Concerning Wizards, Necromancers and Ainur (II)

Elthir wrote:A fair point, but I would say that while it may be mere happenstance that a given something wasn't published in the first edition, once that becomes a fact, Tolkien is yet free to niggle again.

Absolutely.  Point well taken, but the argument you make at the end, where you note that the Istari text form UT contains a marginal note, it does not indicate any profound re-working of the text.  Rather it indicates a minor addition.  More important than that, however, is that it indicates that he thought that the text was important enough to return to and that he did not amend it.  It indicates that it carried some weight in Tolkien's mind.  Moreover he specifically did not amend the section concerning the colors of the two or their name as the Ithryn Luin.  That should be enough to settle the dispute in my opinion.  If there was strong intent for abandonment of the idea it seems more likely that there would have been a marginal note to that effect in the MS.  Christopher indicates nothing of the sort.

Consequently arguments like this one:

Elthir wrote:Also the circa 1954 Istari text notes that the Blue Wizards had 'no names' save Ithryn Luin 'the Blue Wizards', concerning which Christopher Tolkien notes: '(meaning of course that they had no names in the West of Middle-earth)', and Christopher notes this distinction because in a different note Tolkien can, and does, give the two wizards Quenya names, as these would still not be 'names', in a different and more specific sense, known [or at least well enough known] in the West of Middle-eath.

That said, the Istari text yet seemingly includes the 'Blue Wizards' as a name of sorts in the West of Middle-earth, so not only in comparison to the later letter where Tolkien writes about these wizards not having distinctive colours, compare also a much later text on the Wizards: 'No names are recorded for the two wizards. They were never seen or known in lands west of Mordor.' The Peoples of Middle-Earth, Last Writings

... they really just don't hold water in my opinion.

Christopher Tolkien notes there are other writings on the topic - quick jottings, difficult to read - but he never notes anything contrary at all to the notion of the "Blue".  He would be more familiar than any of us and he refers to them constantly as the "blue" even in footnoted references found in Letters (which he assisted with).  So it seems to me that your argument would be more pointed at Christopher than myself.

But many of your points are completely just since nothing more on the matter was published in Tolkien's lifetime.  It's consequently impossible to argue firmly from one point of view or another.

Elthir wrote:Which names have more weight, despite the text each one hails from?

- That's the problem w/non-canon: you can interpret it as you like!

jon wrote:

Elthir wrote:A fair point, but I would say that while it may be mere happenstance that a given something wasn't published in the first edition, once that becomes a fact, Tolkien is yet free to niggle again.

Absolutely. Point well taken, but the argument you make at the end, where you note that the Istari text form UT contains a marginal note, it does not indicate any profound re-working of the text. Rather it indicates a minor addition. More important than that, however, is that it indicates that he thought that the text was important enough to return to and that he did not amend it. It indicates that it carried some weight in Tolkien's mind. Moreover he specifically did not amend the section concerning the colors of the two or their name as the Ithryn Luin. That should be enough to settle the dispute in my opinion.

Hmm, I can't agree this argument gets us even close to settling this. Plus what fun would that be    

Can it be illustrated that Tolkien wrote this marginal section after the letter in question, for example? For myself I have little doubt that when Tolkien wrote this text he felt the wizards were blue, and writing the marginal note a minute, an hour, a week, a month... after he wrote the rest of it, doesn't change that the letter still post dates the Istari text, as does the very late text I noted.

Not revising something you possibly just wrote hours ago need only mean the concept hasn't changed yet, and to my mind we are well away from settling this matter.

If there was strong intent for abandonment of the idea it seems more likely that there would have been a marginal note to that effect in the MS. Christopher indicates nothing of the sort.

The marginal passage doesn't appear to be a revision of anything. And does CJRT comment that he feels this passage was written significantly later than the rest of the text for example? He would need a reason to think so, but at the moment I don't recall any characterization about the possible timing involved.

What the 'physical evidence' might reasonably illustrate is an afterthought, yes, but I can't agree with the [in my opinion] rather notable importance you appear to be putting on that here.

This marginal passage possibly illustrates that this text, although at one point intended for publication in some measure, might not have been fully 'finished' as in ready to send off to JRRT's publishers. If it was finished in all meaningful senses, still I think Tolkien would have typed it all out at least one more time to set the marginal passage in the text proper.

And we all know what might happen when JRR Tolkien writes out a given text one more time. Do I think, if he had, that the Blue Wizard detail was certainly out? No, as I have no compelling reason to think he would amend this in 1954.

Consequently arguments like this one: (snip of Elthir's [my] argument above) ... they really just don't hold water in my opinion.

Well in brief we go from...

The Istari 1954 (ish)

A) no names [in the West of Middle-earth] except the Ithryn Luin 'Blue Wizards'
B) Tolkien describing them clad in sea blue

... to...

Tolkien's later letter and much later text on the Wizards

A) no names in the West of Middle-earth
B) a direct statement that the creator of Middle-earth doubts if they had distinctive colours
A1) toss in calling them the 'other two' instead of blue

Christopher Tolkien notes there are other writings on the topic - quick jottings, difficult to read - but he never notes anything contrary at all to the notion of the "Blue".  

But the letter is contrary on this point whether Christopher Tolkien chooses to note it or not; I mean, I think even he would have to agree with that much.

He would be more familiar than any of us and he refers to them constantly as the "blue" even in footnoted references found in Letters (which he assisted with). So it seems to me that your argument would be more pointed at Christopher than myself.

I would point it out to CJRT himself... if he cared to hear my opinion for some reason  

With respect to the book The Lettters of J.R.R. Tolkien I don't know about constantly in this source at least; according to my edition anyway, which includes a new expanded index. I found the following references...

A) index: 'two unnamed wizards 231, 248, 277, 280, 448'

B) letter 180, footnote: '... adventures of the other two wizards* (5 minus Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast...)'

*editorial footnote: 'See no. 211, and also Unfinished Tales pp. 389-90, 393-394'

C) letter 197, main text: '... and the missing two wizards (out of five)'

D) letter 211, Tolkien's answer to a question about colour, main text: 'I have not named the colours, because I do not know them*. I doubt if they had distinctive colours. Distinction was only...'

*editorial footnote: 'Elsewhere Tolkien called the other two wizards Ithryn Luin, the Blue Wizards; see Unfinished Tales pp. 389-90.'

So one reference here [so far, and as far as I'm aware of at the moment] to 'Blue Wizards' in my edition, and here the statement is accurate with respect to the relatively brief information it chooses to relate, as 'elsewhere' JRR Tolkien did refer to these two wizards as the Blue Wizards of course.

But the question of whether or not JRRT necessarily retained this detail is not entertained here.

A very enjoyable and scholarly discussion, Jon and Elthir.  
I hope it continues long past its logical conclusion.   

By the way, there is an unintended extra t in my post above. It's Earl Grey. Just to clarify.

Actually I think the footnote in lettters sort of illustrates part of my point, even in some small degree. Or maybe not.

But a reader might assume that the footnote on 'Blue Wizards' is in some sense 'correcting' Tolkien rather than merely describing a variation, but more importantly perhaps, unless the reader looks to the external history of The Istari text, instead of the text itself, he or she will not realize which is the later idea from a chronological perspective.

'Elsewhere' it is, but it's 'earlierwhen' too, compared to the letter.

First, the beginnings of your argument above are largely contingent on the assumption that the marginal note was made soon after composition. That argument does not seem to me to be a firm one. And the argument did not contradict my primary point: that no later comment in the manuscript is made contradicting their being called the "blue". In addition to this there is no substantive work on the topic at all other than this essay. There is a singular letter - and no more than a singular letter (at which point Tolkien may have forgotten about the details of the topic) - and there are some hasty sketches of some other ideas from very late in Tolkien's life that you noted (I think it's about 1972, or that is CT's guess). The one you contend is very fragmented in language and no more that a singular paragraph in length. So it's not really any kind of formal examination of the topic. It should also be kept in mind that just because an author is playing with or sketching out a few brief ideas doesn't mean he's embraced them or discarded wholeheartedly any of his old ideas. In addition to this you yourself have said above that the language there can be interpreted in different ways and does not of necessity support the assumption that the two were no longer named "the Blue". And that's it. That's all the writing on the subject we have. As far as I can see it does not mean a formal contradiction at all (although I'll grant you there is an informal one in letter 211 - and I'm sure that Tolkien thought it was correct at that time - but it doesn't mean that he didn't remember more about the topic later on).

But you are right that if Tolkien did remember his original thoughts on the subject then it would be a clear contradiction. But who is to say? I think we need more than one letter to draw a firm conclusion here. There's just so little writing on the topic. It's understandable, tho, that you would come to the conclusion you do when reading the contents of that singular letter.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the other two must be called blue - I am simply saying that there isn't enough definitive evidence to assume that they are not. But I'll grant you that there is some evidence.

jon wrote:First, the beginnings of your argument above are largely contingent on the assumption that the marginal note was made soon after composition. That argument does not seem to me to be a firm one.

My reaction above was meant to illustrate that it's easily possible that the marginal section was written as early as minutes after the main text, in reaction to the importance you gave to this passage above. Do you not agree with that much?

But you are the one that raised this seeming afterthought to the level of settling the argument Jon, and I only intended to say that I think this should not be nearly enough to settle the matter. All we have here is a rather arguably benign physical fact that need not necessarily lead to the ideas you described above.

And the argument did not contradict my primary point: that no later comment in the manuscript is made contradicting their being called the "blue".

 
Okay but this primary point merely seems to say: nothing contradicts the idea in this specific source, despite that it is contradicted in another.

In addition to this there is no substantive work on the topic at all other than this essay. There is a singular letter - and no more than a singular letter (at which point Tolkien may have forgotten about the details of the topic) - and there are some hasty sketches of some other ideas from very late in Tolkien's life that you noted (I think it's about 1972, or that is CT's guess). The one you contend is very fragmented in language and no more that a singular paragraph in length. So it's not really any kind of formal examination of the topic.

Very well but on the other hand one statement is all you need to reveal a change of mind, or one text, or one note.

The matter of the number of Balrogs comes to mind for instance. Enough people on the web proclaim '3 or at most 7' Balrogs ever existed [including me depending upon the circumstances of the discussion], and the evidence for this is 'nothing more' than one marginal note added to a relatively later copy of The Annals of Aman -- compared to various other texts that still refer to very many Balrogs actually. But the reason this brief note [a note never intended to stand as part of the primary text incidentally] carries weight is that it's arguably 'later' than other texts however.

And [and not that you said I did] I never claimed that the late texts are good physical examples, but we work with what we have.

Granted I think this aspect of the 'physical evidence' is often enough overlooked [along with external chronology], but then again each case comes with its own interesting details. Tolkien's reasoning here could easily be, in brief: if these wizards were truly unknown in the West of Middle-earth they should have no names in Sindarin or Westron, not even 'Blue Wizards' in Sindarin, and his later statement compared to the earlier text 'is not nothing' [as I say sometimes], and I would be somewhat silly not to note it, even if some don't find it as compelling an addition as others might, or compelling at all.


With respect to Tolkien's letters: my position is that they need to be dealt with cautiously; and they are not, in my opinion, 'author-published' texts. That said, even one letter can make a difference, noting Christopher Tolkien's employment of the Ents for his constructed Silmarillion, for example. Not the same scenario as with the 'Blue Wizards' of course, but I'm just generally noting that there are times when a statement in a letter simply reveals Tolkien's thoughts about his work [to state the obvious].

It should also be kept in mind that just because an author is playing with or sketching out a few brief ideas doesn't mean he's embraced them or discarded wholeheartedly any of his old ideas.

I agree, generally speaking. When discussing Tolkien sometimes getting anything in writing, or anything definitive, on a given subject is difficult enough.

In addition to this you yourself have said above that the language there can be interpreted in different ways and does not of necessity support the assumption that the two were no longer named "the Blue". And that's it. That's all the writing on the subject we have. As far as I can see it does not mean a formal contradiction at all (although I'll grant you there is an informal one in letter 211 - and I'm sure that Tolkien thought it was correct at that time - but it doesn't mean that he didn't remember more about the topic later on).

I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest with 'formal' versus 'informal' here, but you are obviously correct that Tolkien's description at the tme of writing is the one he thinks is internally true. And why does it matter if the earlier notion is forgotten, if it is?

In my opinion there's one quite compelling reason why it should matter, but it doesn't apply here in any event.

And of course we can't know whether Tolkien ever [later] remembered what he had written in 1954, nor can we know that if he had, he necessarily would have thought that the 'Blue Wizards' was a better idea than that expressed in letter 211.
  
Anyway in the case of a 'tie' of opinions I think the 'win' goes to the still-in-tower loremaster however -- a rule I just invented but will have to revise once [just before] I'm ousted.

Drat this inevitable Tower-ousting! I don't like moving.

Fair enough.  And fantastic examples to support your points: Balrogs & Ents.  I'm very familiar.  Right.  We'll call it a draw.  No tower dwelling for me yet.  I'll go back to the swamp I crawled out from...

@ David: glad that we're at least entertaining

@Elthir: at least we're serving some sort of function... other than driving each other mad.

Perhaps we can call them the not-quite-so-blue.  How would you say that in elvish?  Ithryn úluin - the un-blue!

Or perhaps we can ask them, blue-meanie-like: "Are you... bluish?"

I tell you what: how 'bout if I be blue wizard #1 and you be blue wizard #2.  (It is my thread after all).  More apt still: I'll be Blue-Meanie #1 and you can be Blue Meanie #2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Meanies_%28Yellow_Submarine%29

Elthir wrote:
In my opinion there's one quite compelling reason why it should matter, but it doesn't apply here in any event.

So what exactly is it?

Fine Lore work all round you two   And good reading with a buckie (that and its nice to see an argument Im not in!).

Keep it up, Lore spats turn up all sorts of interesting Tolkien titbits- especially for those of us who have dug no deeper than the Sil, UT and Letters.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Keep it up, Lore spats turn up all sorts of interesting Tolkien titbits- especially for those of us who have dug no deeper than the Sil, UT and Letters.

So true. You get inspired and really start digging around. Well... more to come on the subject of Wizards, including the not-so-bluish ones!

Good stuff Jon. I look forward to it.

(And I should add the first 2 books of HomE to that and the Book of Lost Tales and Children of Hurin -or was Lost Tales the first book in HomE?- anyway I have read those, but so long ago all I really have is an impression of them as opposed to any details. Although I always thought if anyone was to ever adapt the Sil, using the House of Lost Tales as a bases for a framing device might be a good way to cover the generational jumps in the story).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Although I always thought if anyone was to ever adapt the Sil, using the House of Lost Tales as a bases for a framing device might be a good way to cover the generational jumps in the story).

Tolkien certainly seemed to think so!

  
 

jon wrote: @Elthir: at least we're serving some sort of function... other than driving each other mad.

Plus all our posts are gluten free. Whatever that means   

Elthir wrote: In my opinion there's one quite compelling reason why it should matter, but it doesn't apply here in any event.


Jon replied: So what exactly is it?

Hint: see a late passage [The Peoples of Middle-Earth] concerning Celebrimbor the 'Teler' and CJRT's commentary.

Oh yes.  Yes, that doesn't really apply since the only thing that was published in the 'pure' canon was that they existed and that they had 'rods' like the other three.

Celebrimbor is a great example.  Constantly changing.  Constatnly forgotten.  He's an excellent example, too, of how seriously Tolkien took the concept of canon or the degree to which he would abide by it himself (although here, of course, he wasn't thinking of the word 'canon' I imagine... rather he was thinking of the words 'published' and 'legendarium').

After reading vol. XII I was always under the impression that Tolkien's last couple years were very creative yet at the same time volatile. He seemed to be forgetting things constantly. Regarding the set of very late manuscripts from which the last writings on the two other wizards are drawn Christopher says "There are clear evidences of confusion (as he [J.R.R] said at one point, 'my memory is no longer retentive')..." (vol. XII, p376, "Last Writings")

The Celebrimbor example you cited is also a good illustration of that I think (the text there is from post 1968, Christopher noting "no doubt he had forgotten that that theory [that Celebrimbor was the last of the Fëanorians] had appeared in print, for had he remembered it he would undoubtedly have felt bound by it.". Tho I'm uncertain of the date of the text (on Celebrimbor) in UT both texts taken together really do illustrate how forgetful Tolkien could be on occasion, even repeatedly, with a piece of information that he thought was important enough to go back and add to the appendices of tLotR.

To argue against my own position above tho (in the essay vs. letter debate), if Tolkien was more forgetful later on in life it still seems less likely that he would be so forgetful a brief 2 or 3 years after writing something in the mid-1950s. That being the case it does seem more like a denial.

A further problem, however, is that of a different kind of volatility: changeability of opinion. Tho Tolkien might change his mind on one day he might change it again on the next. Look at the two conflicting texts on Glorfindel from the last year of Tolkien's life for example. That's just in s single year (likely much less). It's yet one more of the problems that makes the topic of canon so intractable (and, to me, so fascinating).

I liked that, found it relaxing & it made me feel I wanted to know more & that I can never really let go of the faery & magic that is Middle Earth.

Why was this left out of Unfinished Tales? Never heard of it before.

Definitely an intriguing part of the story, and one I always wanted to hear more about.