# Mythological creatures in Tolkien's universe



## Ithrynluin (Dec 11, 2004)

Tolkien's world certainly contains many creatures that may be called 'unreal', but there are zounds more of these to be found in the mythologies of different cultures.

What of the griffin, the unicorn, the centaur, the pegasus, the sprite and loads more?

Do we get any insight into the professor's thought process regarding this? 

Did he even give especial thought to which of these fantasy creatures would grace his stories and which not?

Perhaps many of these, like the griffin, boast too extravagant and flamboyant characteristics and features, and are not very fitting for Tolkien's creation, where most things and concepts seem subtle and wonderfully worked out.

On the other hand, a creature like the unicorn does not seem over-done at all, and is graceful enough for us to be able to imagine it as part of Middle-earth. Basically, it is just a horse with a horn, much like an elf is just a human with funky ears. 

Thoughts and opinions?


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 12, 2004)

Why should such creatures have had a place in Middle-earth? Tolkien built his mythology from an etymological perspective. That is, if there was a name for a creature in Middle-earth, that name had to have a history. But what would the history have represented?

The "mythology", as all mythologies do, supposes that everything is real. Hence, to have a unicorn in Middle-earth, you have to have a place for it. How should it have fit into the scheme of things?

The Ents and the Eagles had roles to play. Even Tom Bombadil served some sort of purpose, although no one knows what it is. Thematically, he provided Frodo with a place of temporary refuge and a means of avoiding pursuit on the road. He also provided the reader some foreknowledge of things to come.

What could Tolkien have had a unicorn do that would have advanced a story?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 12, 2004)

> Hence, to have a unicorn in Middle-earth, you have to have a place for it. How should it have fit into the scheme of things?



A plausible explanation would be to have the unicorn be the protector of the kelvar (at least the 'weaker' ones), much as the Ents are the shepherds of the trees. That does not seem at all far fetched to me, especially since in some stories unicorns _are_ the protectors of forests.



> What could Tolkien have had a unicorn do that would have advanced a story?



Much the same thing as any other creature in Tolkien's subcreation.



> Why should such creatures have had a place in Middle-earth?



I'm not saying they _should_ have, I am wondering why some did not while others did?

Did Tolkien use a certain set of criteria or not?

Did he model his creation after something specific or not?


----------



## Walter (Dec 14, 2004)

If we put aside the _brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns_ (BoLT1) or the _enchanted leprechauns_ ("Goblin Feet") or the _dragon-moths_, _sea-worms, -cats and -cows_ (Roverandom) and creatures of the like, which seem more or less casually mentioned, what remains has in most cases either mythological or philological roots, or both.

Dragons seem to have fascinated Tolkien from his youth and it appears he dedicated much thought to them and their mythological roots (cf. _Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics_).

Balrogs, the 'fire-demons' resemble not only the fiery sons of Muspell of Germanic/Northern myths, but probably also stem from Tolkien's philological interest in the roots of the Old English word _Sigelhearwan_ (cf. his essay _Sigelwara-Land_).

Ents are in Northern and Anglo-Saxon tradition portrayed as giants, what Tolkien added to make them walking and talking trees has probably roots in _Macbeth_ (Birnam Wood) and the _Câd Goddeu_, the 'Battle of the Trees', a Celtic myth.

Fastitocalon is another example where mythological and philological roots meet.

The giant spiders may have come in for a different reason, though.

Thus, I do not think that Tolkien ever pondered about which creatures to "add" to his subcreation and which not, rather, I think he added what he saw fit and whatever had caught his interest one way or another...

But what I find fascinating, is the mix of knowledge and fantasy, which makes Tolkien's creatures so unique, IMO


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 14, 2004)

Shadowfax is a unicorn in all but horned head.



> Even Tom Bombadil served some sort of purpose, although no one knows what it is.


Perhaps we could have the same purpose for a Unicorn


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 14, 2004)

What I find interesting Walter, is that he eventually dropped a lot of those creatures from the legendarium, or, in the case of others, they did not play a great or even minor part in the history of Middle-Earth. But then again, we know so little about Midlde Earth, some of those characters may not have been wholly dropped-just ignored.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 14, 2004)

Tolkien's criticism of Zimmerman's storyline in his Letters gives a clue; for instance, Tolkien accuses Zimmerman of over-using the Eagles, which he believed should be used sparingly to keep the story believable. Imagine a Middle-earth stuffed with mythological creatures popping up here and there in the story, and you see what he means by over-use; a principle which would also apply to variety as well as quantity.


----------



## Walter (Dec 14, 2004)

True, Inderjit, I think that - as time went by - Tolkien successively freed himself from his sources, Middle-earth and its "creatures" became more unique and references, or even mentionings of creatures "borrowed" from other mythologies became sparse. 

Tolkien's Elves are probably the best example of how unique the creatures of Middle-earth could become, they reached a state of refinement and sophistication, which is absolutely without parallels in extant mythologies. 

----

The eagles are IMO a somewhat different case, because Tolkien used them as sort of _"dei ex machina"_ *), using them too often would have meant to overstress their credibility and that is IMO the reason why Tolkien calls them _"...a dangerous 'machine'"_ in his letter. Had he not used them in this 'function', he probably could have had them involved in the plot more often.

----

*) *deus ex machina*, the 'god from the machinery' has its origin in the Greek drama where it meant the timely appearance of a god to unravel and resolve the plot. The name _deus ex machina_ was probably chosen, because the god's appearing in the sky (or from above), was an effect which was achieved by means of some sort of a crane (the "machine").


----------



## Uminya (Dec 14, 2004)

Tolkien's works, while they did not include such creatures as listed above, did contain some interesting creatures, though these were mainly in the alternate versions (in my opinion, better versions) of certain stories from the Silmarillion that were written out more fully in the BoLTs and the other HoME books.

Let us not forget Tevildo, the Prince of Cats; or one of Sauron's incarnations, Thû, who could take the form of a wolf-man, or werewolf; nor the Vampire Thuringwethil who could become a bat.

Tolkien referred to other creatures "in the dark places of the Earth" and I've always been curious about what he had in mind.

PS: it's been a while since I read the stories, so if I was incorrect with those names, please correct me


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 14, 2004)

Let us not the forget the nameless things which Gandalf only saw, and the mysterious evil creatures which have no name that are mentioned in the early chapters of LoTR.


----------



## Walter (Dec 15, 2004)

> Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he.
> 
> Gandalf in _The Two Towers_



This is a curious statement, considering that Sauron is a Maia and Ainu, an _"offspring of Ilúvatar's thought"_, one of those who were _"with him before Time"_.

In fact I think, that this is one of the few remaining allusions to other mythologies. In Germanic and Northern mythology we have _Yggdrasill_, the ash-tree, representing the world (of which _Midgard_, _Middangeard_ or 'Middle-earth' is a part). And there it is said that _Nidhogg_, a serpent/dragon, is gnawing the bottom of its deepest root.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2004)

There have been debates on this paradox; partly resolved by starting the clock on Sauron's age from the day he entered Middle-earth, with him possibly living outside of time (and therefore ageless) before then.


----------



## Walter (Dec 15, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> There have been debates on this paradox; partly resolved by starting the clock on Sauron's age from the day he entered Middle-earth, with him possibly living outside of time (and therefore ageless) before then.


But then - following this line of reasoning - the "nameless things" could hardly be older either, could they?


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2004)

Walter said:


> But then - following this line of reasoning - the "nameless things" could hardly be older either, could they?


No, but those beings who step into time (Middle-earth) at a certain juncture cannot claim to be older than what was already there. That which exists outside of time cannot be measured by it. If Sauron had been in Middle-earth when these nameless, gnawing creatures of the discord were created, he may well have been aware of them; but he was not there and so was not aware. I think that is the gist of Gandalf's words.


----------



## Walter (Dec 15, 2004)

Not so, I would say... 



> For the Great Music had been but the growth and flowering of thought in the Tuneless Halls, and the Vision only a foreshowing; but now they had entered in at the beginning of Time, and the Valar perceived that the World had been but foreshadowed and foresung, and they must achieve it.
> 
> Ainulindalë





> Then those of the Ainur who desired it arose and entered into the World at the beginning of Time; and it was their task to achieve it, and by their labours to fulfil the vision which they had seen. Long they laboured in the regions of Eä, which are vast beyond the thought of Elves and Men, until in the time appointed was made Arda, the Kingdom of Earth. Then they put on the raiment of Earth and descended into it, and dwelt therein.
> 
> Valaquenta



Since they entered the world not _at a certain juncture_, but _at the very beginning of Time_, there is hardly a chance for anyone/anything being "older" than one of those Ainur who chose to enter the world, IMO. 

The statement of Gandalf is IMO simply not congruent with other information about Tolkien's subcreation at the time.

Thus - to me - it only makes sense when I consider it an allusion to the myth of _Yggdrasil_ and _Nidhogg_, especially since Tolkien uses a similar wording as is found in the translations of Snorri's Prose _Edda_...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 15, 2004)

Ithrynluin said:


> Tolkien's world certainly contains many creatures that may be called 'unreal', but there are zounds more of these to be found in the mythologies of different cultures...
> 
> Did he even give especial thought to which of these fantasy creatures would grace his stories and which not?...
> 
> Thoughts and opinions?



I doubt if T sat down and decided which fantastic creatures he would (and would not) put into his tales. Methinks that they simply "arose" at the propitious time. Therefore he created what needed to be created at the time of need. It is one man's creation, after all. It is a far different kind of creation, written with a far different purpose than, say, Jo Rowling's _Harry Potter_ tales, which consciously call upon all the "traditional iconography of magick" with such entertaining and telling effect.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2004)

Walter said:


> Since they entered the world not _at a certain juncture_, but _at the very beginning of Time_, there is hardly a chance for anyone/anything being "older" than one of those Ainur who chose to enter the world, IMO.


Conceded!



Walter said:


> The statement of Gandalf is IMO simply not congruent with other information about Tolkien's subcreation at the time.


Then we must assume that Gandalf was wrong, or (admittedly unlikely) using the word 'older' in some other sense (both Treebeard and Iarwain have been called eldest).



Walter said:


> Thus - to me - it only makes sense when I consider it an allusion to the myth of _Yggdrasil_ and _Nidhogg_, especially since Tolkien uses a similar wording as is found in the translations of Snorri's Prose _Edda_...


I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge on this one, as I can't even pronounce Yggdrasil.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Dec 16, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> There have been debates on this paradox; partly resolved by starting the clock on Sauron's age from the day he entered Middle-earth, with him possibly living outside of time (and therefore ageless) before then.



I put forth a similar (nutty?) theory on this very subject here

We may claim that Gandalf, being clad in the flash of the earth, lost some of his knowledge, or it had become somewhat hazy.

Regarding Walter's quotes which allegedly reject this theory: 



> For the Great Music had been but the growth and flowering of thought in the Tuneless Halls, and the Vision only a foreshowing; but now they had entered in at the beginning of Time, and the Valar perceived that the World had been but foreshadowed and foresung, and they must achieve it.





> Then those of the Ainur who desired it arose and entered into the World at the beginning of Time; and it was their task to achieve it, and by their labours to fulfil the vision which they had seen. Long they laboured in the regions of Eä, which are vast beyond the thought of Elves and Men, until in the time appointed was made Arda, the Kingdom of Earth. Then they put on the raiment of Earth and descended into it, and dwelt therein.



If the Great music was only a 'foreshowing' and nothing substantial had actually been created, what exactly did the Ainur enter _into_? 

It was not the Ainur's part to create each and every detail of Arda, and it may be that Eru created a rough 'outline' of Arda with a few details (i.e. Tom Bombadil, the Nameless things, which might only have become 'nameless' after Melko tinkered with them) extant already, but not much, leaving the brunt of the work to the Ainur.

So, unless I am gravely mistaken, I'd say those quotes don't really do any substantial harm to the theory, as it is purely a matter of interpretation of those passages, which are not exactly devoid of ambiguity (and don't we love that?).

Anyhow, thanks all, for delving into this topic.


----------

