwe were also both connected with the weather. The 'Odinic
wanderer' bit refers to legends that Odin would wander about the
countryside in the guise of an old man. He would ask for shelter and
reward those who treated him well / punish those who treated him badly.
Gandalf may have been one of the Maiar of Manwe and in UT there is
even a suggestion (seemingly intended to be an incorrect assumption of
Men) that Gandalf WAS Manwe.
> May I ask, who is Tyr?
The most notable thing about Tyr is likely that he had his hand bitten
off by the greatest wolf that ever lived, as the result of keeping an
oath... making an obvious similarity to Beren. Tyr (like Beren) was
also supposed to be killed by the wolf Fenris, at Ragnarok. CT wrote
that he couldn't make out what name his father connected to Tyr, but
that it didn't look similar to the names of any of the great Valar.
I'd be curious to see whether it might be Beren rather than a Vala (of
the current count) at all.
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net
> Tyr - Tiwaz - Dyaus (cf. Teos, Dios) Pitar (cf. Jupiter) - Zeus
> The Swedish weekday "tisdag" is named after Tyr. Maybe
> the same is true about "Tuesday", the English name for the same day?
The origin of the English weekday names is;
Sun Day
Moon Day
Tiws Day
Wodens Day
Thors Day
Freyrs Day
Saturns Day
So yes, Tuesday is named after Tiw / Tyr, Wednesday after Odin, et
cetera.
Chris Kern
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> posted the following:
>Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:58:06 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
><spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> Hmm. I've just been reading about the way that Hammond and Scull
>> suggested changes/corrections to LotR, and the standards they had for
>> accepting or rejecting changes (under Christopher Tolkien's
>> supervision). It got me thinking about whether anything similar could be
>> done for 'The Silmarillion' (ie. an Annotated Silmarillion). Then I
>> realised that HoME _is_ largely an annotated Silmarillion!
>>
>> But I guess a list of the simpler changes might be possible. Maybe this
>> is similar to what Steuard was suggesting in the Wikipedia thread?
>
>Why didn't CRT incorporate the known changes in the soi-disant Second
>Edition of /The Silmarillion/? (Or did he, and I'm just confused?)
>
>By the time that "Second Edtion" came out, he knew he had made a few
>mistakes visible by hindsight, and most of them would have been very
>simple textual changed -- the numbering of Ar-Pharazon, for instance.
This is a very good question. The only thing I can think of is that
he's old and tired after doing HoME, and he figures if anyone really
cares about a correct Silmarillion they'll just read HoME, and if
they're not so picky they'll be content with the published Silm
despite its defects.
-Chris
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>Chris Kern <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Valaquenta was originally Chapter 1 of the QS, and remained so
>> until 1958 when JRRT split it off into its own work (the Darkening of
>> Valinor was the only other chapter reworked heavily in this period of
>> revision, and it also received its own title with no chapter number).
>> It is unknown why he did this. But it was only in this revision that
>> some important concepts like Maiar entered the tradition.
>
>Are you saying that the Maiar were worked backwards into 'The
>Silmarillion' after the writing of LotR? What had Melian, Osse, Uinen
>and Olorin (Gandalf) been called before this? Were they called Maiar or
>something different?
I don't believe they had a name. Osse was once a Valar, but there was
no name for the non-Valar Ainur.
>> - "Aldaron" should not have been printed as a name of Orome; this was
>> rejected by JRRT. "..by the Sindar Tauron" should read "Tauron he is
>> called in Middle-Earth."
>
>Do you mean "for which reason he is called Aldaron, and by the Sindar
>Tauron, the Lord of Forests." should be replaced by "Tauron he is called
>in Middle-Earth."? Just changing the "...by the Sindar Tauron" bit
>leaves the Aldaron bit unchanged.
I'm not entirely sure.
>> - The statement about Eonwe ("whose might in arms is surpassed by none
>> in Arda") was an editorial addition of CT's. He did this because
>> originally Eonwe was Fionwe, the son of Manwe, and one of the most
>> powerful of the "children of the Gods" -- when Fionwe was changed to
>> Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, the final story of Fionwe leading the
>> hosts of the Valar to attack Melkor was not changed. CT felt uneasy
>> about this, and added the sentence here (and removed some references
>> to Fionwe in the Akallabeth).
>
>What was the sytory behind JRRT moving away from the concept of the
>Valar having "children". Were they ever conceived of having real
>"children", or was this relationship of parent to child something
>different for them?
I believe that Tolkien intended for them to be real children. This
came from the semi-pagan roots of his concept of the "gods", which he
then brought in line with Christianity in some aspects. The removal
of the Children of the Gods was another relatively late change -- even
in 1951 in a typescript of the Annals of Aman we find "There are also
those whom we call the Valarindi, who are the Children of the Valar,
begotten of their love after their entry into Ea...they have power and
rank below that of the Valar only."
>> - A sentence about Olorin was wrongly omitted ("He was humble in the
>> Land of the Blessed; and in Middle-earth he sought no renown. His
>> triumph was in the uprising of the fallen, and his joy was in the
>> renewal of hope.")
>
>Where precisely should that sentence be inserted?
"At the end", according to CT; I can't be any more specific than that
unfortunately.
>> - The Valaquenta as JRRT wrote it ended with a passage that CT placed
>> at the end of the QS ("Here ends The Valaquenta. If it has passed
>> from the high and beautiful...")
>
>What?!?! :-)
>
>_Christopher_ Tolkien placed that passage at the end of QS? It fits so
>nicely there that I would never have thought that this was an example of
>editorial tweaking.
It does seem to fit better at the end of the QS than at the end of the
Valaquenta.
-Chris
Mästerkatten
wrote in news:1131368983.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Swedish-English names:
måndag - Monday
tisdag - Tuesday
onsdag - Wednesday
torsdag - Thursday
fredag - Friday
lördag - Saturday
söndag - Sunday
The correspondence is total, with the exception of
lördag (lögardagen) - Saturday
Note: That difference must be due to the importance of hygiene in the old
Nordic society. The meaning of "lördag" was "the day when people wash
themselves". In the anglo-saxon culture, *Saturn* must have been more
important. :-P
Then the meaning of "lördag" became "the day when people get drunk like
apes". Recently it became "the day when people pack their kids in the car
and drive to the mall".
--
Mästerkatten
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Gregory Hernandez <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Tolkien being who he is, he immediately
> > begins a digression into names.
>
> Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
According to Quendi and Eldar, the names of the Valar "are not right
names but titles, referring to some function or character", except for
Orome. They do not reveal their true names.
Manwe=Blessed One, One closest in accord with Eru
Tulkas=Golden-haired
Ulmo=Pourer
Orome=Horn-blower, Horn-blowing
This is what it signifies among the Eldar, what it means in Valarin is
unknown.
Varda=the Sublime, the Exalted, The Lofty
Namo=Judge
Irmo=Desirer
Este=Repose
Yavanna=Giver of Fruits
Nessa=Young
Vaire=Ever-weaving
Vana=Fair
Melkor=He who arises in might
Aule=Invention
Nienna=Tear
Taken from The Silmarillion, HoME 5 (Etymologies), HoME 11 (Quendi and
Eldar), and VT 39 and 45.
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Jens Kilian
> > Melkor ? Lucifer
>
> Did he use the word Lucifer or Satan. The word Lucifer can mean other
> things, IIRC. Something to do with Venus? In any case, Lucifer is in
> origin an arch-angel of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or does the name
> date back further than that?
"Lucifer" is Latin and means "light-bringer" or "light-bearer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
"Lucifer was played by Viggo Mortensen (to Christopher Walken's
Archangel Gabriel) in The Prophecy."
;-)
Jens.
Oh, and "lucifers" are matches...
--
mailto:j...@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
http://del.icio.us/jjk
darkside
>> Manwe Odin ?
>
> Odin was the chief of the Norse gods. Seems appropriate for the chief of
> the Valar. And Tolkien also called Gandalf an Odinic wanderer, didn't
> he? Which may make some connection with Manwe.
Hmmm... Odin seems a much shrewder God than Manwe. Odin was deceitful at times
and bordered on evil at others - a very "ends justify the means" sort of deity.
So, while he fits the role ("chief of the Gods") he doesn't seem like that
great a match to me.
>> Tulkas Thor ?
>
> Thor is a Norse god, he of the famous hammer and drinking the oceans
> dry, and many other stories. Very war-like and plays much the same role
> (big strongman) that we see Tulkas play. Though there are more stories
> about Thor than about Tulkas.
And don't forget Thor's status as the "friend of Man," always willing to aid
any who call on him. I don't remember Tulkas' character all that well: does he
fit this description?
--
darksidex at charter dot net
Stan Brown
@gmail.com>:
> - The Valaquenta as JRRT wrote it ended with a passage that CT placed
> at the end of the QS ("Here ends The Valaquenta. If it has passed
> from the high and beautiful...")
And IMHO it works _much_ better as an ending at the end of QS.
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
Strictly speaking I don't think we know their actual names; the
"names" recorded in /Silm/ are essentially nicknames given by the
Elves. Somewhere, maybe in HoME XI, there's an essay on the language
of the Valar that goes into this.
Christopher Kreuzer
[Tyr and the Valaquenta]
<snip>
> IIRC, Tyr is the chief god of an older pantheon, that was incorporated
> into, and subordinated by, the asa gods (Oden, Tor, Balder and
> others). Thus he may have played roles that coincide with what later
> was attributed to one or more of the asa gods.
By asa gods, do you mean what I have heard named the Aesir?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote;
<snip>
>> May I ask, who is Tyr?
>
> The most notable thing about Tyr is likely that he had his hand bitten
> off by the greatest wolf that ever lived, as the result of keeping an
> oath... making an obvious similarity to Beren. Tyr (like Beren) was
> also supposed to be killed by the wolf Fenris, at Ragnarok. CT wrote
> that he couldn't make out what name his father connected to Tyr, but
> that it didn't look similar to the names of any of the great Valar.
> I'd be curious to see whether it might be Beren rather than a Vala (of
> the current count) at all.
The mention of Fenris and Ragnarok reminds me of the Last Battle stories
in the Silmarillion mythology, where Turin(?) returns and battles
Morgoth. Is it at all possible that Tyr would be identified with Turin
in this scenario? Or some combination of aspects of Turin and Beren?
Though the 'Turin slays Morgoth at the Last Battle' scenario also
reminds me of the Greek legend where Hercules/Heracles fights and
defeats the Giants, and similar stories in Norse mythology. Of course,
at this point, I think, Hercules is now a demi-god, which brings us back
to the idea of Turin being resurrected(?) to fight in the Last Battle
and the idea of the Children of the Gods (Fionwe etc.), as Hercules was
one of many sons of Zeus.
Mästerkatten
I'm afraid that I'm only aquainted with the Swedish terminology in the
field. Apologise for not checking up the proper English words before
posting. Yes, "asarna" or "asagudarna" is the same thing as the Aesir.
A bit of googling on the topic shows that my recollection that Tyr was
not one of the aesir, but one of the vanir (a possibly older Nordic
pantheon), seems to be wrong. Still it is possible that he's an older
deity than Oden/Odin/Wotan and Tor/Thor. His name simply means God, and
is etymologically identical with Zeus.
(The availability of all the information on Internet tends to kill the
possibility of a casual online chat about things like this. We can just
google it, do or homework and shut up...)
--
Mästerkatten
Christopher Kreuzer
> In article <kREbf.2416$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> Gregory Hernandez <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Tolkien being who he is, he immediately
>>> begins a digression into names.
>>
>> Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
>
> According to Quendi and Eldar, the names of the Valar "are not right
> names but titles, referring to some function or character", except for
> Orome. They do not reveal their true names.
I wonder why Orome is an exception. Would it be because he was the first
Vala that the Elves encountered? And they heard his horn echoing "down
the leagues of the starlight"?
Thanks for the list!
I'm slightly confused though as to what language the names are in. Are
these names of the Valar all in Valarin, the language of the Valar? Or
are they in Quenya? Or are they in both? ie. if they are Valarin, do we
see the origins of words of Quenya in some of these titles for the
Valar?
And what about the names of the Maiar (Melian, Olorin, Osse, Eonwe,
Sauron, Uinen, Ilmare)? What language and what do they mean?
I've added to the list some of the 'surnames' of the Valar, and further
information from the index to 'The Silmarillion', which mostly tallies
with what you posted from elsewhere, but uses slightly different words.
There may also be other epithets, names, titles, and suchlike in the
main text of the Silmarillion. Tolkien seems to be forever coming up
with new epithets and variants for his characters!
> Manwe=Blessed One, One closest in accord with Eru
Sulimo - the Breather
> Tulkas=Golden-haired
Astaldo - the Valiant
> Ulmo=Pourer
Doesn't seem to have any other names, though is also called the Lord of
Waters and King of the Sea.
> Orome=Horn-blower, Horn-blowing
> This is what it signifies among the Eldar, what it means in Valarin is
> unknown.
Index: "Aldaron 'Lord of Trees', a Quenya name of the Vala Orome; cf.
Tauron." (Tauron = the Forester or Lord of Forests)
> Varda=the Sublime, the Exalted, The Lofty
The Lady of the Stars.
Other names: Elbereth, Elentari, Tintalle.
> Namo=Judge
Also described as 'Ordainer' (index). Also called 'The Doomsman of the
Valar' (in the main text).
> Irmo=Desirer
Or 'Master of Desire'.
> Este=Repose
"Her name means 'Rest'" (index).
> Yavanna=Giver of Fruits
Kementari - Queen of the Earth.
> Nessa=Young
Hmm. Nothing more for Nessa.
> Vaire=Ever-weaving
'The Weaver'
> Vana=Fair
'The Ever-young'
> Melkor=He who arises in might
A little tidbit from the index (not, I believe, mentioned anywhere
else): "the Sindarin form was Belegur, but it was never used, save in a
deliberately altered form Belegurth 'Great Death'."
> Aule=Invention
Also called 'The Maker' and, by the Dwarves, Mahal.
> Nienna=Tear
'Lady of pity and mourning' (index)
> Taken from The Silmarillion, HoME 5 (Etymologies), HoME 11
> (Quendi and Eldar), and VT 39 and 45.
It's interesting to see that some bits are in the index and that some
bits didn't make it into the index, for whatever reason.
ste...@nomail.com
> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <kREbf.2416$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>>> Gregory Hernandez <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Tolkien being who he is, he immediately
>>>> begins a digression into names.
>>>
>>> Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
>>
>> According to Quendi and Eldar, the names of the Valar "are not right
>> names but titles, referring to some function or character", except for
>> Orome. They do not reveal their true names.
> I wonder why Orome is an exception. Would it be because he was the first
> Vala that the Elves encountered? And they heard his horn echoing "down
> the leagues of the starlight"?
> Thanks for the list!
> I'm slightly confused though as to what language the names are in. Are
> these names of the Valar all in Valarin, the language of the Valar? Or
> are they in Quenya? Or are they in both? ie. if they are Valarin, do we
> see the origins of words of Quenya in some of these titles for the
> Valar?
From "Quendi and Eldar" in "War of the Jewels":
"'The Eldar,' he [Pengolodh], 'now take the name to signify
"horn-blowing" or "horn-blower"; but to the Valar it had
no such meaning. Now the names that we have for the Valar
or the Maiar, whether adapted from the Valarin or
translated, are not right names but titles, referring to
some function or character of the person; for though the
Valar have right names, they do not reveal them. Save
only in the case of Orome. For it is said in the
histories of the most ancient days of the Quendi that,
when Orome appeared among them, and at length some
dared to approach him, they asked him his name, and
he answered: 'Orome'. Then they asked him what it
signified, and again he answered: 'Orome. To me only
is it given: for I am Orome.' Yet the titles that
he bore were many and glorious; but he withheld them
at that time, that the Quendi should not be afraid.'"
Stephen
Conrad Dunkerson
> The mention of Fenris and Ragnarok reminds me of the Last Battle stories
> in the Silmarillion mythology, where Turin(?) returns and battles
> Morgoth. Is it at all possible that Tyr would be identified with Turin
> in this scenario?
Hmmm, well I can't think of any strong similarities. Turin was directly
modelled on Kullervo from the Finnish Kalevala, so any connection to Tyr
would perforce be secondary.
> Or some combination of aspects of Turin and Beren?
Interestingly, in Tolkien's final version both Turin AND Beren return
for the Last Battle.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Apologies for picking up on this, but for many years I spelt Iluvatar as
> Illuvatar. I was shocked to discover that it was one 'l' and not two.
> Has anyone else made this mistake?
Yes, I've done that. It's a fairly common error until you become aware
of it.
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <kREbf.2416$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> >> Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
> >
> > According to Quendi and Eldar, the names of the Valar "are not right
> > names but titles, referring to some function or character", except for
> > Orome. They do not reveal their true names.
>
> I wonder why Orome is an exception. Would it be because he was the first
> Vala that the Elves encountered? And they heard his horn echoing "down
> the leagues of the starlight"?
"'...For it is said in the histories of the most ancient days of the
Quendi that, when Orome appeared among them, and at length some dared to
approach him, they asked him his name, and he answered: Orome. Then they
asked him what that signified, and again he answered: Orome. To me only
is it given; for I am Orome. Yet the titles that he bore were many and
glorious; but he withheld them at that time, that the Quendi should not
be afraid.'"
WotJ, Q&E
>
> Thanks for the list!
>
> I'm slightly confused though as to what language the names are in. Are
> these names of the Valar all in Valarin, the language of the Valar? Or
> are they in Quenya? Or are they in both? ie. if they are Valarin, do we
> see the origins of words of Quenya in some of these titles for the
> Valar?
Most are a 'Quenyarized' form of the Valarin (which the Eldar found
'unpleasing') eg Manwe from Manawenuz, Aule from A3ulez (the 3 is
intentional), Orome from ArQmez (the 'Q' is a vowel), Ulmo from
Ul(l)uboz.
>
> And what about the names of the Maiar (Melian, Olorin, Osse, Eonwe,
> Sauron, Uinen, Ilmare)? What language and what do they mean?
Maiar=The Beautiful
Melian, Melyanna= Love, Dear-gift (Quenya (I think Melian is a
Sindarized form of Melyanna))
Osse=Spuming, Foaming (V.-Os(o)sai)
Olorin= related to olos= dream, vision, phantasy (see UT, The Istari)
Sauron=The Abhorred (Quenya)
Ilmare=Starlight (Quenya)
Eonwe= adapted Valarin, unknown etymology
Uinen= adapted Valarin, -NEN=water UY- seaweed, long trailing plant
The Sindarin form 'idh'=rest, but synonomous.
>
> > Yavanna=Giver of Fruits
>
> Kementari - Queen of the Earth.
>
> > Nessa=Young
>
> Hmm. Nothing more for Nessa.
>
> > Vaire=Ever-weaving
>
> 'The Weaver'
>
> > Vana=Fair
>
> 'The Ever-young'
As an epithet yes, but not a translation.
>
> > Melkor=He who arises in might
>
> A little tidbit from the index (not, I believe, mentioned anywhere
> else): "the Sindarin form was Belegur, but it was never used, save in a
> deliberately altered form Belegurth 'Great Death'."
>
> > Aule=Invention
>
> Also called 'The Maker' and, by the Dwarves, Mahal.
>
> > Nienna=Tear
>
> 'Lady of pity and mourning' (index)
>
> > Taken from The Silmarillion, HoME 5 (Etymologies), HoME 11
> > (Quendi and Eldar), and VT 39 and 45.
>
> It's interesting to see that some bits are in the index and that some
> bits didn't make it into the index, for whatever reason.
Heh, Make the index as long as the book by detailing all the different
ways JRRT 'translated' a name.
Conrad Dunkerson
revisions and a very linear progression;
+LT-CV > S > Q > +QS-0? > QS > QS:t > +LQ-0 > LQ1 > LQ > LQ2 > Vq1 > Vq2
The published Silmarillion was derived very closely from Vq2, with minor
editorial changes as listed previously by Chris Kern.
Most of these abbreviations follow CT's usage. Those with a '+' indicate
that I created a new identifier to fill out the list.
Abbrev Title Start End Location
+LT-CV The Coming of the Valar 1918.11 1920.06 BLT1 III: 64-79
S Sketch of the Mythology 1926 1930 SoME II: 11-41
Q Quenta Noldorinwa 1930 1930 SoME III: 77-135
+QS-0 Quenta intermediary 1930 1937.11.15 Unavailable
QS Quenta Silmarillion 1930 1937.11.15 LROW 2.VI:201-289
QS:t Eldanyare/QS Typescript 1937.12 1938.02.03 LROW 2.VI:201-225
+LQ-0 Later Quenta Drafts 1951~ 1951.05.10+ Unavailable
LQ1 Later Quenta 1 1951~ 1952~ MR 3: 144-199
LQ Later Quenta rewrite 1951~ 1952~ MR 3: 184-205
LQ2 Later Quenta 2 1957.12.07 1958~ MR 3: 148-197
Vq1 Valaquenta 1959.01 1959.01+ MR 3: 200-205
Vq2 Valaquenta 1959.01 1959.01+ MR 3: 200-205
The 'start' and 'end' dates are estimated dates between which the text
was written - based on CT's analysis. Most of the titles are per JRRT or
CT, but a few have been made up when no specific title is given.
The '+QS-0' texts show a '?' because these are hypothetical 'missing
drafts' of work between Q and QS. CT deduces that such must have
existed based on the way that his father sometimes skipped passages in
QS, as if intending some unknown source to remain unchanged, but was not
able to locate any such texts prior to the development of the story of
Beren & Luthien. The '+LQ-0' text were JRRT's notes written over the
original text of QS and QS:t.
All of these texts except the first (+LT-CV) and last (Vq1 & Vq2)
covered a large period of the mythological history. In all of the longer
texts the 'Valaquenta' material can be found in the first 'chapter' /
'section'.
Chris Kern
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> posted the following:
>The '+QS-0' texts show a '?' because these are hypothetical 'missing
>drafts' of work between Q and QS. CT deduces that such must have
>existed based on the way that his father sometimes skipped passages in
>QS, as if intending some unknown source to remain unchanged,
I thought that the primary reasons for CT's belief in the existence of
the "proto-QS" were two: (a) that it is unlikely Tolkien could have
developed Q->QS without any intermediate drafts given the manner in
which he normally worked, and (b) "words necessary to the sense were
missed out and then put in above the line" (so that "it appears...that
he was copying"). Also perhaps because for Beren and Luthien primary
drafts do occur.
-Chris
Stan Brown
> I'm afraid that I'm only aquainted with the Swedish terminology in the
> field. Apologise for not checking up the proper English words before
> posting. Yes, "asarna" or "asagudarna" is the same thing as the Aesir.
Interesting facts:
English Aesir is explained in my dictionary as "Old Norse, plural of
ass" (long a). I suspect the word passed into English in the 900s
when Denmark ruled England.
Larry Swain
> Gregory Hernandez <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Tolkien being who he is, he immediately
>>begins a digression into names.
>
>
> Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
>
>
>>So we are informed that the One is
>>known as both Eru and Illuvatar
>
>
> Apologies for picking up on this, but for many years I spelt Iluvatar as
> Illuvatar. I was shocked to discover that it was one 'l' and not two.
> Has anyone else made this mistake?
>
> <snip>
>
>>Because of Tolkien's Christian faith, many writers go on to find many
>>parallels with the Judeo-Christian cosmology, but the truth is that
>>the Valaquenta echoes many other faiths and mythologies as well. We
>>have echoes of Greek and Roman myths, not to mention correspondences
>>with stories in the Hindu Vedas and Egyptian mystics.
I would say only to the extent that all mythologies echo one another.
Tolkien has a specifically "Christian" take: the gods of the "pagans"
are really angels who serve the One and it was man's sinfulness and
misunderstanding that took them for gods and told false stories about
them. Tolkien has "restored" this take on the pagan gods (not the only
current in ancient and medieval Christianity, but a common one). Yes,
there are echoes of other things there, but then the Judaeo-Christian
mythology echoes them as well and we have to ask whether Tolkien's echo
is because he is himself imitating an Indo-European Judaeo-Christian
tradition, or whether he is directly related to these other mythologies.
I think the former.
Larry Swain
Not exactly--see Genesis 6
Conrad Dunkerson
> I thought that the primary reasons for CT's belief in the existence of
> the "proto-QS" were two: (a) that it is unlikely Tolkien could have
> developed Q->QS without any intermediate drafts given the manner in
> which he normally worked, and (b) "words necessary to the sense were
> missed out and then put in above the line" (so that "it appears...that
> he was copying"). Also perhaps because for Beren and Luthien primary
> drafts do occur.
I was remembering 'b' above, though it might be taken to indicate that
individual words were left out and then put back rather than sections of
several words together as I had thought.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
Thanks for this quote.
> From "Quendi and Eldar" in "War of the Jewels":
<snip>
> when Orome appeared among them, and at length some
> dared to approach him, they asked him his name, and
> he answered: 'Orome'. Then they asked him what it
> signified, and again he answered: 'Orome. To me only
> is it given: for I am Orome.'
<snip>
This comes across as very much like a 'first contact', with the Quendi
and Orome not quite understanding each other and failing to comprehend
the nature of the other. The way Orome speaks, avoiding the simple reply
"my name is Orome", and referring to 'Oromer' as 'it'. There may be some
profound point being made here (maybe about the concept of 'right names'
as opposed to any old name, epithet or title), but it is probably best
if I read the whole essay to get the context.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>> The mention of Fenris and Ragnarok reminds me of the Last Battle
>> stories in the Silmarillion mythology, where Turin(?) returns and
>> battles Morgoth. Is it at all possible that Tyr would be identified
>> with Turin in this scenario?
>
> Hmmm, well I can't think of any strong similarities. Turin was
> directly modelled on Kullervo from the Finnish Kalevala, so any
> connection to Tyr would perforce be secondary.
I was thinking of Tyr -> Tur, but that just shows my paucity of
linguistic skills!
>> Or some combination of aspects of Turin and Beren?
>
> Interestingly, in Tolkien's final version both Turin AND Beren return
> for the Last Battle.
Does Beren lose his _other_ hand? :-)
Christopher Kreuzer
I think it is the capital 'I' next to an 'l': Ilu... It looks like two
l's. That and reading too fast. That is the most common explanation for
my various mispronunciations and mis-spellings, mostly laboriously
unlearnt when I reached the bit at the end of 'The Silmarillion'.
Reading fast so that I just scan over a word and some (wrong)
sound-shape or pattern fixes in my brain.
Christopher Kreuzer
> In article <eFQbf.2922$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <kREbf.2416$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
<snip>
>> I'm slightly confused though as to what language the names are in.
>> Are these names of the Valar all in Valarin, the language of the
>> Valar? Or are they in Quenya? Or are they in both? ie. if they are
>> Valarin, do we see the origins of words of Quenya in some of these
>> titles for the Valar?
>
> Most are a 'Quenyarized' form of the Valarin (which the Eldar found
> 'unpleasing') eg Manwe from Manawenuz, Aule from A3ulez (the 3 is
> intentional), Orome from ArQmez (the 'Q' is a vowel), Ulmo from
> Ul(l)uboz.
I thought I'd briefly looked at some of the passages in HoME about
Valarin. It seems I missed these 'exciting' uses of '3' and 'Q as a
vowel'. I have to say that I agree with the Eldar, those Valarin or
un-Quenyarized forms of the names are 'unpleasing'! Did Tolkien provide
a pronunciation guide for Valarin?
>> And what about the names of the Maiar (Melian, Olorin, Osse, Eonwe,
>> Sauron, Uinen, Ilmare)? What language and what do they mean?
>
> Maiar=The Beautiful
> Melian, Melyanna= Love, Dear-gift (Quenya (I think Melian is a
> Sindarized form of Melyanna))
> Osse=Spuming, Foaming (V.-Os(o)sai)
> Olorin= related to olos= dream, vision, phantasy (see UT, The Istari)
> Sauron=The Abhorred (Quenya)
> Ilmare=Starlight (Quenya)
> Eonwe= adapted Valarin, unknown etymology
> Uinen= adapted Valarin, -NEN=water UY- seaweed, long trailing plant
>>
>> I've added to the list some of the 'surnames' of the Valar, and
>> further information from the index to 'The Silmarillion', which
>> mostly tallies with what you posted from elsewhere, but uses
>> slightly different words.
>>
>> There may also be other epithets, names, titles, and suchlike in the
>> main text of the Silmarillion. Tolkien seems to be forever coming up
>> with new epithets and variants for his characters!
Manwe - The Elder King
Manwe - The Lord of the Valar
Varda - The Queen of the Valar
Melkor - The Foe of the Valar
<snip>
> Heh, Make the index as long as the book by detailing all the different
> ways JRRT 'translated' a name.
I can't resist interjecting a brief comment here from the preface to 'A
Reader's Companion':
"Dr Richard E. Blackwelder once counted in 'The Lord of the Rings' 632
named individuals (of which 314 are in the Appendices), a number which
soars to 1,648 when one adds titles, nicknames and descriptive epithets
(Sauron alone has 103) - to say nothing of place-names, battle names,
etc." ('The Lord of the Rings - A Reader's Companion' - Hammond and
Scull, 2005)
And Tolkien would have agonised over every single name, of course. I am
having trouble thinking of all 103 of Sauron's names, titles, nicknames
and epithets. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were that many.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Tolkien has a specifically "Christian" take: the gods of the "pagans"
> are really angels who serve the One and it was man's sinfulness and
> misunderstanding that took them for gods and told false stories about
> them. Tolkien has "restored" this take on the pagan gods (not the
> only current in ancient and medieval Christianity, but a common one).
> Yes, there are echoes of other things there, but then the
> Judaeo-Christian mythology echoes them as well and we have to ask
> whether Tolkien's echo is because he is himself imitating an
> Indo-European Judaeo-Christian tradition, or whether he is directly
> related to these other mythologies. I think the former.
I agree. But it would be nice if there was a quote somewhere where
Tolkien specifically says this (back in the 1920s or something). I know
he talks in Letters about the Valar being angelic gods (or something),
but was this the _original_ conception? Did it evolve from something
similar to a pagan pantheon into something more Christian, or did
Tolkien always have it in mind for these 'polytheistic elements' to be
just a misunderstanding of the situation by Men?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Chris Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:58:06 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
<snip>
>>> What was the sytory behind JRRT moving away from the concept of the
>>> Valar having "children". Were they ever conceived of having real
>>> "children", or was this relationship of parent to child something
>>> different for them?
>>
>> I believe that Tolkien intended for them to be real children. This
>> came from the semi-pagan roots of his concept of the "gods", which he
>> then brought in line with Christianity in some aspects.
>
> Not exactly--see Genesis 6
I seem to have mislaid my copy of the Bible.
Larry Swain
AH, sorry. In Genesis 6 some angels are described as finding the
daughters of men attractive and having sex with them, producing
offspring who were "giants", if I recall correctly the Biblical text
says "sons of God" for the angels. In the Bible this is presented as an
evil thing and one of the things that leads to the Flood.
Larry Swain
> 7 Nov 2005 22:05:16 GMT from Mästerkatten <nop...@nospam.com>:
>
>>I'm afraid that I'm only aquainted with the Swedish terminology in the
>>field. Apologise for not checking up the proper English words before
>>posting. Yes, "asarna" or "asagudarna" is the same thing as the Aesir.
>
>
> Interesting facts:
>
> English Aesir is explained in my dictionary as "Old Norse, plural of
> ass" (long a). I suspect the word passed into English in the 900s
> when Denmark ruled England.
>
HMMM, technically, "Aesir" isn't English, but simply the Old Norse name
used for the Old Norse gods. As far as I've been able to discover there
is no Old English use of the precise term.
On the other hand, there is a common Germanic root, As in Old Norse, Os
in Old English, the plural seems preserved by Jordanes, Anses, for
example meaning "god", and while not the most common word in Old English
it is very common in names: Oswin, Oswald, Osborn etc.
Troels Forchhammer
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> I seem to have mislaid my copy of the Bible.
<http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
Tar-Elenion
> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <eFQbf.2922$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> >> Tar-Elenion <tar_e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <kREbf.2416$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >>> spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I'm slightly confused though as to what language the names are in.
> >> Are these names of the Valar all in Valarin, the language of the
> >> Valar? Or are they in Quenya? Or are they in both? ie. if they are
> >> Valarin, do we see the origins of words of Quenya in some of these
> >> titles for the Valar?
> >
> > Most are a 'Quenyarized' form of the Valarin (which the Eldar found
> > 'unpleasing') eg Manwe from Manawenuz, Aule from A3ulez (the 3 is
> > intentional), Orome from ArQmez (the 'Q' is a vowel), Ulmo from
> > Ul(l)uboz.
>
> I thought I'd briefly looked at some of the passages in HoME about
> Valarin. It seems I missed these 'exciting' uses of '3' and 'Q as a
> vowel'.
WoTJ, Q&E, Notes on the 'Language of the Valar'.
The 'Q' (in the cited work) (an uppercase version of the letter, but
done in the size of the lower case 'o', it also has an
'-' over it) is to be "open /a/-like" (the 'a' is in /italics/).
I am having difficulty remebering what sound the '3' represents, a
fricative 'gh', I think.
> I have to say that I agree with the Eldar, those Valarin or
> un-Quenyarized forms of the names are 'unpleasing'! Did Tolkien provide
> a pronunciation guide for Valarin?
"...like the glitter of swords, like the rush of leaves in a great wind
or the fall of stones in the mountains."
Steve Morrison
(snip)
>
> This comes across as very much like a 'first contact', with the Quendi
> and Orome not quite understanding each other and failing to comprehend
> the nature of the other. The way Orome speaks, avoiding the simple reply
> "my name is Orome", and referring to 'Oromer' as 'it'. There may be some
> profound point being made here (maybe about the concept of 'right names'
> as opposed to any old name, epithet or title), but it is probably best
> if I read the whole essay to get the context.
It's also reminiscent of Gandalf's self-introduction in /The Hobbit/:
"And you do know my name, though you don't remember that I
belong to it. I am Gandalf, and Gandalf means me!"
Steve Morrison
> In message <news:J08cf.3614$Lw5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> enriched us with:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > I seem to have mislaid my copy of the Bible.
>
> <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10>
>
Or, of course, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/gen006.htm
Steve Morrison
(snip)
>
> I thought I'd briefly looked at some of the passages in HoME about
> Valarin. It seems I missed these 'exciting' uses of '3' and 'Q as a
> vowel'. I have to say that I agree with the Eldar, those Valarin or
> un-Quenyarized forms of the names are 'unpleasing'! Did Tolkien provide
> a pronunciation guide for Valarin?
>
The final "z" in so many of the names reminded me of the older forms
of the names of some of the Norse gods (e.g. /Tiwaz/ rather than
/Tiw/). And the names of the (other) runes.
Christopher Kreuzer
Wow! That is _exactly_ like the Orome comment! I am also reminded of
this 'Ainu attitude to names' by Gandalf's comment when he returns as
Gandalf the White:
"'Gandalf,' the old man repeated, as if recalling from old memory a long
disused word. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' [...] 'Yes, you
may still call me Gandalf'..." (The White Rider)
Plus of course Gandalf's recitation (quoted by Faramir to Sam and Frodo)
of the many names Gandalf was known by. Plus the many titles and
epithets he accrued.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Steve Morrison <Geir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>>
>>> This comes across as very much like a 'first contact', with the
>>> Quendi and Orome not quite understanding each other and failing to
>>> comprehend the nature of the other. The way Orome speaks, avoiding
>>> the simple reply "my name is Orome", and referring to 'Oromer' as
>>> 'it'. There may be some profound point being made here (maybe about
>>> the concept of 'right names' as opposed to any old name, epithet or
>>> title), but it is probably best if I read the whole essay to get the
>>> context.
>>
>> It's also reminiscent of Gandalf's self-introduction in /The Hobbit/:
>> "And you do know my name, though you don't remember that I
>> belong to it. I am Gandalf, and Gandalf means me!"
>
> Wow! That is _exactly_ like the Orome comment!
Plus of course Goldberry's comment on Tom: "he is". And Tom's comments
earlier: "Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me,
who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? "
JimboCat
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Gregory Hernandez <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Tolkien being who he is, he immediately
>> begins a digression into names.
>
>Do the names of the Valar translate as anything?
>
>> So we are informed that the One is
>> known as both Eru and Illuvatar
>
>Apologies for picking up on this, but for many years I spelt Iluvatar as
>Illuvatar. I was shocked to discover that it was one 'l' and not two.
>Has anyone else made this mistake?
I, too, am shocked. One "l"???
Google search "Iluvatar" - 213,000 hits
Google search "Illuvatar" - 36,700 hits, and it asks "Did you mean
"Iluvatar"?
There is, however, a www.Illuvatar.com. Perhaps they can get away with
that because it is misspelled? <g>
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap" - Frank Zappa
Conrad Dunkerson
> I agree. But it would be nice if there was a quote somewhere where
> Tolkien specifically says this (back in the 1920s or something). I know
> he talks in Letters about the Valar being angelic gods (or something),
> but was this the _original_ conception? Did it evolve from something
> similar to a pagan pantheon into something more Christian, or did
> Tolkien always have it in mind for these 'polytheistic elements' to be
> just a misunderstanding of the situation by Men?
Well, the term 'angel' doesn't appear in any of the earlier texts, but
the 'Music of the Ainur' does... where it is clear that the Ainur are
divine servants of a single creator god. Too, in the earlier texts the
Christian connections are, if anything, MORE strongly drawn;
"This poem, and this entry in the word-list, offer a rare and very
suggestive glimpse of the mythic conception in its earliest phase; for
here ideas that are drawn from Christian theology are explicitly
present. For in the tale there is an account of the fates of dead Men
after judgement in the black hall of Fui Nienna. Some ('and these are
the many') are ferried by the death-ship to (Habbanan) Eruman, where
they wander in the dusk and wait in patience till the Great End; some
are seized by Melko and tormented in Angamandi 'the Hells of Iron'; and
some few go to dwell with the Gods in Valinor. Taken with the poem and
the evidence of the early 'dictionaries', can this be other than a
reflection of Purgatory, Hell, and Heaven?"
BoLT, The Coming of the Valar (pg 92)
The poem and etymology in question can be found on the same page. The
etymology refers to 'manimuine' as the elven for 'Purgatory' and the
poem specifically mentions "God".
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>I agree. But it would be nice if there was a quote somewhere where
>Tolkien specifically says this (back in the 1920s or something). I know
>he talks in Letters about the Valar being angelic gods (or something),
>but was this the _original_ conception? Did it evolve from something
>similar to a pagan pantheon into something more Christian, or did
>Tolkien always have it in mind for these 'polytheistic elements' to be
>just a misunderstanding of the situation by Men?
The available evidence suggests to me that at first, Tolkien was not
attempting to conform to any specific mythological tradition but
instead was drawing ideas from various places (the benevolent
all-creator of Christianity, the pagan gods, etc.)
It doesn't seem to be until somewhere in the mid-40's that he began to
concern himself with removing the overtly non-Christian elements and
squaring the mythology with known scientific truths.
One major change that was never fully realized in the actual texts was
to Melkor. In the early myths, and perhaps even in the published
Silmarillion (I don't remember clearly), he is co-equal with Manwe in
power. Later he becomes the strongest of the Valar. In sketched
revisions, however, he becomes not only the strongest of the Valar,
but stronger than all the Valar combined. In addition, he becomes the
source of all corruption and evil in Arda rather than just being a
powerful evil creature as he was in the early myths. This, however,
seems to have come from Tolkien's own invention -- I don't know of
anything either from the Bible or from Catholic tradition that makes
Satan that powerful.
-Chris
Larry Swain
> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Tolkien has a specifically "Christian" take: the gods of the "pagans"
>>are really angels who serve the One and it was man's sinfulness and
>>misunderstanding that took them for gods and told false stories about
>>them. Tolkien has "restored" this take on the pagan gods (not the
>>only current in ancient and medieval Christianity, but a common one).
>>Yes, there are echoes of other things there, but then the
>>Judaeo-Christian mythology echoes them as well and we have to ask
>>whether Tolkien's echo is because he is himself imitating an
>>Indo-European Judaeo-Christian tradition, or whether he is directly
>> related to these other mythologies. I think the former.
>
>
> I agree. But it would be nice if there was a quote somewhere where
> Tolkien specifically says this (back in the 1920s or something). I know
> he talks in Letters about the Valar being angelic gods (or something),
> but was this the _original_ conception?
I don't know of a specific citation, but I would expect that it would be
something close to it. Considering that when he began all this he was
still quite young, still under the influence of FatherX whose name
escapes me, and probably as Catholic as he would ever be.
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>> Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Tolkien has a specifically "Christian" take: the gods of the
>>> "pagans" are really angels who serve the One and it was man's
>>> sinfulness and misunderstanding that took them for gods and told
>>> false stories about them. Tolkien has "restored" this take on the
>>> pagan gods (not the only current in ancient and medieval
>>> Christianity, but a common one). Yes, there are echoes of other
>>> things there, but then the Judaeo-Christian mythology echoes them
>>> as well and we have to ask whether Tolkien's echo is because he is
>>> himself imitating an Indo-European Judaeo-Christian tradition, or
>>> whether he is directly related to these other mythologies. I think
>>> the former.
>>
>>
>> I agree. But it would be nice if there was a quote somewhere where
>> Tolkien specifically says this (back in the 1920s or something). I
>> know he talks in Letters about the Valar being angelic gods (or
>> something), but was this the _original_ conception?
>
> I don't know of a specific citation, but I would expect that it would
> be something close to it. Considering that when he began all this he
> was still quite young, still under the influence of FatherX whose name
> escapes me, and probably as Catholic as he would ever be.
Father Francis Morgan.
I am not too sure about your "as Catholic as he ever would be". Isn't it
rather that as he got _older_ that he tended to bring his religion
overtly into his writings? I agree that you can argue that his religion
was always [whatever the opposite of overtly is] in his stories, but
whether it was consciously so is never that clear. Tolkien says
something in a Letter about the religion being there "consciously so in
the revision".
And conversely, can't you argue that when he was young, just out of
school where he studied classical texts, and studying Classics in his
first year at Oxford University, that he was as Classically-minded as he
would ever be, and that this might speak to having a pantheon of gods?
>> Did it evolve from something
>> similar to a pagan pantheon into something more Christian, or did
>> Tolkien always have it in mind for these 'polytheistic elements' to
>> be just a misunderstanding of the situation by Men?
Maybe we can't answer this without a specific quote from Tolkien on the
matter. If such a quote exists.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> One major change that was never fully realized in the actual texts was
> to Melkor. In the early myths, and perhaps even in the published
> Silmarillion (I don't remember clearly), he is co-equal with Manwe in
> power.
"...many of the most mighty among them [the Ainur] bent all their
thought and their desire towards that place [Arda]. And of these Melkor
was the chief, even as he was in the beginning the greatest of the Ainur
who took part in the Music..." (Ainulindale)
"...he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other
of the Valar..." (Ainulindale)
"Manwe and Melkor were brethren in the thought of Iluvatar. The
mightiest of those Ainur who came into the World was in his beginning
Melkor..." (Valaquenta)
"Great might was given to him by Iluvatar, and he was coeval with
Manwe." (Valaquenta)
> Later he becomes the strongest of the Valar. In sketched
> revisions, however, he becomes not only the strongest of the Valar,
> but stronger than all the Valar combined. In addition, he becomes the
> source of all corruption and evil in Arda rather than just being a
> powerful evil creature as he was in the early myths.
So this "stronger than all the Valar" and "source of all evil" appears
in the published Silmarillion? Or by "never realised in the actual
texts" do you mean that Tolkien intended to do this, but never fully
carried it through? And did he keep the bit about Melkor losing power
and becoming diminished, and his power passing into his slaves and
armies, and most of all, being used up in the Marring of Arda. A
'Morgoth essense' passing into the material of the world? Or is this
what is meant by "source of all corruption and evil"?
Maybe hints are found in:
"In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part..." and
"as surely as the Valar began a labour so would Melkor undo it or
corrupt it" and "there was strife between Melkor and the other Valar;
and for that time Melkor withdrew" (it seems he is biding his time, and
gathering his strength, not that he is overmatched).
The first descriptions of Melkor truly battling the Valar seem to depict
him as a lone, powerful force, and the Valar scurrying around clearing
up his mess:
"...he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other
of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea and has its head above
the clouds and is clad in ice and crowned with smoke and fire; and the
light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and
pierces with a deadly cold." [...] "the Valar endeavoured ever, in
despite of Melkor" [...] "naught might have peace or come to lasting
growth, for as surely as the Valar began a labour so would Melkor undo
it or corrupt it." (Ainulindale)
And this is also seen in Valaquenta:
"...so great was the power of his uprising that in ages forgotten he
contended with Manwe and all the Valar, and through long years in Arda
held dominion over most of the lands of the Earth." (Valaquenta, though
note the bit that immediately follows: "But he was not alone.")
The other descriptions in Valaquenta depict Melkor as merely one, if
still the most powerful, of the Aratar (though he was later removed).
And in the descriptions in 'Of the Beginning of Days' he does seem to
become just an evil creature with an army of minions and helpers. We do
see the initial lone power description, but his power is countered by
Tulkas:
"for long Melkor had the upper hand. But in the midst of the war a
spirit of great strength and hardihood came to the aid of the Valar" (Of
the Beginning of Days)
If this is indeed a different battle to the one where Melkor descended
on Arda in "power and majesty" (the mountain-metaphor given above), then
maybe this is an intentional downgrading of Melkor, as part of his slide
into an all-consuming darkness, as given in Valaquenta: "From splendour
he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a
spirit wasteful and pitiless [...] he descended through fire and wrath
into a great burning, down into Darkness."
And when Melkor returns after fleeing Tulkas, he is definitely not a
lone and powerful power. He returns having "gathered to himself spirits
out of the halls of Ea" and passes "over the Walls of the Night with his
host". When he and his host attack, it is not clear whether he alone
fells the Lamps of the Valar, or whether he needed aid to do so (much as
he later needed the aid of Ungoliant to assail the Two Trees).
> This, however,
> seems to have come from Tolkien's own invention -- I don't know of
> anything either from the Bible or from Catholic tradition that makes
> Satan that powerful.
But maybe these 'total power' and/or 'ultimate evil' ideas are seen in
other philosophies and religions? Satan was described as having helpers,
wasn't he? And does Tolkien ever show signs of depicting the Satan seen
in Milton's Paradise Lost?
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> CT also says at the end of this section of MR that the tenses of the
> descriptions changed from past to present and back during the Vq, and
> he smoothed over this difficulty, but he regrets doing so.
Is this similar to what he says in the Foreword?
"In the case of the Valaquenta, for instance, we have to assume that
while it contains much that must go back to the earliest days of the
Eldar in Valinor, it was remodelled in later times; and thus explain its
continual shifting of tense and viewpoint, so that the divine powers
seem now present and active in the world, now remote, a vanished order
known only to memory." (Foreword to the 1977 Silmarillion)
This seems to imply that he _didn't_ smooth over these changes in tense.
Or is Christopher Tolkien talking in Morgoth's Ring about _later_
changes he made??
Christopher Kreuzer
[Valaquenta]
<snip>
> - After the words "for the pursuit of the evil creatures of Melkor", a
> sentence was accidentally omitted in the published Silm: "But the
> Valaroma is not blown, and Nahar runs no more upon the Middle-earth
> since the change of the world and the waning of the Elves, whom he
> loved."
[Is it Nahar or Orome or both who loved the Elves?]
This bit reminded me of this bit:
"In Beleriand still at times rode Orome the great, passing like a wind
over the mountains, and the sound of his horn came down the leagues of
the starlight... [...] when the Valaroma echoed in the hills, they knew
well that all evil things were fled far away." (Of the Sindar)
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>Chris Kern <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Later he becomes the strongest of the Valar. In sketched
>> revisions, however, he becomes not only the strongest of the Valar,
>> but stronger than all the Valar combined. In addition, he becomes the
>> source of all corruption and evil in Arda rather than just being a
>> powerful evil creature as he was in the early myths.
>
>So this "stronger than all the Valar" and "source of all evil" appears
>in the published Silmarillion?
No.
> Or by "never realised in the actual
>texts" do you mean that Tolkien intended to do this, but never fully
>carried it through?
Yes, that's what I mean. In the sketched revisions, for instance, the
Valar were not able to capture Melkor at Utumno. They went to capture
him knowing that they would fail, to distract him from the Elves (who
had just awoken). But Melkor saw a chance to infiltrate Valinor and
allowed himself to be captured. However, apparently even at this
point Melkor had weakened considerably, and Manwe notices it.
>And did he keep the bit about Melkor losing power
>and becoming diminished, and his power passing into his slaves and
>armies, and most of all, being used up in the Marring of Arda. A
>'Morgoth essense' passing into the material of the world? Or is this
>what is meant by "source of all corruption and evil"?
I think this was a part of the story in the published Silm, even if
not explicit.
>The other descriptions in Valaquenta
I believe that all the texts of the Valaquenta predate the texts where
Tolkien lays out the ideas I talked about above.
-Chris
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:03:37 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>
>> Chris Kern <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Later he becomes the strongest of the Valar. In sketched
>>> revisions, however, he becomes not only the strongest of the Valar,
>>> but stronger than all the Valar combined. In addition, he becomes
>>> the source of all corruption and evil in Arda rather than just
>>> being a powerful evil creature as he was in the early myths.
>>
>> So this "stronger than all the Valar" and "source of all evil"
>> appears in the published Silmarillion?
>
> No.
I think there are traces in the published Silmarillion of the idea that
he is stronger than all the Valar combined. He is said to be not only
the strongest of the Valar, but also: "so great was the power of his
uprising that in ages forgotten he contended with Manwe and all the
Valar" (Valaquenta)
In some sense, he _initially_ successfully contended with Manwe and the
other Valar, causing great havoc. But in the published Silmarillion, it
looks like Melkor diminishes in power very quickly, to the point where
he flees from Tulkas and has to gather spirits to himself to come back
and carry on the fight.
Do you think it is possible to say that Tolkien's later ideas (where you
talk about the Valar going to Utumno to distract, rather than defeat
Melkor), grew out of these earlier traces? In other words that Tolkien
_delayed_ the point at which Melkor was diminished, or the rate at which
Melkor was diminished? Was the diminishment of Melkor a constant theme
in all versions?
<snip>
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>Do you think it is possible to say that Tolkien's later ideas (where you
>talk about the Valar going to Utumno to distract, rather than defeat
>Melkor), grew out of these earlier traces?
Yes, I think that is fairly certain. In the MR essay when Tolkien
says that Melkor must be made far more powerful, he specifically
references the point where Melkor is able to drive out the other
Valar.
-Chris
Troels Forchhammer
<news:1131368764....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net"
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> enriched us with:
>
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote;
>>
<snip>
> So, Tolkien definitely connected Manwe with Odin, but not to my
> recollection with any Christian figure.
I don't think that there are any appropriate corresponding figures in
Christian myth -- the Angels of Christian mythology have not, as far
as I am aware, been given the vice-regency of Eath, as they have in
Tolkien's legendarium.
To me the Valar appear as corresponding more closely to the various
pagan pantheons of European (and possibly beyond that) mythologies --
a sense that is strengthened by Tolkien's use of the word 'gods' to
refer to them. I don't know if they are, within his legendarium,
meant to be the source of these pantheons (through the transmission
of some garbled tales about the Valar), but they are, I think,
capable of serving that function.
> Melkor was definitely connected to Satan, but not to any Norse
> figure.
No, there is no Norse figure that corresponds to the absolute evil of
Melkor.
<snip>
> As per the link, the name Lucifer had nothing to do with Jewish
> mythology. It was just the name of the planet Venus in Latin...
> referencing the fact that Venus is visible shining brightly on the
> horizon just before dawn. Hence 'light bringer'.
Eärendil's silmaril is supposed to be the planet Venus, but is it
possible relate Venus and Varda? Light-bringer and Star-kindler?
>> Odin was the chief of the Norse gods. Seems appropriate for the
>> chief of the Valar.
>
> Odin and Manwe were also both connected with the weather.
And of course they share more attributes than that. Though the birds
that brought news to Odin were ravens, they were nonetheless birds,
and both were wont to sit in their high-seat from where they could
see all that occurred.
>> And Tolkien also called Gandalf an Odinic wanderer, didn't he?
>> Which may make some connection with Manwe.
>
> The 'Odinic wanderer' bit refers to legends that Odin would
> wander about the countryside in the guise of an old man.
[...]
> Gandalf may have been one of the Maiar of Manwe and in UT there
> is even a suggestion (seemingly intended to be an incorrect
> assumption of Men) that Gandalf WAS Manwe.
I wonder if there is a relation in this -- the association of both to
Odin, perhaps?
>>> Tulkas Thor ?
>>
>> Thor is a Norse god, he of the famous hammer and drinking the
>> oceans dry, and many other stories. Very war-like and plays much
>> the same role (big strongman) that we see Tulkas play. Though
>> there are more stories about Thor than about Tulkas.
Thor was also related to weather and to hunting. As a warrior,
however, his role was that of the single combat rather than the
organised war and battle (which were the province of Tyr).
The designations won't work on one-to-one basis, I think, as the
attributes are distributed differently each time: some of the Valar
might fit well with some Greek or Roman gods, other with Norse,
Celtic or other gods.
Most of the primitive pantheons we are looking at have a god of
fertility (or two if it's /really/ important -- as the siblings Frey
and Freya in Norse mythology). The closest we can come to that in
Tolkien's mythos is probably Yavanna who nevertheless seems a rather
watered-down version of the pagan fertility gods.
[...]
> CT wrote that he couldn't make out what name his father
> connected to Tyr, but that it didn't look similar to the names of
> any of the great Valar. I'd be curious to see whether it might be
> Beren rather than a Vala (of the current count) at all.
Or Eonwë, who led the Valinorean hosts agains Morgoth?
That might widen the field quite a bit -- not only within Tolkien's
mythos (Eärendil -- Balder?), but also by letting us look to e.g. the
saints for finding correspondances (Mandos -- Saint Peter?).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The trouble with being a god is that you've got no one to
pray to.
- /Small Gods/ (Terry Pratchett)
Larry Swain
I'm not certain that overt religious reference means that threfore he
was more committed as a Catholic, or less.
I agree that you can argue that his religion
> was always [whatever the opposite of overtly is] in his stories, but
> whether it was consciously so is never that clear. Tolkien says
> something in a Letter about the religion being there "consciously so in
> the revision".
>
> And conversely, can't you argue that when he was young, just out of
> school where he studied classical texts, and studying Classics in his
> first year at Oxford University, that he was as Classically-minded as he
> would ever be, and that this might speak to having a pantheon of gods?
But they aren't mutually exclusive. Since the sixth century, the study
of the "classics" had been filtered through a Christian lens, and
Tolkien's education was no different in that regard, particularly while
at King Edward's, but still at Oxford. So I'm not sure that being
"Classically minded" need necessarily mean "not Christian" minded or
vice versa, and that what we see in these early writings is actually a
marriage of the two.
>
>>>Did it evolve from something
>>>similar to a pagan pantheon into something more Christian, or did
>>>Tolkien always have it in mind for these 'polytheistic elements' to
>>>be just a misunderstanding of the situation by Men?
>
>
> Maybe we can't answer this without a specific quote from Tolkien on the
> matter. If such a quote exists.
I agree, I'm just thinking that from where I sit the probability is that
this was an original conception, not one added later. Certainly can't
prove it.
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> I don't think that there are any appropriate corresponding figures in
> Christian myth -- the Angels of Christian mythology have not, as far
> as I am aware, been given the vice-regency of Eath, as they have in
> Tolkien's legendarium.
And also in C.S. Lewis's -- though he had a single archangel in
charge of each planet, assisted by a host of lesser angels: as though
Arda had only Manwë plus a throng of Maiar.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Larry Swain
> In message
> <news:1131368764....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> "conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net"
> <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> enriched us with:
>
>>Christopher Kreuzer wrote;
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>So, Tolkien definitely connected Manwe with Odin, but not to my
>>recollection with any Christian figure.
>
>
> I don't think that there are any appropriate corresponding figures in
> Christian myth -- the Angels of Christian mythology have not, as far
> as I am aware, been given the vice-regency of Eath, as they have in
> Tolkien's legendarium.
Not entirely true. In Christian tradition, some angels govern
geographic regions and places; others watch over or govern specific
peoples; still others if not governing over nature, certainly are
attributed with affecting nature and putting into effect divine decrees
in nature. And they are hierarchical. Finally, there are 7 archangels,
and one who is the arche of archangels, Michael. So while there isn't a
one to one correspondance, there are some points of comparison.
>
> To me the Valar appear as corresponding more closely to the various
> pagan pantheons of European (and possibly beyond that) mythologies --
> a sense that is strengthened by Tolkien's use of the word 'gods' to
> refer to them. I don't know if they are, within his legendarium,
> meant to be the source of these pantheons (through the transmission
> of some garbled tales about the Valar), but they are, I think,
> capable of serving that function.
Agreed, but I have tried to make the case that these are not mutually
exclusive categories, even in the Christian tradition.
>
> Eärendil's silmaril is supposed to be the planet Venus, but is it
> possible relate Venus and Varda? Light-bringer and Star-kindler?
The planet Venus isn't the goddess if that makes sense. More likely
thought that Varda is to be equated with Apollo.
Troels Forchhammer
Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com> enriched us with:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> In message
>> <news:1131368764....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>> "conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net"
>> <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> enriched us with:
>>>
>>> Christopher Kreuzer wrote;
>>>>
>>
>> aware, been given the vice-regency of Eath, as they have in
>> Tolkien's legendarium.
>
> Not entirely true.
If not for the qualifier ;-) (it's one of those things where I
automatically suspect that my knowledge is incomplete).
Thanks.
<snip>
> Agreed, but I have tried to make the case that these are not
> mutually exclusive categories, even in the Christian tradition.
Point taken.
>> Eärendil's silmaril is supposed to be the planet Venus, but is it
>> possible relate Venus and Varda? Light-bringer and Star-kindler?
>
> The planet Venus isn't the goddess if that makes sense.
You mean the light-bringer aspect isn't related to the Goddess?
> More likely thought that Varda is to be equated with Apollo.
That seems very reasonable to me.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
Matthew T Curtis
<greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>This account of the Valar, like the Ainulindale before it, owes quite a bit
>to the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis. The first paragraph of the
>Valaquenta, in fact, retells the story of the Ainulindale. As in the book
>of Genesis, the Valaquenta begins with the words "in the beginning".
>Tolkien being who he is, he immediately begins a digression into names. So
>we are informed that the One is known as both Eru and Illuvatar, the secret
>fire at the heart of the world was called Ea, and Arda was the name of the
>kingdom of Earth.
>The Ainu are broken down into further classifications, with the greatest of
>these angel-like beings given names and called the Valar. The Valar
>basically correspond to archangels in Judeo-Christian cosmology. As in the
>story of the angels, there is one among them who is the greatest and who is
>the first to fall. In the case of Tolkien's middle-earth, the Ainu's name
>is Melkor.
>Because of Tolkien's Christian faith, many writers go on to find many
>parallels with the Judeo-Christian cosmology, but the truth is that the
>Valaquenta echoes many other faiths and mythologies as well. We have echoes
>of Greek and Roman myths, not to mention correspondences with stories in the
>Hindu Vedas and Egyptian mystics.
>So for example we have Varda the Valar lady of the Stars corresponding to
>Roman Sophia, Ulmo as an analogue for Poseidon/Neptune, and Oiolossë the
>tallest mountain paralleling Mount Olympus, home of the Gods, etc.
>The Valar are named in the Valaquenta and they are seven in number: Manwe
>lord of the lord of the breezes, and the air, and all creatures that take
>wing, and lord of the Valar. Next comes Ulmo, lord of the waters. Aulë,
>master of crafts and craftmanship. Namo, summoner of the spirits of the
>slain. Irmo, master of visions and dreams. Tulkas, who delights in
>wrestling and contests of strength. And lastly there is Oromë, who has a
>dreadful temperament and whose parvenu is the lands of Middle Earth.
>In addition to the Valar, there are also the Valier, the queens of the Ainu.
>The greatest of these queens is Varda, who is most often spoken of in the
>Lord of the Rings as Elbereth. She is, as noted above, the Lady of the
>stars. She is the spouse of Manwë and they are seldom apart. Yavanna is
>called the giver of fruits and corresponds to the earth mother archetype.
>She is called the spouse of the craftsman Aulë. Vairë the Weaver, who
>corresponds to the goddess Fate, is the spouse of the Pluto-esque Valar
>Namo. Estë the healer of hurts and weariness, is coupled with Irmo, the
>giver of dreams and visions. These last two couplings, IMHO, are truly
>inspired. The lord of the waters is said to dwell alone, and in order to
>keep the significant number seven for both lords and ladies, Tolkien came up
>with a Valier who also dwells alone. She is Nienna, sister of Namo and Irmo
>(the three together referred to as the Fëanturi, the masters of spirits).
>During the music of the making of the music of the Ainu, when Melkor began
>weaving his discordant themes into the music, it was she whose song turned
>to sorrow and lamentation. She is grieves for the wounds of the earth, the
>disharmony in the choir of the Ainu and its subsequent coming to pass in the
>realm of Arda. With Tulkas, the Apollonian/Mercury hybrid, goes Nessa, who
>seems to be his exact female counterpart. To Oromë the dark Ainu of earth
>and wrath is espoused the Valier Vana, who is the epitome of Spring.
>Now as has been pointed out, there are seven Valar and seven Valier.
>Nowhere among these great powers of the world has Melkor been named. He
>arose before there was a world. He is left until last. His original name,
>it is told, meant "he who arises in might", but it is not by this name that
>he is written about in the legends of the elves and of men. There he is
>referred to as Morgoth, the Dark Enemy. He is, as has been seen in the
>previous book, the Ainulindalë, as powerful as - and in many ways
>corresponding to - Manwë, the leader of the Valar. Because of his lust,
>envy, and malice, Melkor has squandered much of what was inherently
>available to him due to the grace of Eru. A line from the Valaquenta I'll
>quote here, since it seems most appropriate in describing Melkor: "From
>splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself
>[becoming] a spirit wasteful and pitiless".
<snip Maiar>
>
Well, my good intentions of being a good Netizen by making pertinent
contributions throughout the Silmarillion CotW discussions seem to
have already been scuppered by the dreaded lurgy. I'm going abroad in
a couple of weeks for Christmas and New Year and I shall not have much
access to the books (or the net), but I'll make an effort.
Just about everything I wanted to say about Ainulindale and Valaquenta
has already been said, but I still have one question:
What is the point of the Aratar?
Tolkien has established the Valar as the powers of the earth, and the
Maiar as their helpers, says that eight of them were of 'chief power
and reverence... peers, surpassing beyond compare all others.'
(Although they are supposedly equals, Tulkas, non-Aratar, is said to
be 'greatest in strength and deeds of prowess). It seems to me that
this is just taxonomy for taxonomy's sake. No advantage to the Valar's
rule accrues from their existence. Did the Aratar have authority over
the other Valar? No. Did they constitute a secret inner council? No;
otherwise Ulmo, who rarely attended, would not have been admitted.
My story-internal theory is that the Aratar category was created by
the Elves to distinguish those Valar with whom they had the closest
relations (such as Aule or Mandos), or who gave most thought to them
(Ulmo), or for whom they had especial reverence (Varda).
(My story-external theory is that before the Maiar were distinguished
from the Valar, Tolkien needed to distinguish the important players in
Aman from the lesser lights, and the idea stuck).
--
Matthew T Curtis mtcurtis[at]dsl.pipex.com
HIV+ for 25 glorious years!
There's no greys, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised
you don't know that. - Terry Pratchett
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>HMMM, technically, "Aesir" isn't English, but simply the Old Norse name
>used for the Old Norse gods. As far as I've been able to discover there
>is no Old English use of the precise term.
No, technically, "Aesir" *is* English. It appears it English
dictionaries without disclaimer and is the standard English term for
what it represents.
If you mean to say it is borrowed, well, English is largely borrowed
vocabulary.
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
R. Dan Henry
<greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So for example we have Varda the Valar lady of the Stars corresponding to
>Roman Sophia, Ulmo as an analogue for Poseidon/Neptune, and Oiolossë the
>tallest mountain paralleling Mount Olympus, home of the Gods, etc.
Actually, the whole, Air-Water-Earth thing with Manwe-Ulmo-Aule is a
pretty good match to Zeus-Poseidon-Hades. The actual characters of these
Valar don't much match their Greek prototypes, however. But really,
comparisons between any two pantheons are going to come up with
superficial parallels, because they're all ways of personifying the same
natural world (although there's not only culture differences, but
inevitable environmental differences between, e.g. a Scandinavian and a
Mediterranean collection of gods).
I can understand how the spirits of the Valar might be masculine and
feminine, even though not strictly male or female. I can even get that
they might pair up as spouses. What I *don't* get is why some are
"brother" or "sister" to another? What does this mean? In an obvious
sense, they are *all* siblings, fathered by Eru and motherless. But then
it would go without saying if this were meant. So, any ideas on what it
means for one Ainu to be sibling to another?
Tulkas laughs while fighting. Any relation to the laughter of the
Rohirrim in battle?
If the "names" of the Valar are all titles/descriptors, except Orome,
why are "Mandos" and "Lorien" any less proper than "Namo" and "Irmo"?
Those are called their "true names", but unless their is some
misunderstanding, they aren't their *true* names, but merely some early
designations replaced with the home-name versions later.
Osse goes bad and then actually repents and turns good again. This, I
think, makes him one of the more important figures theologically, as he
demonstrates that repentance is more than a theoretical possibility.
The paragraph for Sauron is really great. Not only describes the evil of
Sauron nicely and builds him up to be a major villain in his own right,
but the "But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost
of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into
the Void" is both one of Tolkien really well-crafted sentences, and is
evocative of the tragedy inherent in the fall from such heights to such
depths as the rebel Ainur represent. Actually the whole "Of the Enemies"
section is particularly good and their nature brings into this section
conflict giving it a less catalog-of-titles-and-attributes feel than not
only much of the Valaquenta but many older catalogs of supernatural
beings by either believers or later scholars. It isn't quite narrative,
but it summarizes some important dramatic points about the most
interesting of the supernatural characters -- there isn't much room for
character development in the good Ainur, so the ones that Fall offer the
most dramatic potential.
George Ellison
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 02:33:07 GMT, "Gregory Hernandez"
> <greg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >So for example we have Varda the Valar lady of the Stars corresponding to
> >Roman Sophia, Ulmo as an analogue for Poseidon/Neptune, and Oiolossë the
> >tallest mountain paralleling Mount Olympus, home of the Gods, etc.
>
> Actually, the whole, Air-Water-Earth thing with Manwe-Ulmo-Aule is a
> pretty good match to Zeus-Poseidon-Hades. The actual characters of these
> Valar don't much match their Greek prototypes, however. But really,
> comparisons between any two pantheons are going to come up with
> superficial parallels, because they're all ways of personifying the same
> natural world (although there's not only culture differences, but
> inevitable environmental differences between, e.g. a Scandinavian and a
> Mediterranean collection of gods).
>
> I can understand how the spirits of the Valar might be masculine and
> feminine, even though not strictly male or female. I can even get that
> they might pair up as spouses. What I *don't* get is why some are
> "brother" or "sister" to another? What does this mean? In an obvious
> sense, they are *all* siblings, fathered by Eru and motherless. But then
> it would go without saying if this were meant. So, any ideas on what it
> means for one Ainu to be sibling to another?
>
I think that this might be a throwback to the early BoLT stories, where certain
Valar were children of other Valar.
Larry Swain
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:11:30 -0600, Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>HMMM, technically, "Aesir" isn't English, but simply the Old Norse name
>>used for the Old Norse gods. As far as I've been able to discover there
>>is no Old English use of the precise term.
>
>
> No, technically, "Aesir" *is* English. It appears it English
> dictionaries without disclaimer and is the standard English term for
> what it represents.
No, I'm afraid not. There are several issues that your note here
broaches and I will attempt to lay them out one by one and examine them.
First, you seem to think that "Aesir" is an English word because it
appears in dictionaries without disclaimer. Two separate issues here.
A) We must answer what and which dictionaries will be the final
arbiters on the question. I note that both the Webster's and the
American Heritage include "Aesir" but the Oxford English Dictionary does
not. I also note that several foreign language dictionaries fail to
include "Aesir" to translate into other languages. So which dictionary
shall we agree on as the final test that it is an English word? I
prefer the OED in all such matters.
B) Is it really the case that if included in a dictionary "without
disclaimer" that means it is an English word? How about Webster's
inclusion of PBB as an entry? They neither include it in the
abbreviations, nor in the foreign words and phrases in spite of the fact
that it is an abbreviation for polybrominated biphenyl: so is PBB an
English word? how about polybrominated biphenyl? If so, why? How
about "p"? "P" has an entry with some 5 definitions, so is "p" an
English word? How about xi, the name of the Greek letter? Are the
Greek names for the letters of the alphabet now also English? On what
grounds? Or how about Xhosa, a name of a particular people and language
group, is their name now an English name? Again, on what grounds?
C) what does it mean to be "without disclaimer"? is there a place in a
dictionary entry for a "disclaimer"? They could place the entry in
Foreign words and phrases, but at least Webster's uses that section for
primarily French and Latin words and phrases (and then we get to the
question of if we say Aesir is an English word, why isn't wunderbar from
German? The latter is certainly more widely used and known than the
former)--what makes wunderbar or id est (abbreviated i. e.) foreign but
Aesir English? What sort of disclaimer does one expect to be placed on
PBB or Xhosa or Aesir?
The second issue your statement raises is whether or not Aesir is the
standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods. A quick search of various
databases reveals that "Norse gods" is far more "standard" than Aesir
which occurs surprisingly in very limited, scholarly or informational,
contexts.
Granted this gets us into some grey areas of lexicography: when to
include a loanword and when not and of course there is no agreement on
the answer. But I would argue that it is not a loanword into English
but remains a foreign term to describe another culture's belief system,
here's why:
1) no significant phonological change
2) no significant morphological change
3) technical language and only technical use: refers to the Norse gods
period.
4) no change in semantic range
The biggest issue is whether technical, scholarly vocabulary that makes
use of foreign words or phrases then makes these words or phrases
"English". I happen not to think so, and it would seem that at least in
this case the OED agrees with me.
>
> If you mean to say it is borrowed, well, English is largely borrowed
> vocabulary.
>
Both a red herring and a logical fallacy.
Odysseus
>
<snip>
> I am having difficulty remebering what sound the '3' represents, a
> fricative 'gh', I think.
That seems right, similar to Y. The numeral 3 resembles the obsolete
letter _yogh_ (sp?) that appears as a Z in modern Scots, e.g. in
_capercailzie_ (a kind of grouse) and in the surnames Menzies & Dalziel.
--
Odysseus
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>The second issue your statement raises is whether or not Aesir is the
>standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods. A quick search of various
>databases reveals that "Norse gods" is far more "standard" than Aesir
>which occurs surprisingly in very limited, scholarly or informational,
>contexts.
"Aesir" and "Norse gods" are not synonyms. [1] The Vanir are just as
much Norse gods as are the Aesir. Anyone with even a passing knowledge
of Norse mythology is familiar with the Aesir and Vanir. That these
terms are unfamiliar with those unfamiliar with the things they name is
hardly surprising. But you are certainly correct that "Aesir is the
standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods" is false, since the Aesir are
subgroup of the Norse gods. Similarly, "Englishman" is not the standard
English word for human beings.
And, yes, "polybrominated biphenyl" is English. I find the very question
astonishing. "PBB" is not an English word, because it is not a word, but
an initialism.
There is one defensible position based on which "Aesir" is not an
English word, since it is a proper noun, the name of a clan of gods.
This is the position that names are extralinguistic entities, not really
part of the vocabulary, but simple tags. It is possible that is what you
meant all along. In which case, "Aesir" isn't English (nor is it Norse).
It is, however, clearly the Anglicized form of the name, as the Old
Norse would have been runic.
[1] I also find that a Google for "Norse gods" turns up far fewer hits
than an English-only search for Aesir, so I'm not sure how you reached
your conclusion. ("Norse gods" runs only slightly behind "Vanir".) Yes,
there are businesses with "Aesir" in the name, but that's only a further
indication that they aren't that obscure.
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:33:10 -0600, Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> The second issue your statement raises is whether or not Aesir is the
>> standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods. A quick search of various
>> databases reveals that "Norse gods" is far more "standard" than Aesir
>> which occurs surprisingly in very limited, scholarly or
>> informational, contexts.
>
> "Aesir" and "Norse gods" are not synonyms. [1] The Vanir are just as
> much Norse gods as are the Aesir. Anyone with even a passing knowledge
> of Norse mythology is familiar with the Aesir and Vanir.
My passing knowledge omitted the Vanir. Which just goes to show how
passing the knowledge was... It's slightly worrying how much is learnt
in childhood that has to be unlearnt or corrected later on.
To be precise, what I know of Norse mythology just presented a lot of
tales of Norse gods, and didn't distinguish Aesir and Vanir. It was only
later that I came across the term Aesir, and I must have assumed from
the context that it was a name for Norse gods, but failed to look
further and discover that it was a subset of Norse gods, or a particular
version of the pantheon of Norse gods.
It seems that the Aesir is the most well-known grouping of Norse gods,
and the Vanir are other gods that come into some of the tales of the
Aesir. For some reason I have this memory that there is also some
historical argument overlying this. That the names and roles and stories
of the gods changed over the thousands of years that the mythologies
built up, and were different in different places and times (much like
the Greek gods changed over time as well). Is this flux in the naming
and nature and stories of the gods different from the Aesir/Vanir
distinction? (And different from the linguistic flux discussed below?)
<snip>
> There is one defensible position based on which "Aesir" is not an
> English word, since it is a proper noun, the name of a clan of gods.
> This is the position that names are extralinguistic entities, not
> really part of the vocabulary, but simple tags. It is possible that
> is what you meant all along. In which case, "Aesir" isn't English
> (nor is it Norse). It is, however, clearly the Anglicized form of the
> name, as the Old Norse would have been runic.
So the orthography is English, but the word is borrowed from Old Norse?
I've looked up what Larry said a bit earlier:
Larry Swain wrote:
>> Granted this gets us into some grey areas of lexicography: when to
>> include a loanword and when not and of course there is no agreement
>> on the answer. But I would argue that it is not a loanword into
English
>> but remains a foreign term to describe another culture's belief
system,
>> here's why:
>>
>> 1) no significant phonological change
>> 2) no significant morphological change
>> 3) technical language and only technical use: refers to the Norse
gods
>> period.
>> 4) no change in semantic range
By this definition, Larry, wouldn't many technical words for inventions
made in the 20th century, which words are taken up by other languages,
not be words in those languages either? Or do those words change enough
to be counted as new words in that language?
I can't be sure of getting exact examples, but 'television' might be one
(and this is confused by the fact that some of these technical terms
were derived from Greek and Latin terms). And as well as technical
terms, there is the universal swear word (well, nearly universal). When
that is used by people who speak other languages, what is going on
there?
Getting back to Aesir, this source says it is the Old Norse plural for
'ass' ("god"), and is related to Old English 'os' ("god"):
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Aesir
I couldn't find anything saying when Aesir was first used in modern
English. Is the word 'aesir' still used in Scandinavian countries - what
is the modern word for gods in Scandinavian countries - or is 'Aesir'
just a proper noun used in Scandinavian countries in much the same way
as it is in English?
Ah, looking back earlier in the thread, to a post by Masterkatten:
"I'm afraid that I'm only aquainted with the Swedish terminology in the
field. Apologise for not checking up the proper English words before
posting. Yes, "asarna" or "asagudarna" is the same thing as the Aesir."
So 'asarna' and 'asagudarna' would seem to be the Swedish terminology.
But I'm still not clear if these are technical Swedish terms, or whether
modern Swedish words still exist that are similar. Would someone
translating Swedish into English translate 'asurna' or 'asagudarna' as
Aesir?
And Stan has already posted the etymology in this thread, plus a
speculation as to when it entered English:
" English Aesir is explained in my dictionary as "Old Norse, plural of
ass" (long a). I suspect the word passed into English in the 900s when
Denmark ruled England."
But it seems, from my source (above) that 'ass' in Old Norse may have
become the 'os' found in Old English. So the word is changing, and it
seems rather that Aesir appeared later as a borrowing over _time_ (as
well as from a different place) from Old Norse.
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> By this definition, Larry, wouldn't many technical words for inventions
> made in the 20th century, which words are taken up by other languages,
> not be words in those languages either? Or do those words change enough
> to be counted as new words in that language?
I believe a word is part of a language if it is regularly used by
native speakers of that language who have occasion to use _some_ word
for that concept. Thus, for example, "naive" is English even though
in origin it is French.
Until the use is regular (i.e., until it "feels right"), the word is
still foreign. As you recognize, there's an element of circularity to
that definition.
Typographers have to cut that Gordian knot when they decide whether
to italicize a word or not. I doubt you'd find many recent books
printed in the English language that would italicize "naive" or would
not italicize "coup de maītre" if they italicize any foreign words at
all. But for the rest of us, I'm not sure there _is_ an answer to
whether an arbitrary word "is" English or not.
Odysseus
>
> Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:03:08 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> native speakers of that language who have occasion to use _some_ word
> for that concept. Thus, for example, "naive" is English even though
> in origin it is French.
>
> Until the use is regular (i.e., until it "feels right"), the word is
> still foreign. As you recognize, there's an element of circularity to
> that definition.
>
> Typographers have to cut that Gordian knot when they decide whether
> to italicize a word or not. I doubt you'd find many recent books
> printed in the English language that would italicize "naive" or would
> all. But for the rest of us, I'm not sure there _is_ an answer to
> whether an arbitrary word "is" English or not.
One can certainly see what dictionaries have to say, which
necessitates acquiring some sense of the various standards and
notations each uses to mark foreignness (as for obsolence, vulgarity,
or technicality). One tactic is to look up a 'bracketing' pair like
your example above to see whether or not they fall as expected. One
can also attempt a survey of the word's usage by writers or
publishers you think reasonably authoritative and painstaking,
although it's important to decide of what dialect or register these
sources are representative: formal _vs_ informal; 'educated',
popular/journalistic, or technical; expressive or lyrical _vs_
descriptive or informative; and so on--as in each case terms of
foreign origin may be naturalized to a different degree.
Foreign inflections are often a clue (e.g. someone using "naïf" to
describe males but saying "naïve" of females must have a sense that
the word is more French than English), but there are many exceptions.
While "mediums" is clearly English, I doubt anyone would seriously
argue that "media" must therefore be unnaturalized Latin.
Speakers sometimes reveal their sense of a word's foreignness by the
way they pronounce it, but the absence of a foreign pronunciation (or
an attempt thereat) doesn't necessarily signify full naturalization.
As for Æsir, I'll opine that since it's used as a proper name it's
exempt from further scrutiny as to what kind of word it may be. ;)
--
Odysseus
Larry Swain
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:33:10 -0600, Larry Swain <thes...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The second issue your statement raises is whether or not Aesir is the
>>standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods. A quick search of various
>>databases reveals that "Norse gods" is far more "standard" than Aesir
>>which occurs surprisingly in very limited, scholarly or informational,
>>contexts.
>
>
> "Aesir" and "Norse gods" are not synonyms.
No, they aren't. The one defines the other. Take a look for example at
the entry for Aesir in the American Heritage Dictionary. See below.
[1] The Vanir are just as> much Norse gods as are the Aesir. Anyone with
even a passing knowledge
> of Norse mythology is familiar with the Aesir and Vanir. That these
> terms are unfamiliar with those unfamiliar with the things they name is
> hardly surprising.
And anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Norse mythology is
aware that as, aesir is the more general term for the gods, regadless of
which race they belong to, simply look at any Old NOrse glossary or
dictionary. Let me refer to two readily available texts, though any
other will bear this out as well: E. V. Gordon's _An Introduction to Old
NOrse_ which defines the Aesir as: "the gods"..and do recall that Gordon
was a friend and colleague of Tolkien's. Zoega's Dictionary of Old
Icelandic now available online as well as in print likewise defines ass
as "one of the old heathen gods in general (which makes the plural "the
gods"), and follows it up with a secondary definition of the Aesir in
contrast to the Vanir. Usage of the term Aesir thus is the term used
when speaking of all teh gods, and can have in certain contexts
reference to the Aesir vs. the older race of divine beings, the Vanir.
The Eddas present a difficulty in that they use Aesir and Vanir and
Aesir and Alfas (elves) interchangeably suggesting that the Vanir and
the elves are the same, at least for that text. And do recall that 3 of
the principle gods at Asgard were supposedly Vanir. Do recall that
according to the Ynglinga Saga that after the war of the gods, the Vanir
moved to Asgard.
It is interesting for me to note that it was you who pointed to unnamed
dictionaries that contain the term Aesir as proof that it was an English
term and then turn about and object to one of those dictionaries'
definition of the very term you are trying to defend. Ironic, isn't it?
But you are certainly correct that "Aesir is the
> standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods" is false, since the Aesir are
> subgroup of the Norse gods. Similarly, "Englishman" is not the standard
> English word for human beings.
Regrettably your reasoning here is faulty, as shown above. First,
you've reported this incorrectly. You made the statement that Aesir
"...is the standard English term for what it represents." My reply
focused on the use of the adjectives "standard" and "English", and not
on "represents" as your statement above implies. Aesir is neither
"standard" for anything other than referring to a specific subgroup of
the NOrse gods in those contexts where it is necessary to do so, nor as
the reasons I put forward at the time seek to demonstrate, can it really
be considered "English." Since even in Old NOrse it is the general term
to use for all the gods, it can not be said to be the standard in
English to refer to the Norse gods, since that is statistically false,
more below. Thus, you've reported the situation incorrectly, engaged in
a the fallacy of false analogy, and not been entirely correct on what
the term Aesir meant in Old NOrse, much less what it might mean when
used in an English text.
>
> And, yes, "polybrominated biphenyl" is English. I find the very question
> astonishing.
Nice rhetorical trick, or set of tricks. Note that I brought up several
issues, most of which you have ignored to focus on this one, and you
were also asked to provide reasoning for your reply, which you have
declined to provide. I'm astonished at the poverty of the reply.
"PBB" is not an English word, because it is not a word, but
> an initialism.
Do recall that you claimed that "Aesir" is English because it was
included in dictionaries (you failed to note that it was not included in
all dictionaries, an issue y ou have conveniently overlooked in this
reply) without disclaimer. PBB is included in dictionaries without
disclaimer. If you acknowledge that PBB is not an English word, then
your entire basis for claiming that Aesir is an English word falls.
> There is one defensible position based on which "Aesir" is not an
> English word, since it is a proper noun, the name of a clan of gods.
> This is the position that names are extralinguistic entities, not really
> part of the vocabulary, but simple tags. It is possible that is what you
> meant all along.
This is one way to look at it, certainly, and not one I would
necessarily disagree with. But it is hardly the only defensible
position on the question nor the only position taken on such matters in
lexicography; I've provided one set of criteria already that is
defensible and is drawn from a lexicographical set of criteria for
determining a foreign word in a target language in contrast to a native
or normalized word considered to be part of that language's vocabulary base.
In which case, "Aesir" isn't English (nor is it Norse).
> It is, however, clearly the Anglicized form of the name, as the Old
> Norse would have been runic.
No. It would have runic only if written in runes. But there are many
Old Norse texts that use the Latin alphabet with the addition of some
runic shapes to account for additional sounds and so on, the Eddas for
example or any of the sagas we have, none as we have them written in
runes. As for being an Anglicized form, there is a slight change in
transliteration, as there are for Old English words that use the letter
ash, from the ash form of the initial letter to the "ae" modern
equivalent. This however doesn't make it "English" anymore than Beijing
is an English city or an English name, it is simply the transliteration
from one form of writing to another. And that is the case here as well.
>
> [1] I also find that a Google for "Norse gods" turns up far fewer hits
> than an English-only search for Aesir, so I'm not sure how you reached
> your conclusion. ("Norse gods" runs only slightly behind "Vanir".) Yes,
> there are businesses with "Aesir" in the name, but that's only a further
> indication that they aren't that obscure.
Note that I said "databases", not search engine; I reached my
conclusions by searching through English usage in journals, newspapers,
internet sites, magazines, and recorded daily usage and in consultation
with colleagues to verify results. And the issue was "obscurity" but
the "standard English" term for what Aesir represents; you claim that
the standard English term for that is Aesir. I do not believe that
average usage bears you out.
As I said in my previous post, this can be a grey area and depends
greatly on certain methodological and philosophical choices one makes at
the outset that will cause different results. I've given valid reasons
for my position, and certainly they may be argued with and another view
intellectually presented--which is why the OED and Webster's have
different results on the question. However, having said that, merely
asserting that because something is in the dictionary that it is
therefore an English word, the only argument you have presented for
considering "Aesir" English, is insufficient and incorrect, as the
example of PBB demonstrates. In that example you rejected PBB as being
a word though it is in the dictionary without disclaimer, but claimed
that the "word" that PBB is the initials for is an English word though
not in the dictionary. Now you can be astonished.
I'll note in closing that I am not certain why this is of such
significance to you. When I responded to Stan, the bulk of my response
was about when "Aesir" would have become part of the language. There
was only one statement regarding the terms place in English as a foreign
word or phrase, and it is this that you have inexplicably fixated on. I
wonder why?
Larry Swain
> R. Dan Henry <danh...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:33:10 -0600, Larry Swain
>><thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The second issue your statement raises is whether or not Aesir is the
>>>standard ENGLISH term for the Norse gods. A quick search of various
>>>databases reveals that "Norse gods" is far more "standard" than Aesir
>>>which occurs surprisingly in very limited, scholarly or
>>>informational, contexts.
>>
>>"Aesir" and "Norse gods" are not synonyms. [1] The Vanir are just as
>>much Norse gods as are the Aesir. Anyone with even a passing knowledge
>>of Norse mythology is familiar with the Aesir and Vanir.
>
>
> My passing knowledge omitted the Vanir. Which just goes to show how
> passing the knowledge was... It's slightly worrying how much is learnt
> in childhood that has to be unlearnt or corrected later on.
>
> To be precise, what I know of Norse mythology just presented a lot of
> tales of Norse gods, and didn't distinguish Aesir and Vanir.
Most texts of Norse mythology do not make the distinction. And
sometimes, like the Eddas, those that do only serve to confuse rather
than explain...if the Vanir are gods why are they synonymous with the
elves, as usage of the terms seems interchangeable in that text? And so
on...as in the message I just posted, Aesir is both a general term (the
gods) and a more specific term (the race of gods who are called Aesir in
contrast to the race of gods called Vanir); not unlike English god and
God--same term, but the latter refers to a specific deity and the former
refers to any divinity.
It was only
> later that I came across the term Aesir, and I must have assumed from
> the context that it was a name for Norse gods, but failed to look
> further and discover that it was a subset of Norse gods, or a particular
> version of the pantheon of Norse gods.
>
> It seems that the Aesir is the most well-known grouping of Norse gods,
> and the Vanir are other gods that come into some of the tales of the
> Aesir. For some reason I have this memory that there is also some
> historical argument overlying this. That the names and roles and stories
> of the gods changed over the thousands of years that the mythologies
> built up, and were different in different places and times (much like
> the Greek gods changed over time as well). Is this flux in the naming
> and nature and stories of the gods different from the Aesir/Vanir
> distinction? (And different from the linguistic flux discussed below?)
The two prevailing theories are that they were gods of different tribes
and the war of the gods represents a human war, and reconciliation of
the gods at the end of the story is the reconciliation and merger of the
peoples.
My favorite explanation though is Mercea Eliade's which is that
Indo-European mythologies have a class of myth in which there is "war in
heaven" and strife among the gods, and that this set of myths of course
takes different forms, but should not be read as having an historical
basis.
>
> <snip>
>
>>There is one defensible position based on which "Aesir" is not an
>>English word, since it is a proper noun, the name of a clan of gods.
>>This is the position that names are extralinguistic entities, not
>>really part of the vocabulary, but simple tags. It is possible that
>>is what you meant all along. In which case, "Aesir" isn't English
>>(nor is it Norse). It is, however, clearly the Anglicized form of the
>>name, as the Old Norse would have been runic.
>
>
> So the orthography is English, but the word is borrowed from Old Norse?
> I've looked up what Larry said a bit earlier:
No. The orthography is Old Norse too. The only change is that modern
English no longer uses the ash symbol, and so the initial letter is
transliterated as "ae".
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>>>Granted this gets us into some grey areas of lexicography: when to
>>>include a loanword and when not and of course there is no agreement
>>>on the answer. But I would argue that it is not a loanword into
>
> English
>
>>>but remains a foreign term to describe another culture's belief
>
> system,
>
>>>here's why:
>>>
>>>1) no significant phonological change
>>>2) no significant morphological change
>>>3) technical language and only technical use: refers to the Norse
>
> gods
>
>>>period.
>>>4) no change in semantic range
>
>
> By this definition, Larry, wouldn't many technical words for inventions
> made in the 20th century, which words are taken up by other languages,
> not be words in those languages either? Or do those words change enough
> to be counted as new words in that language?
It depends. Both tele- and scope had long entered the language before
compounded to make telescope; likewise television. Further, we
pronounce "tele" (telly?) differently than the ancient Greeks did and
place the accent differently too. So we invent the TV and modern Hebrew
borrows it, but they also give it a different pronunciation and
accent--in other words the words becomes part of modern Hebrew because
the language changes it. The same can not be said of Aesir which
retains its essential pronunciation from the language of origin, it
undergoes no significant morphological change (does not become spelled
as Asir or Esir as most of the "ae" words in English did, or the "sh" of
television in English becomes a hard "s" in another language...change in
pronunciation). I'm not sure "television" or "electric torch" or
"flashlight" count as technical language, whereas Aesir is not a word
one encounters frequently in speech, except when discussing the Norse
pantheon(s), and there are limited numbers of people who do that.
Anyway, those are some comments, but to really answer the question we'd
have to go on a case by case basis I think, and see what has happened to
the word in the other language, if anything.
> I can't be sure of getting exact examples, but 'television' might be one
> (and this is confused by the fact that some of these technical terms
> were derived from Greek and Latin terms). And as well as technical
> terms, there is the universal swear word (well, nearly universal). When
> that is used by people who speak other languages, what is going on
> there?
Very good question. A knee jerk reaction would be that the word is
being borrowed into the language, at least as slang. But even in
English the term is well removed from its original meaning, and while
sometimes it is still used to suggest difficult, impossible, or at least
immoral sexual activity, most often especially among the Vietnamese and
Korean students at my university, it seems to be all but a general
expletive.
> Getting back to Aesir, this source says it is the Old Norse plural for
> 'ass' ("god"), and is related to Old English 'os' ("god"):
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Aesir
>
> I couldn't find anything saying when Aesir was first used in modern
> English. Is the word 'aesir' still used in Scandinavian countries - what
> is the modern word for gods in Scandinavian countries - or is 'Aesir'
> just a proper noun used in Scandinavian countries in much the same way
> as it is in English?
Me either, but I can say that I haven't found it in anything pre-17th
century. As for the modern Scandinavian languages, I think we had our
answer about Swedish up the thread a bit! And the same is true I
suspect of the others, though haven't specifically looked myself. I
think I will, but not just this moment.
> Ah, looking back earlier in the thread, to a post by Masterkatten:
>
> "I'm afraid that I'm only aquainted with the Swedish terminology in the
> field. Apologise for not checking up the proper English words before
> posting. Yes, "asarna" or "asagudarna" is the same thing as the Aesir."
>
> So 'asarna' and 'asagudarna' would seem to be the Swedish terminology.
> But I'm still not clear if these are technical Swedish terms, or whether
> modern Swedish words still exist that are similar. Would someone
> translating Swedish into English translate 'asurna' or 'asagudarna' as
> Aesir?
>
> And Stan has already posted the etymology in this thread, plus a
> speculation as to when it entered English:
>
> " English Aesir is explained in my dictionary as "Old Norse, plural of
> ass" (long a). I suspect the word passed into English in the 900s when
> Denmark ruled England."
>
> But it seems, from my source (above) that 'ass' in Old Norse may have
> become the 'os' found in Old English. So the word is changing, and it
> seems rather that Aesir appeared later as a borrowing over _time_ (as
> well as from a different place) from Old Norse.
>
No, as I indicated in my reply to Stan, Old English os is the form the
Proto-Germanic *ansu took just as it took the form ass in Old Norse. In
Gothic Jordanes has the plural recorded for Gothic: anses for example.
And the proto-Germanic word of course is a form of the Indo-European
word.... So os and ass are cognates. As far as I can tell, ass, aesir
was not used in English, or at least is never recorded in iether Old
English or Middle English, and out of curiousity I checked into Early
Modern English too. So os and ass are cognates in Old English and Old
Norse from an older Germanic word; Old Norse ass did not become Old
English os. (Cognates do get borrowed sometimes: ship and skif and shirt
and skirt are 2 well known examples: originally they were simply the
English and NOrse cognates meaning the same thing, but skif and skirt
were borrowed into English and have come to signify different things
than ship and shirt.)
Stan Brown
<thes...@operamail.com>:
> And do recall that 3 of
> the principle gods at Asgard were supposedly Vanir.
Which three?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:12:43 -0600 from Larry Swain
> <thes...@operamail.com>:
>> And do recall that 3 of the principle gods at Asgard were
>> supposedly Vanir.
>
> Which three?
Njord, Frey and Freya. Njord was the father of Frey and Freya, and came
to live in Asgard as a kind of peace-hostage when the Vanir and the
Aesir made peace.
Then there were Loki and Mimer (I don't know the English spelling of
him), who were, IIRC, both giants.
Hel, the goddess of death, was daughter of Loki and giant woman, so I
suppose she was a giant as well (her siblings were Fenrir and
Jormundgand, the Midgard Serpent
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> In message <news:MPG.1e2c721b9...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
> >
> > Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:12:43 -0600 from Larry Swain
> > <thes...@operamail.com>:
> >> supposedly Vanir.
(Sorry, but I couldn't stand looking at "principle" any more, so I
corrected it in the quote. :-)
> > Which three?
>
> Njord, Frey and Freya. Njord was the father of Frey and Freya, and came
> to live in Asgard as a kind of peace-hostage when the Vanir and the
> Aesir made peace.
Thanks, Troels. (In the spirit of the topic, make that "tak".) I've
actually never heard of Njord, but he and his children are listed in
my Britannica. I've heard of Frey but can't off hand recall much
about him. Freya was the custodian of the apples of youth, right?
> Then there were Loki and Mimer (I don't know the English spelling of
> him), who were, IIRC, both giants.
I couldn't find anything about Mimer. I know of a Dwarf Mime (in
English), but I don't know whether he was in the Scandinavian myths
or was a creation of Wagner(*).
Wasn't Loki some sort of elemental spirit, not falling into any of
the standard categories? I'm quite hazy on this, possibly influenced
too much by Wagner's(*) Ring cycle.
From my 2004 Britannica: "There is no more baffling figure in Norse
mythology than Loki. He is counted among the Aesir but is not one of
them. His father was a giant (Fárbauti; 'Dangerous Striker'). Loki
begat a female, Angrboda (Angrboða; 'Boder of Sorrow'), and produced
three evil progeny--the goddess of death, Hel, the monstrous serpent
surrounding the world, Jörmungand, and the wolf Fenrir (Fenrisúlfr),
who lies chained until he will break loose in the Ragnarök. Loki
himself lies bound but will break his bonds in the Ragnarök to join
the giants in battle against the gods."
(*) Yes, I know: Wagner's version of the Norse myths had about as
much to do with them as Peter Jackson's movies did with Tolkien's
version.
> Hel, the goddess of death, was daughter of Loki and giant woman, so I
> suppose she was a giant as well (her siblings were Fenrir and
> Jormundgand, the Midgard Serpent
I think I need to do some reading again. I read /Myths from the
Northland/ (or a similar title) decade or so ago, but I've forgotten
much of it by now. I do still remember Andvari, who sounded a lot
like Deagol to me.
Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
>>
<snip>
>> Njord, Frey and Freya. Njord was the father of Frey and Freya,
>> and came to live in Asgard as a kind of peace-hostage when the
>> Vanir and the Aesir made peace.
>
> Thanks, Troels. (In the spirit of the topic, make that "tak".)
;-)
> I've actually never heard of Njord, but he and his children are
> listed in my Britannica.
Something to do with the sea, though I don't recall how he differed
from Aegir. Got hooked up with a giant for a period because he had
nice legs ;-)
> I've heard of Frey but can't off hand recall much about him.
Fertility . . .
> Freya was the custodian of the apples of youth, right?
That was Idun. Freya was for beauty, birthgiving -- the female side
of fertility, I suppose. According to one presentation I've seen, all
the women who died in childbirth went to Freya along with half the
men who died in battle . . . (so, Odin only got the other half for
his army).
>> Then there were Loki and Mimer (I don't know the English spelling
>> of him), who were, IIRC, both giants.
>
> I couldn't find anything about Mimer. I know of a Dwarf Mime (in
> English), but I don't know whether he was in the Scandinavian
> myths or was a creation of Wagner(*).
He's in the Encyclopedia Mythica as Mimir:
<http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html>
The Danish version of Wikipedia has an excellent (inherited from a
dedicated site) treatment of the old Norse mythology
<http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Nordisk_mytologi>
Of course the Danish names may confuse you as much as the English
does me ;)
<snip>
> (*) Yes, I know: Wagner's version of the Norse myths had about as
> much to do with them as Peter Jackson's movies did with Tolkien's
> version.
;-)
Or The Lord of the Rings with Niebelungen (to close the circle <G>)
> I do still remember Andvari, who sounded a lot like Deagol to me.
I hadn't thought of that, but yes. Of course Andvari himself cursed
the ring and his treasure, and it was definitely his ring.
"Andvari." Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online.
<http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/andvari.html>
[Accessed January 10, 2006].
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters.
- Aragorn "Strider", /Two Towers/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> In message <news:MPG.1e2cd70e2...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
>
> That was Idun. Freya was for beauty, birthgiving -- the female side
> of fertility, I suppose.
Oops -- more leakage from Wagner, I think. :-)
> According to one presentation I've seen, all
> the women who died in childbirth went to Freya along with half the
> men who died in battle . . . (so, Odin only got the other half for
> his army).
>
> >> Then there were Loki and Mimer (I don't know the English spelling
> >> of him), who were, IIRC, both giants.
>
> He's in the Encyclopedia Mythica as Mimir:
> <http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html>
Ah! No I remember the phrase "Mimir's Well". Consulting your
reference, I see that there were two Mimirs.
The Encyclopedia Mythica looks like quite a nice resource. I've
bookmarked it; thanks!
> The Danish version of Wikipedia has an excellent (inherited from a
> dedicated site) treatment of the old Norse mythology
> <http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Nordisk_mytologi>
> Of course the Danish names may confuse you as much as the English
> does me ;)
Also bookmarked. My Danish is pretty poor but I can get the gist, and
it's good practice.
> > I do still remember Andvari, who sounded a lot like Deagol to me.
> "Andvari." Encyclopedia Mythica from Encyclopedia Mythica Online.
> <http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/andvari.html>
Hmm -- Checking back in the Encyclopedia Mythica I don't see much
resemblance to Deagol. I distinctly remember reading about Andvari in
that /Northland/ book and thinking "Aha! I bet this is whe Tolkien
got the idea", but it must have been some other idea.
Thanks for the new references!
Matthew Woodcraft
> (Cognates do get borrowed sometimes: ship and skif and shirt and
> skirt are 2 well known examples: originally they were simply the
> English and NOrse cognates meaning the same thing, but skif and skirt
> were borrowed into English and have come to signify different things
> than ship and shirt.)
Are you sure about 'ship' and 'skiff'? They do look like an
English/Norse pair, but my dictionary says that skiff came into English
in the 16th Century, and probably got its form by being borrowed from
High German via some Romance language.
-M-
Larry Swain
On second thought, no. That is, the main points are valid: Cognates do
get borrowed and Norse as, aesir and Old English os are not an example
of this practice. But you're quite right, I misremembered re: skiff as
a borrowing from Old Norse, though it is still an example of a cognate
being borrowed.