Coming at you live from the ruins of Thangorodrim, this is Crystal Clear Tolkien.

This is Silime. Welcome to Crystal Clear Tolkien. Listener Robb W. sent me an email asking if I would address the topic of the Balrog of Moria. While I would have loved to do an episode solely on that Balrog, I found it positively impossible giving how little Tolkien wrote about that particular character. Instead, I present this podcast which addresses not only that Balrog, but all Balrogs in Tolkien's world of Middle-earth.

Let's begin with the observation that 98% of all essays on the subject will point out: Balrogs are fallen Maiar twisted by their servitude to Melkor into these demonic beasts. After all, this is what it says about Balrogs in The Silmarillion(1). Some people, many people, say that's the beginning and the end of the topic. But, as with most things we look at on Crystal Clear Tolkien, there's more to it than just that.  There are, in fact, quite a number of references to the Balrogs having been creations of Melkor's, and not simply perversions of existing forms(2), and that this creation occurred as early as the first Year of the Trees(3).

Melkor, like all of the Ainur, was a creator spirit.  We know he had the ability to create things before he rebelled, and we know he was the greatest and first of all the Ainur.  I'll be creating an entire podcast solely about Melkor, so I won't go too much into him here.  The point is that there is nothing that states that as a result of his rebellion, Eru removed, stripped, or even limited any of Melkor's powers or abilities.  So there is no reason why the Balrogs could not have been original creations of his.  In my opinion, what finally appeared in The Silmarillion was a bit of unintentional allegory creeping in -- a play on the idea that the devil of Christian faith cannot create, only destroy or pervert.  Religious themes in Tolkien will also be looked at in depth in a future podcast.

I'll come back to the question of the origin of Balrogs a little later. First I want to talk a little bit about another somewhat controversial aspect of Balrogs, that being how many were there? In The History of Middle-Earth: Volume Eleven, The War of the Jewels and in several other places throughout the Histories, Tolkien states that during the Nírnaeth Arnoediad Melkor unleashed a thousand Balrogs(4). We also know that not one Balrog was killed in that battle. How do we know this? Because in History of Middle-Earth Volume Two, The Book of Lost Tales 2, Tolkien expressly states as much when Rog and his House attack the host of Balrogs laying siege to Gondolin.

"... [T]he number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Melko, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men."(5)

However, that same book describes the Balrogs existing only in hundreds. We know for certain that during the fall of Gondolin, at least fifty Balrogs were killed, probably many more because we're never given an idea just how many Rog's House slew (and hell, we're given the distinct impression that Rog and his House laid waste to those Balrogs before the demons managed to get into Gondolin). But it is stated that Ecthelion slew three Balrogs with swords and then tumbled into the King's Fountain with Gothmog; Glorfindel killed one when he died; Tuor took out five; and the King's Host killed at least forty(6).

The real controversy surrounding the number of Balrogs has to do with a note Tolkien made on a typescript copy of The Annals of Aman that stated there should never be assumed to have been more than seven Balrogs(7). So how do we resolve this obvious contradiction? Quite easily, actually, when you realise that Melkor made Balrogs twice. The initial brood of Balrogs were created as it states in The History of Middle-Earth: Volume Ten, Morgoth's Ring in the first Year of the Trees. But, these Balrogs were not the same as the ones in the Nírnaeth or sent against Gondolin. In Year of the Trees 1099, just before Melkor was imprisoned and chained the first time, he sent his Balrogs against the Valar in a last ditch save-his-ass effort, and Manwë wiped them out. Every last one of them. Manwë was pissed(8) (and I am not over dramatizing his pissiness).

After Melkor is unchained, though, despite swearing oaths of fealty up one side and down the other, he nevertheless goes right back out, rebuilds Angband, and starts making Balrogs again and adds Orcs to his bag of tricks(9). Now this has been a rather large digression, but I think it can answer elegantly the question of where did Balrogs come from. Given the quantity of Balrogs that we see in the late First Age, I find it difficult to accept there were that many Maiar loyal to Melkor by that time, let alone whether or not that many Maiar ever even existed in Eä.

So, as Monk would say, here's what I think happened. This is only my opinion, and you can take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it incorporates both theories quite nicely without having to deal with retconning anything.

When Melkor initially fled to the East, he was accompanied by perhaps a dozen Maiar -- Sauron among them. Somewhere around half of these Maiar became the initial host of the Balrogs, their forms having become twisted and fell as a result of the evil intentions in their spirits.  These Balrogs, though, were obliterated by Manwë just before the defeat of Melkor.  Following his release, Melkor sought to recreate these creatures as part of his army.  These later Balrogs did not possess the strength and power of the Maiar, but were more like cheap copies that could be produced in great numbers at the expense of quality.  These Balrogs -- those that survived Gondolin, anyway -- were destroyed in the destruction of Thangorodrim, with the notable exception of the Balrog of Moria.

Now that I have taken on two of the biggest controversies surrounding the Balrogs, let's talk about another one. What did Balrogs look like? There's quite a few things we can all agree on regarding their appearance: they were creatures primarily of fire and shadow(10), they primarily wielded whips of flame(11), they had claws of steel(12) as well as fangs of steel(13), and they wore iron armour(14). What is not so agreed upon is, number one, how large they were and number two, whether or not they possessed wings.

In Lord of the Rings, the Balrog of Moria was described as "... A dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater...."(15) This is supported by a pencilled note on the manuscript of this section which says "It seemed to be of man's shape, but it's form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked."(16) It's further supported that this Balrog was typical of the size by various references to the Balrogs during the fall of Gondolin. For instance, Ecthelion was able to wrap his legs around Gothmog's thighs. If Balrogs were, indeed, dozens of feet tall, they would have no need to climb on drakes or fly on dragons in order to enter Gondolin, and forty of them couldn't have piled into the King's Square near the end of the sack. When Glorfindel strikes with his sword during his own battle with a Balrog, he is able to reach the Balrog's shoulder. (Though here there is a contradiction of everything we know about a Balrog's size, for Tolkien states that Glorfindel's Balrog was nigh on twice his own height(17).) I don't want any of you to get the impression that the Balrog of Moria was some kind of mutant midget Balrog; all Balrogs from the First Age, after Melkor's release, were the same size, somewhere between, let's say, seven and twelve feet tall, and that most were roughly a little over the typical man-height. Glorfindel's Balrog seems to be notable in its size, since he's the only Balrog we are even given a distinct height reference for.

The power they had, and the shadow around them, though, gave the sense that they were larger than they actually were. A feeling of looming intimidation surrounded them. Another draft of Fellowship of the Ring described this as "terror seemed to go before it"(18). In any case, it seems highly unlikely they approached the size of Peter Jackson's Balrog in Moria (side note, I sometimes wonder if PJ ever read any of Tolkien's works other than Lord of the Rings before taking on this project).

Okay, onto wings. I'm going to state up front that I don't believe Balrogs have wings, and that's going to colour my evidence. If you disagree with me, I have no problem with that, make your own podcast and I'll listen to it. Again, my evidence is seated primarily in what occurred during the fall of Gondolin. If Balrogs had wings, they would have no need to ride the dragons or climb the drakes in order to enter the city. They would have just flown in themselves. I also don't buy the story that they had vestigial wings that didn't work; it goes against everything we know about Creation in Middle-earth to believe that such appendages would have been created without purpose. I've read all the quotes that wingers point to in order to support their point of view, but I just keep coming back to the simple question of if Balrogs have wings, why don't we ever see them fly?

And, believe me, they had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. When Glorfindel fought his Balrog, the creature merely leapt from rock to rock and, in the end, fell to its death; why not fly to safety? Why not pick off the Elves as they ran from the air? I just don't buy that because the word 'wings' is mention in The Fellowship of the Ring in relation to the Balrog of Moria that it was referring to literal wings. In fact, the quote is "... [T]he shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."(19) That, my friends, is called a simile. You can tell because it uses the word 'like'. This does not say that the Balrog has wings. It says that the shadows around the Balrog spread out around it like wings. Only one creature of Melkor's was ever specifically stated to have been given wings, and those were the dragons.

And dragons are, say it with me, another show.

So we've looked at Balrogs as a race in general up to this point. Now I want to look at them a little more specifically, especially since Robb W. asked about a very particular Balrog. Namely, the Balrog of Moria. And I will talk about this Balrog, what little there is to be found about it... in a moment.

First, though, I want to talk about another Balrog. One we've mentioned before in this podcast, but one I want to go into more detail about. That's Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs, high-captain of Angband. Originally, Gothmog was intended to be Melkor's son(20). (Interesting note is that Gothmog is also the only Balrog ever assigned gender.) This, of course, was discarded at the same time as all other references to the Valar having children. Gothmog, however, retained his high station, if not his origin.

We know that Gothmog was not one of the original Balrogs, or we can at least presume this since Manwë wiped out all the original Balrogs before the coming of the sun. Going by the theory I put for before, it's unlikely that Gothmog was a Maia, unless he was simply another Maia that fled with Melkor and hid from the Valar as Sauron did. Case can be made either way, and I am not going to pick one. This is one thing Silime does not have an opinion on; note it on your calendars.

Gothmog was a badass. In addition to the who-knows-how-many Elves who fell before him, we know he took down three of the greatest. Fëanor, Fingon, and Ecthelion, though I am loathe to give Gothmog the last one. I believe Ecthelion chose to sacrifice himself, not that Gothmog killed him.

It's interesting to note that Gothmog is the only Balrog we see who speaks, in that he gives orders to Melkor's host at Gondolin.  This is in direct contradiction to a statement Tolkien makes in one of his letters that Balrogs do not speak, laugh, sneer, or make any sort of vocal sound whatsoever(21).  However, in addition to Gothmog, there are examples in both The Fellowship of the Ring and The History of Middle-Earth Volume Three, The Lays of Belariand of the Balrogs vocalizing.

Additionally, there is some evidence that Gothmog was not necessarily unique in his speech ability, though we are not shown so explicitly.  In The History of Middle-Earth Volume Three, The Lays of Belariand, we are introduced to Lungorthin, another Balrog lord(22).  This, in addition to references later in that volume of Balrog captains leading bands of Orcs, gives the indication that there was a hierarchy among the Balrogs, something that hardly makes sense among creatures with no vocal communication skills.

Which brings us, at long last, to the answer to the actual question Robb W. had asked -- what's the skinny on the Balrog of Moria?  As I said, there isn't a whole lot written specifically about this Balrog, but here's what we do know.

After the ruin of Thangorodrim, the Balrogs were believed to have been destroyed utterly.  However, the Balrog of Moria escaped this fate, and hid beneath the Misty Mountains for thousands of years.  It's possible that more than one Balrog slipped out this way, but whether they did or not, Tolkien does say that by the time the Fellowship pass through Moria, this Balrog is the last(23).  Possibly, this is because it lay so long hidden beneath the mountains.  We know that the Mines of Moria were active for quite some time before the Balrog was unleashed.  It wasn't until Third Age 1980 that the Balrog drove the Dwarves out and killed, among others, Durin and Náin(24).  The most plausible explanation for this is given numerous times throughout the Histories, being that the Balrog had buried itself deep within the mountains and the Dwarves delved too deeply in their search for mithril that they uncovered it.

Beyond that, we really have no other information, save that Gandalf was the one who at the last slew the beast, ending the Balrog race forever.

I hope this answers your question, Robb, as well as offering plenty of information on the Balrogs as a whole.

You can visit the Crystal Clear Tolkien blog for transcripts and citations at http://silime.libsyn.com. Remember, if you have comments or questions about this episode, or if you have a question about Middle-Earth that you'd like me to address on a future episode, then please drop me an email at silime@gmail.com.  That's S-I-L-I-M-E at gmail dot com.

Crystal Clear Tolkien is a proud member of the Lord of the Rings Radio Network.  Visit us online at http://www.lotrradio.com.

Until next time, I'm Silime and this is Crystal Clear Tolkien.  Namarie.

References

1. The Silmarillion, Valaquenta : Of the Enemies, pg31
2. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Ten, Morgoth's Ring, The Later Quenta Silmarillion (1), pg159
3. Ibid., The Annals of Aman, pg70
4. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Eleven, The War of the Jewels, The Grey Annals pg74
5. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Two, The Book of Lost Tales 2, The Fall of Gondolin, pg180
6. Ibid., pg214
7. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Eleven, The War of the Jewels, The Grey Annals, pg134
8. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Ten, Morgoth's Ring, The Annals of Aman, pg75
9. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Five, The Road and Other Writings, The Later Annals of Valinor/The Later Annals of Beleriand, pg135, 138
10. Lord of the Rings, 1994 ed., Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm, pg321-22
11. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Two, The Book of Lost Tales 2, The Fall of Gondolin , pg170
12. Ibid., pg170
13. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Three, The Lays of Beleriand, The Lay of Leithian, pg351
14. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Two, The Book of Lost Tales 2, The Fall of Gondolin , pg214
15. Lord of the Rings, 1994 ed., Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm, pg321
16. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Seven, The Treason Of Isengard, The Bridge, pg199
17. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Two, The Book of Lost Tales 2, The Fall of Gondolin , pg194
18. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Seven, The Treason Of Isengard, The Bridge, pg197
19. Lord of the Rings, 1994 ed., Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm, pg322
20. History of Middle-Earth: Volume One, The Book of Lost Tales 1, Coming of the Valar, pg98
21. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 210, pg274
22. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Three, The Lays of Beleriand, The Lay of the Children of Húrin, pg117, 123
23. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 144, pg180
24. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Twelve, The Peoples of Middle-Earth, The Heirs of Elendil, pg222

A discussion on Balrogs.

Coming at you live from the middle of the Barrow-Downs, this is Crystal Clear Tolkien.

This is Silime. Welcome to Crystal Clear Tolkien. A listener named Justin sent me an email asking that I do a podcast about the elusive and troubling character Tom Bombadil. This was actually a really difficult request, and unfortunately, there is no easy answer. But, there are several points I can raise that I hope will inspire you to draw your own conclusions based on what little we do know.

The question of Bombadil is one that has been addressed by a number of scholars over the years since the publication of Lord of the Rings. There have been many suppositions as to his nature. The difficulty in identifying the proper one is that it was Tolkien's intent to leave Tom an enigma, an unanswered question(1). He says as much explicitly in one of his letters. He is unwilling to elaborate on Tom much beyond Goldberry's answer to Frodo's question 'Who is Tom Bombadil?' She replies simply 'He is'(2).

Some scholars have noted the obvious similarity between that statement and the Biblical statement of God identifying himself only as 'I am', or 'I am that I am'(3). Now, none of these scholars have supposed that Bombadil is Eru. Even they recognize the inherent contradiction in that. Tolkien, in another one of his letters, dealt with exactly this issue. He points out that Goldberry's statement was intended only as a reference to the 'mystery of names'(4).

There is a very important thing to note here. Frodo asked 'Who is Tom Bombadil', not 'What is Tom Bombadil'. Goldberry answered the question that was asked, not the question that was implied. To see the difference, try and answer the question 'Who are you' without including any unasked for information.

'I am a student.' No, that is what you are.

'I am a mother.' No, again, that is what you are, not who you are.

It's a difficult question to answer in terms of itself without defining yourself in terms of a group you belong to, which is a more accurate answer to what you are, not who. In the end, the only wholly accurate answer to 'Who are you?' is 'I am me.' You simply are.

As is Tom Bombadil.

It comes down to Tolkien's first love, which is language. You will hear me say this time and again: the world of Middle-earth exists because of language. Tolkien created the Elvish language first, out of his deep-seated love of language and his vocation as a linguist. It was only after that he created the world of Middle-earth as a sandbox or a playground in which to use and explore that language. Because of that background, it is always worth exploring the choice of words that he made in any situation. Who versus what, in this instance.

But, getting back to the focus, there have been numerous suppositions regarding Tom Bombadil. The most popular seem to be that he is a Vala, a Maia, or some form of unidentified nature spirit.

As to the first, I'm referring specifically to an essay I was directed to on the internet called 'Who Is Tom Bombadil' by Gene Hargrove. I'll include a link in the show transcript on the podcast's blog. Hargrove's ultimate conclusion, if you want to skip the reading, is that Tom Bombadil is most likely to be the Vala Aulë and that Goldberry is Yavanna(5). This doesn't work for me for a couple of major reasons. First of all, we have no reason to believe that any of the Valar ever left Aman after the First Age. Secondly, Aulë was a smith concerned with the fire and the forge. These are things in which Tom shows no interest. Additionally, Tom is stated to be known as 'Forn' to the Dwarves, whereas Aulë was called Mahal by them. Thirdly, in 'The Council of Elrond' scene, when Tom Bombadil is discussed, Glorfindel and Gandalf note that they have passing knowledge of Tom, but give no real indication that he could be anything as powerful as a Vala. And this from two characters who had lived in Aman and walked with the Valar.

Finally, there's the statement made in that same scene that if the rest of Middle-earth were to fall, Tom would fall as well 'Last as he was First'. This gives further weight to contradicting the Tom-As-Aulë theory, for if Tom were a Vala and he were the first, then he would necessarily have to be Melkor, not Aulë, since Melkor was the first of the Ainur to be created in Eru's thoughts.

So it's unlikely he's a Vala. But what about a Maia?

You still have the problem here of the 'Last as he was First' statement. Unless the claim is that he was the first Maia created. But since the Maiar are just lesser Ainur, it's a fine distinction, finer than I think is implied by the choice of language. Gandalf, too, is a Maia; all the Wizards are. But again, there's no sense from Gandalf that this is a creature with power relative to his own. The idea of Tom being a member of the race of the Ainur seems, to me, to be a reach, especially given what we know of him and, more importantly, what we don't know and who doesn't know it.

Possibly the most popular theory regarding Tom Bombadil is that of him as some sort of nature spirit. Personally, and this is my opinion and I'll tell you why, this doesn't jive well with me. We're given no indication anywhere else in Tolkien's works -- Lord of the Rings to The Hobbit to The Silmarillion to twelve volumes of The Histories of Middle-earth -- of any other such spiritual creatures. The only creatures of spirit in Tolkien's world that we're ever introduced to are those of the race of the Ainur, whether Ainu, Vala, or Maia. At this point, we're presupposing an entire race of creatures never mentioned anywhere. I just... don't like doing that.

Now that we've talked about what Tom Bombadil isn't, let's talk a little about what thing we know Tom Bombadil is.

We know Tom Bombadil existed in Tolkien's mind long before Lord of the Rings was written. He actually began as a doll for one of Tolkien's children. Tolkien wrote him into poems. The concept of Tom Bombadil predates Middle-earth. By that reason alone, trying to fit him into the hierarchy of races becomes difficult if not impossible. In Tolkien's letters, he notes that he only put Tom in The Lord of the Rings because he existed already and he wanted him to have 'an adventure on the way'(6). If he has to represent something, Tolkien goes on, it is to embody the pure sciences, those concerned wholly with knowledge and 'unconcerned with doing anything with the knowledge'.

This distinction can be seen in an earlier draft of The Two Towers in which Pippin and Treebeard briefly discuss Bombadil. Treebeard makes the observation that 'We were like your Tombombadil when we were young', but that while the Ents were more concerned with herding the trees and doing something with the knowledge they had, Tom sought knowledge merely for its own sake(7). He compares it to walking in a garden versus tending a garden. What we're left with is the idea that Tom and the Ents share a common ancestry perhaps.

Where does this get us? Not much further. It's also worth looking at, though, the various names we find for Tom throughout the Histories of Middle-earth, because, remember, language was the heart of this world. In addition to 'Tom Bombadil' and 'Forn', which we've already discussed, we also can find him referred to as 'Frumbarn', 'Orald', 'Erion', 'Yárë', and 'Iarwain Ben-adar'⁸.

'Forn', as he's known to the Dwarves, is a Scandinavian word that means 'ancient'. 'Frumbarn' and 'Orald', which are names used by Men, are both Old English; 'Frumbarn' means 'first-born' and 'Orald' means 'very old'. The last three names come from Tolkien's Elvish languages. 'Yárë' is Quenya and means 'former days', while 'Erion' and 'Iarwain Ben-adar' are Sindarin. 'Erion' means, roughly, 'son of one', or, with a little literary licence, 'son of the One' (as in Eru). 'Iarwain Ben-adar' as translated by Elrond means 'oldest and fatherless', which seems to contradict 'Erion'. This may be why the latter was stricken from the manuscript.

All of these names have something in common in that they all recognise Tom Bombadil as something ancient. Older than old. Something that goes beyond the knowledge of the Third Age. It's very possible that Elves who existed during the time of the Two Trees in what was known as the Springtime of Arda, might have had more knowledge of a creature such as Tom Bombadil.

There is no reason not to believe that had Frodo asked of Galadriel during his time in Lórien if she knew of Iarwain Ben-adar, as the Elves had named Tom Bombadil, that she might have responded, 'Yeah, I know him. You met him? Tell that sonofabitch he still owes me money.' Okay... maybe not that exactly, but the intent is all the same. She might very well have known more than the Elves at the Council of Elrond simply by virtue of having been around in the Elder Days.

But where does this all leave us? For myself, it leaves me with two final trains of thought. Maybe Tom isn't really that special of a creature. Perhaps he's only unique in that he was the first creature born in Arda. It's a very important distinction to make because the Elves, the Dwarves, and the Men -- the three primary races of Arda -- were all created and awoke at an appointed time. They were not born. There were, of course, Elves, Dwarves, and Men born later, but the initial population was created. Tom being the first born creature could be his only claim to significance. He could be a forerunner to the race of Hobbits. He could be an offshoot of the Dwarves. He could be a rebellious Ent who never paid enough attention to the trees in order for his form to evolve with his kin. He could even be the sole surviving member of a wholly separate race long since wiped out (though this means we're inventing races again).

Or he could be something beyond. Let me elaborate.

We know that Tolkien was great friends with another fantasy novelist who you may have heard of named Clive. Clive Staples Lewis wrote a series of books that took place in a quaint little fantasy world of his own called Narnia. I make this observation because Tolkien and Lewis together founded a literary group at Oxford where they would often meet, share samples of their works in progress, and have scholarly discussions. This kind of interaction doubtless would lead to correlations between contemporary works. In particular, in this case, what I'm referring to is the concept in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe of the difference between the Deep Magic and what Aslan calls the Deeper Magic. It's the idea that there is a level of magic, of spirituality, whatever you want to call it, that the general population of a world is aware of, or at least willing to accept. And then, there is a level beyond. There is magic that only a few know, or are even aware of.

Tom Bombadil could be a part of that, the Deeper Magic of Middle-earth. The Ring has no power over him, it is said, and he would not understand the necessity of keeping it from Sauron. Could it be that this is because he transcends Middle-earth and the problems and perils contained? He is in the world, but not truly of the world. He is simply beyond.

I know this sounds like something of a cop out, but in the final analysis, I really believe it comes closer to the heart of Tolkien's intentions for the character than any of the other theories put forth here. When all is said and done, all we're left with is Goldberry's simple answer.

Who is Tom Bombadil?

He is.

And on that rather existential note, I'll bring this podcast to a close. You can visit the Crystal Clear Tolkien blog for transcripts and citations at http://silime.libsyn.com. Remember, if you have comments or questions about this episode, or if you have a question about Middle-Earth that you'd like me to address on a future episode, then please drop me an email at silime@gmail.com.  That's S-I-L-I-M-E at gmail dot com.

Until next time, I'm Silime and this is Crystal Clear Tolkien.  Namarie.

References

1. The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter 144, pg174
2. Lord of the Rings, 1994 ed., The Fellowship of the Ring, In The House of Tom Bombadil, pg122
3. The Bible, Exodus 3:14
4. The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter 153, pg191
5. Who Is Tom Bombadil?, http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/tombomb.html
6. The Letters of JRR Tolkien, Letter 153, pg192
7. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Seven, The Treason Of Isengard, Treebeard, pg416
8. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Seven, The Treason Of Isengard, The Council of Elrond (2), pg152

An exploration into who and what Tom Bombadil is.

Coming at you live from the Mirkwood racquetball court, this is Crystal Clear Tolkien.

This is Silime. Welcome to Crystal Clear Tolkien. For today's show, I'm going to address two topics, since they're relatively short and easy to cover.  First of all, we're going to talk about the common misconception that Thranduil was a cold, abusive drunkard.  Then, we're going to learn about who the hell Gildor Inglorion was.

Thranduil, as you probably know, was King of Mirkwood throughout most of the Third Age.  Most of what we know about Thranduil comes from The Hobbit, as he plays an important role in the goings-on in that book.  Because he is something of an antagonist toward Bilbo and his party, there are a lot of people who paint him in their essays and fiction as a tyrant.  But this doesn't tell the whole story.

The Hobbit is not the only place Thranduil is mentioned.  He is also spoken about in Unfinished Tales under the Appendix of Of Galadriel and Celeborn(1).  There it speaks of Oropher, of the War of the Last Alliance, and what followed.  It tells that the Silvan Elves were a hardy and valiant lot, independent of Gil-galad (which was what caused their great loss in the war)(2).

It also speaks of what followed the war, how Thranduil and his Elves were anxious and unquiet, feeling the change to the world that the Third Age would bring.  Men were growing in numbers and slowly spreading, closer and closer to Lórien and Greenwood. Thranduil also knew that the Wild Men -- Men of the east -- were now restless.  They were free of Sauron's rule, but the evil still held them captive, and they waged cruel wars; they kept moving westward, slaying anything in their path.  The last sentences dealing with this change following Sauron's defeat in the Second Age shows a foresight and sorrow in Thranduil that is given nowhere else:

"But there was in Thranduil's heart a still deeper shadow.  He had seen the horror of Mordor and could not forget it.  If ever he looked to the south its memory dimmed the light of the Sun, and though he knew that it was now broken and deserted and under the vigilance of the Kings of Men, fear spoke in his heart that it was not conquered for ever: it would arise again."

The Histories of Middle-earth also discuss Thranduil's retreat as the Shadow fell upon Greenwood; how he finally settled in the north-east of the wood and delved his halls there.  The writings give a reason for his hatred of the Dwarves -- he was related to Thingol.  He built his halls in the way Thingol had created Menegroth, and for those who have not read The Silmarillion, Thingol was slaughtered by the Dwarves after they created the Nauglamir for him out of a Silmaril.  It created great enmity between the Sindar of Doriath and the Dwarves forever more. When Oropher brought his son and the handful of Sindar with him from Lindon, they adopted the language of the Silvan Elves, names, mannerisms, and culture -- they wished to never leave Middle-earth, or to be merged with the Sindar of Beleriand (which was dominated by the Noldorin Exiles, whom the Sindar of Oropher had no great love of). They wished to become Silvan and "return to the simple life natural to the Elves before the invitation of the Valar had disturbed it(3)."

So, Thranduil's reaction toward the Dwarves in The Hobbit is not representative of his attitude as a whole.  He had very personal reasons fuelling his dislike for Dwarves.  In no way should this be translated to the way he treats his own people or even other races.

A second major mischaracterization of Thranduil is that he is a drunkard.  Those who put forward this view point to a line in Chapter 9 of The Hobbit.

"Wood-elves, and especially their king, were very fond of wine..."

Now, let's face it.  Many humans out there can be described as being "very fond of wine," but that doesn't make them drunkards.  They simply enjoy wine.  There is a fanon assumption that Thranduil had to be this mean, hateful drunk because he enjoyed wine and collected treasures. The more complete picture, though, is that he merely follows the example Thingol himself set for his people long before the Exiles returned to Middle-earth and the Moon rose for the first time.  And no one accuses Thingol of being an abusive drunk.

Tolkien himself stated the Elves were his perfect beings -- they were far above the crudeness of Men.  They had long, long lifespans, great knowledge, foresight, and talents Men were never able to mimic.  Very few of them exhibited the failings of Men, and those failings they did exhibit were such great feats that they were written into legend.  Among Tolkien's Elves, you won't find pickpockets, muggers, wifebeaters, rapists, paedophiles, or any of those seedier sides of humanity that we'd just as soon forget.  What few notable villainous characters we find are merely the exceptions that prove the rule -- such acts are so rare and unheard-of that those few times they occur are noteworthy.

Another major sticking point about Thranduil concerns his relationship with his son, Legolas.  There exists any number of fanfics out there that show Thranduil as being a seriously abusive father, either verbally or physically, or both.  And while we have no specific instances that ever show Thranduil and Legolas together, we can infer from elsewhere in the Histories of Middle-earth that child abuse just isn't something that happens among the Elves.

The biggest piece of evidence we have comes from the Laws and Customs of the Eldar.  Now, I could do an entire show that does nothing but points out inconsistencies between the Laws and Customs of the Eldar and the actual examples we are shown throughout the rest of the canon... and maybe I will sometime soon.  But, for now, there are some points to be made about children that <i>are</i> borne out by the examples we have, and they are particularly relevant here.  Let's look at some quotes.

"The Eldar wedded for the most part in their youth and soon after their fiftieth year. They had few children, but these were very dear to them. Their families, or houses, were held together by love and a deep feeling for kinship in mind and body; and the children needed little governing or teaching."

Granted, saying that in general, children were very dear to their parents doesn't prove that every single child was adored by their parents.  The same can be said of humans -- that, in general, parents love their children.  But there are a saddening number of exceptions to this.  However, we have to go back to Tolkien's intent for the Elves to be ideals, to be what humans could only aspire to be without the trappings of vice and villainy that weigh us down.  Even Eöl, arguably the most villainous figure among the Elves, is never shown to be abusive to his son(4).

Perhaps a better point for discussion, though, is this quote a little further down.

"Also the Eldar say that in the begetting, and still more in the bearing of children, greater share and strength of their beinzg, in mind and in body, goes forth than in the making of mortal children."

When Elves have children, they don't just pass on their genes, but they also imbue their child with a piece of their own spirit.  In Míriel's case, she imparted so much to Fëanor that it left her own spirit too weakened to fully recover.  So, among the Elves, having a child is a serious commitment.  Elves never conceive unless both parties are willing and make the active choice to make that kind of sacrifice to create a new spirit.  There are no accidental or unwanted pregnancies for them.

Put all this together, and the possibility of child abuse by Elves seems remote.  Every child born to Elves is not only wanted, but was actively sought.  They are reflections of their parents in more than just genetics; they represent the merging of the best parts of husband and wife.  This isn't to say that family life was always the idyllic Norman-Rockwell-Ozzie-and-Harriet picture of perfection.  Disagreements, even arguments, were not necessarily uncommon.  But actual abuse?  Highly, highly unlikely.

"Oh-ho-ho!" I hear you naysayers.  Or I would if this were a two-way broadcast.  "What about the Kinslayings?  They prove that Elves have a dark side.  If they can do that, why can't they be just as bad as us in everything else?"

So, okay, let's talk about the Kinslayings for a bit.  The first Kinslaying was driven not by evil or malice, but by one Elf's grief over the murder of his father and the anger he felt at the Valar's refusal to act.  Not right by any definition of the word, but hardly the kind of deep-seated villainy that can condemn an entire race.  The other two Kinslayings were driven solely by the Oath that the Valar enforced upon the sons of that one Elf who, after Fëanor's death, continued to uphold his legacy even to their doom.  If anyone has a dark side in this story, it is the Valar themselves, who chose to "teach a lesson" to the Fëanorians, and so to all Elves.

Outside of the Kinslayings, did you ever see Elf raise arms against Elf again?  After the destruction of the Silmarils, it ended.  The Valar set into motion the events of the history of Middle-earth.  Had they acted against Melkor after the death of Finwë and the destruction of the Two Trees, the Kinslayings would never have occurred.  (But of course, neither would anything else of import.)

Bringing this back to Thranduil, what have we worked out?  The way he treated the Dwarves is not the way he treats everyone; liking wine doesn't make you an alcoholic; and Thranduil had to have actively desired to have Legolas, so the idea of him abusing his son is hard to swallow, especially in light of the inferences we can make about Elven family life and Elven attitudes in general, both from the Laws and Customs of the Eldar and from Tolkien's letters and other writings.

So, moving on.

Let’s talk about Gildor.  In The Fellowship of the Ring, we – in the form of Frodo and Sam – meet an Elf heading for the Grey Havens(5).  Gildor Inglorion, of the house of Finrod is how he introduces himself.  Which poses a really interesting conundrum.

You see, the '-ion' ending to that name means 'son of'.  Gildor Inglorion is therefore Gildor, son of Inglor.  The problem with this is that there is no Elf named Inglor.  At least, not anymore.  Now, in the original drafts of Tolkien’s works, Inglor's full name was Inglor Felagund -- that's right, Felagund. During one of Tolkien's revisions, though, Inglor Felagund became Finrod Felagund. Presumably, all references to Inglor therefore should now refer to Finrod. Similarly, that same initial draft referenced an Elf named Finrod, who, in this same revision, became Finarfin.

Christopher points out that "Gildor Inglorion of the house of Finrod" is an anomaly -- the only remaining anachronistic reference to Inglor-who-is-Finrod and Finrod-who-is-Finarfin. By this reasoning, the passage should read, "Gildor Finrodion, of the house of Finarfin".

So, Gildor is actually supposed to be Finrod's son.  Case closed, right?  Well... yes and no. The Histories of Middle-earth also say that Finrod had no wife and no child. However, if references to 'Inglor' became references to 'Finrod', then clearly, Gildor was intended to be Finrod's child.

The other major piece of data that can be used to help (or hinder) us is when Gildor was born. Many people assume he was born in Aman and fled with the Noldor after the Darkening of Valinor. However, in The Lays of Belariand, there is recounted the tale of how Barahir saved "Inglor Felagund" (who, as we know, became Finrod Felagund) during the Dagor Bragollach. One of Barahir's companions was a mortal named Gildor. Tolkien was very good about not reusing names without a purpose. So, is it merely coincidence that Inglor (who is Finrod) had a son named Gildor and then, many years later, was saved by a Man also named Gildor? Or, was he saved by a Man named Gildor, and then, to honour that deed, named his only son -- who was born perhaps some years later -- after the brave Man?

I tend to go with the latter theory because the first theory is just too... un-Tolkien-like. The coincidence of the same name existing at the same time in members of different races just doesn't sit well with me. So, by my reasoning, Gildor Inglorion had to have been born after the Dagor Bragollach, in Middle-Earth.

Therefore, four main schools of thought exist that you can use when approaching the topic of Gildor.

1. Gildor is Finrod's child, of the house of Finarfin. (This discards the concept of Finrod having no children, and recalls a little-recognized footnote that gave Finrod an unnamed wife in Middle-Earth following the Return of the Noldor(6).)

2. Gildor is Inglor's child, of the house of Finrod. (This, too, discards the concept of Finrod having no children since "Inglor" would have to have been Finrod's child or descendant to begin with.)

3. Gildor is Inglor's child, of the house of Finarfin. (This avoids the Finrod problem altogether, but requires the creation of an Elf named Inglor somewhere in the line of Finarfin who was born before Elrond and Elros -- because it is explicitly stated that they were the last of the house of Finwë born during the Eldar Days.)

4. Gildor just is. (This chucks the whole mess out the window and just hangs Gildor out in some long-forgotten branch of the Eldar.  Also known as the "la-la-la not listening" defence.)

All right.

This brings us to the conclusion of this show. I know it's late, but I hope it was worth waiting for! Remember, if you have comments or questions about this episode, or if you have a question about Middle-Earth that you'd like me to address on a future episode, then please drop me an email at silime@gmail.com.  That's S-I-L-I-M-E at gmail dot com.

Until next time, I'm Silime and this is Crystal Clear Tolkien.  Namarie.

References

1. Unfinished Tales, Appendix B, The Sindarin Princes of the Silvan Elves pg270-273
2. Unfinished Tales, Appendix B, The Sindarin Princes of the Silvan Elves pg271
3. Unfinished Tales, Appendix B, The Sindarin Princes of the Silvan Elves pg272
4. The Silmarillion, Of Maeglin pg133-134
5. Lord of the Rings, 1994 ed., Fellowship of the Ring, Three Is Company pg79
6. History of Middle-Earth: Volume Twelve, The Peoples of Middle-Earth, Of Dwarves And Men pg317-318
History of Middle-Earth: Volume Twelve, The Peoples of Middle-Earth, The Shibboleth of Fëanor pg350

In this podcast, we discuss the topics of who Thranduil and Gildor are.