# I always thought Maiar were immortal



## Gandalf White (Nov 6, 2002)

*Questions, questions (part III)*

For some reason I always thought that Maia were immortal. Doesn't it say that somewhere in Tolkien's works?


----------



## gate7ole (Nov 6, 2002)

You're right. The Ainur are immortal. They cannot be killed.

The following is a passage from Morgoth’s Ring, whete Tolkien tries to describe Morgoth’s condition after his exile in the Void.



> The war was successful, and ruin was limited to the small (if beautiful) region of Beleriand. Morgoth was thus actually made captive in physical form, and in that form taken as a mere criminal to Aman and delivered to Namo Mandos as judge - and executioner. He was judged, and eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed: that is killed like one of the Incarnates... When his body was destroyed he was weak and utterly 'houseless', and for that time at a loss and 'unanchored' as it were.
> ...
> Melkor was not Sauron. We speak of him being 'weakened, shrunken, reduced'; but this is in comparison with the great Valar. The dark spirit of Melkor's 'remainder' might be expected, therefore, eventually and after long ages to increase again, even (as some held) to draw back into itself some of its formerly dissipated power. It would do this (even if Sauron could not) because of its relative greatness. It would rest, seek to heal itself, distract itself by other thoughts and desires and devices - but all simply to recover enough strength to return to the attack on the Valar, and to its old obsession. As it grew again it would become, as it were, a dark shadow, brooding on the confines of Arda, and yearning towards it.



It shows how a spirit can be “killed”, but in reality it is not killed, it is diminished and IF it is powerful (like Morgoth) it may draw back its lost powers.


And also we have the next phrase about Sauron:


> _from the Letters_
> Sauron, being an immortal, hardly escapes the ruin of Númenor and returns to Mordor.


Sauron could not be killed by any physical means. He was only diminished into a shadow when the ring (i.e. part of his spirit) was destroyed.


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 6, 2002)

Thanks. But wasn't Gandalf a Maia?


----------



## Anamatar IV (Nov 6, 2002)

only gandalfs body was killed.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Anamatar IV _
> *only gandalfs body was killed. *


I feel obliged to try to explain that a little. Gandalf was indeed a Maia, no doubt about that. So was the other four wizards that the Valar sent to ME to help men and elves in the fight against Sauron. 
From The Letters of JRR Tolkien:


> ..., these 'wizards' were incarnated in the life-forms of Middle-earth, and so suffered the pains both of mind and body.


Hope that makes a fulfilling answer to your question?

An other question then, is what afterwards happened to Saruman.


----------



## Rogue666666 (Nov 7, 2002)

Maia? What in the world is a maia?


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 7, 2002)

I guess you have to read the Silmarillion. Maiar are also Ainur, but of lesser degree than the Valar. Singular form is Maia, plural is Maiar

From the Valaquenta:


> With the Valar came other spirits whose being also began before the World, of the same order as the Valar, but of less degree. These are the Maiar, people of the Valar, and their servants ans helpers. Their number is not known to the Elves, and few have names in any of the tongues of the Children of Ilúvatar; for though it is otherwise in Aman, in Middle-earth the Maiar have seldom appeared in form visible to Elves and Men.


Sauron was a Maia, and so was all of the wizards. The Maia name of Gandalf is Olórin:


> Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin. He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience.
> Of Melian much is told in the Quenta Silmarillion. But of Olórin that tale does not speak; for though he loved the Elves, he walked among them unseen, or in form as one of them, and they did not know whence came the fair visions or the promptings of wisdom that he put into their hearts. In the later days he was the friend of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and took pity on their sorrows; and those who listened to him awoke from despair and put away their imaginations of darkness.


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 7, 2002)

Yes, those are the main points; nicely done, Arvedui. 
Welcome to the forum, Rogue! (Forgive me for not typing out the 6's) 
That is a perfectly legitamate question, because you have obviously not read the Silmarillion. But I do think that you will find all of the answers to the more puzzling questions in that particularily beautiful and masterful work of literature; and i you don't find them there, read the HoME (Histories of Middle-Earth; no easy task, as there are 12 volumes!) and UT (Unfinished Tales).
Welcome again.


----------



## Gandalf White (Nov 7, 2002)

I have just started Unfinished Tales.  

So, if I understand correctly, Saruman and Sauron's spirits still lived, just absolutely powerless?


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Gandalf White _
> *I have just started Unfinished Tales.
> 
> So, if I understand correctly, Saruman and Sauron's spirits still lived, just absolutely powerless?  *



Yes, it would seem so. 


> And when all was over and the Shadow of Sauron was removed, he (Gandalf/Olórin) departed for ever over the Sea. Whereas Curunír was cast down, and utterly humbled, and perished at last by the hand of an oppressed slave; and his spirit went whithersoever it was doomed to go, and to Middle-earth, whether naked or embodied, came never back.



This concerne (sp?) only Saruman, but both he and Sauron were Maiar, and as explained above their spirits do not die. My guess is that the Valar or Eru took care of their spirits in some of the same way as they did to Melkor/Morgoth.

The good guys (Elves) go to Mandos, the bad guys go to the Void.


----------



## Grond (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Arvedui _
> *Yes, it would seem so.
> 
> 
> ...


 This is a real conundrum in Tolkien's works. He states clearly:


> _from The Silmarillion, The Ainulindale_
> Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, *that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs*. And therefore they are named the Valar, the Powers of the World.


I am still looking for the quote from Morgoth's Ring where it speaks of the Valar addressing the fate of Melkor when he was recaptured and chained again for the second time after the Battle of Wrath. In it is speaks of the Valar's desire to *put him to death* but that such power was beyond them and, as such, his fate was bound and tied to the world as given in the quote above.

The conundrum is that Gandalf goes to Eru when he dies after his battle with the Balrog and is restored in a newer and stronger form. And the quote from Arvedui


> And when all was over and the Shadow of Sauron was removed, he (Gandalf/Olórin) departed for ever over the Sea. Whereas Curunír was cast down, and utterly humbled, and perished at last by the hand of an oppressed slave; and his spirit went whithersoever it was doomed to go, and to Middle-earth, whether naked or embodied, came never back.


again makes it sound as if the Maia return to Eru which directly contradicts The Silmarillion.


----------



## gate7ole (Nov 8, 2002)

> _originally posted by Grond_ I am still looking for the quote from Morgoth's Ring where it speaks of the Valar addressing the fate of Melkor when he was recaptured and chained again for the second time after the Battle of Wrath. In it is speaks of the Valar's desire to put him to death but that such power was beyond them and, as such, his fate was bound and tied to the world as given in the quote above.


What a coincidence! When I read this thread, I remembered that I read this in one of the last books of HOME. I searched a little but disappointingly didn’t find it. Then, after your reassurance that I was right about the existence of such a quote, I searched more precisely and found it:



> 1100.
> The Chaining of Melkor.
> But his prayer was denied, and it is said that in that hour the Valar would fain have put him to death. But death none can deal to any of the race of the Valar, neither can any, save Eru only, remove them from Ea, the World that is, be they willing or unwilling.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 8, 2002)

The good thing about making a guess here is that I stand corrected when I'm wrong. 
So if I get this right now: Their spirits lived on, as asked by GW.
Confined to the world, according to the quote from Grond & gate7ole.

But what about the second half of GW's question: Absolutely powerless?

I seem to recollect having read somewhere else in the Forum, that they might slowly regain, at least som of, their power. I'm not sure if that was an argument in a debate, or if my memory fails me. But now that we have some of the wisest in cunning among us in this thread, I hope that you can help out with that answer as well?

No, there is absolutely no sarcasm in the last paragraph. Definately!


----------



## gate7ole (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Arvedui _
> But what about the second half of GW's question: Absolutely powerless?
> 
> I seem to recollect having read somewhere else in the Forum, that they might slowly regain, at least som of, their power. I'm not sure if that was an argument in a debate, or if my memory fails me. But now that we have some of the wisest in cunning among us in this thread, I hope that you can help out with that answer as well?


But I think I already answered this part too. I repeat again my previous quote highlighting the appropriate phrase:


> The dark spirit of Melkor's 'remainder' might be expected, therefore, eventually and *after long ages to increase again*, even (as some held) to *draw back into itself some of its formerly dissipated power*. It would do this (even if Sauron could not) because of its relative greatness. It would rest, seek to heal itself, distract itself by other thoughts and desires and devices - but all simply to recover enough strength to return to the attack on the Valar, and to its old obsession. As it grew again it would become, as it were, a dark shadow, brooding on the confines of Arda, and yearning towards it.


If this doesn't satisfy you, I don't know any quote that explains further the situation.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 9, 2002)

No wonder I couldn't find the quote I talked about. This was the only thread I didn't search. Oh, my 

Of course you have answered the question!


----------



## Rogue666666 (Nov 11, 2002)

Of course, I can't follow all the details since I've only read The original trilogy, but are you guys saying that in the end Sauron was not completely desrtoyed? I guess thats true since the book doen't say he was, but after Frodo has thrown the ring in and everything, everyone acts all happy as if Middle-Earth is saved forever and that there will never be another challenge again.


----------



## Grond (Nov 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rogue666666 _
> *Of course, I can't follow all the details since I've only read The original trilogy, but are you guys saying that in the end Sauron was not completely desrtoyed? I guess thats true since the book doen't say he was, but after Frodo has thrown the ring in and everything, everyone acts all happy as if Middle-Earth is saved forever and that there will never be another challenge again.  *


Actually, the answer you seek is in the published text of Return of the King and it is explained perfectly by Gandalf.


> _from The Return of the King, The Last Debate_
> Nonetheless it cannot be doubted that when Denethor saw great forces arrayed against him in Mordor, and more still being gathered, he saw that which truly is. 'Hardly has our strength sufficed to beat off the first great assault. The next will be greater. This war then is without final hope, as Denethor perceived. Victory cannot be achieved by arms, whether you sit here to endure siege after siege, or march out to be overwhelmed beyond the River. You have only a choice of evils; and prudence would counsel you to strengthen such strong places as you have, and there await the onset; for so shall the time before your end be made a little longer.' 'Then you would have us retreat to Minas Tirith, or Dol Amroth, or to Dunharrow, and there sit like children on sand-castles when the tide is flowing?' said Imrahil. 'That would be no new counsel,' said Gandalf. 'Have you not done this and little more in all the days of Denethor? But no! I said this would be prudent. I do not counsel prudence. I said victory could not be achieved by arms. I still hope for victory, but not by arms. For into the midst of all these policies comes the Ring of Power, the foundation of Barad-dur, and the hope of Sauron. 'Concerning this thing, my lords, you now all know enough for the understanding of our plight, and of Sauron's. If he regains it, your valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts. *If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape.* And so a great evil of this world will be removed. 'Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.


Sauron imbued the Ruling Ring with the better part of his native power. When the Ring was destroyed, Sauron was not. He was simply rendered so weak and so much of his "angelic" powers were destroyed that he would never be able to reform into a physical entity on Middle-earth. 

Hope this clears up your question.


----------



## Rogue666666 (Nov 13, 2002)

Yes actually, this does answer my question very clearly. But it did create another one. This is off the subject, but I don't whant to start another long complicated thread about it. WHY, did Sauron create the ring? If his power could be completely destroyed by the ring being destroyed. Would it not have been safer for him not to create it, so that he could never be diminished forever?


----------



## Grond (Nov 13, 2002)

LOL! I looked for a thread I started over a year ago called "The Real Power of the Ring!" but, alas, it has gone the way of the dodo bird and appears extinct. I have started a similar thread here for all to post their ideas on this worthless piece of metal called the Ruling Ring. Why it was called the Ruling Ring, I'll never know. Sauron is 0 - 5 while wielding it.


----------



## Walter (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> The conundrum is that Gandalf goes to Eru when he dies after his battle with the Balrog and is restored in a newer and stronger form. And the quote from Arveduiagain makes it sound as if the Maia return to Eru which directly contradicts The Silmarillion.


 Hmmm - deja vú?

Once more I humbly beg to disagree. AFAIK it is nowhere - at least not in the books - explicitly stated that "Gandalf goes to Eru when he dies...", (although I have to admit I have not yet had access to the microfilms at the Marquette Libraries, so maybe you have access to information I don't have). From what I have gathered it appears not even sure whether Gandalf's "death" in Moria was not an afterthought of the Prof, and all his statements about that issue seem rather ambiguous to me...


----------



## Grond (Nov 16, 2002)

Walter, I will once and for all post the quote:


> _from The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter #156 to Robert Murray, November 4, 1954_
> He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but *Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it*, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. *Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.* Naked is alas! unclear. It was meant just literally, 'unclothed like a child' (not discarnate), and so ready to receive the white robes of the highest. Galadriel's power is not divine, and his healing in Lórien is meant to be no more than physical healing and refreshment.


Please explain your take on this particular quote and why you feel that the author is not referring to Eru, because this is crystal clear to me and is routinely accepted on most forums anc by most genuine "Tolkien Scholars" (of whom I am definately not one) as being a "factual interpretation" of what is being said.


----------



## Walter (Nov 16, 2002)

Grond, you have posted this quote already the last time we discussed this issue, and I think I have already replied - that was btw. why I started my post with a "deja vú?".

Your interpretation sure makes sense, but however, Tolkien never stated this or even mentioned Eru in the case and hence it remains a personal interpretation. To me a personal interpretation - however probable or likely it may appear, remains such and never can be considered a fact.

As you sure have read, Tolkien - in the same letter - even refers to Gandalfs death as a "defect" and "cheating" (c.f. this thread), so IMO a slight doubt on your interpretation remains valid...


----------



## Grond (Nov 16, 2002)

Walter, Gandalf being a defect or even if the author originally didn't even plan on Gandalf dying has not one bit of influence on what he unequivocably says in the portion of the letter I quoted. And you still have not given me what your interpretation of the cited quote could be *other* than an undeniable inference that Eru took over. 

Whatever Gandalf started out to do, whatever he ended up doing... falling, dying, cheating, whatever he did.... this quote from the Letters clearly states that he was out of the hands of the Valar... he passed out of thought and time...he passed out of the realm of Ea... he was plainly in the hands of Eru. 

Tell me what those words mean if not the way I have interpreted them. You say I am wrong but give no alternative explanation.


----------



## Walter (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> Walter, Gandalf being a defect or even if the author originally didn't even plan on Gandalf dying has not one bit of influence on what he unequivocably says in the portion of the letter I quoted. And you still have not given me what your interpretation of the cited quote could be *other* than an undeniable inference that Eru took over.
> 
> Whatever Gandalf started out to do, whatever he ended up doing... falling, dying, cheating, whatever he did.... this quote from the Letters clearly states that he was out of the hands of the Valar... he passed out of thought and time...he passed out of the realm of Ea... he was plainly in the hands of Eru.
> ...


 Grond, if you read my previous posts carefully you will find that I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that Tolkien has not explicitly written what you have been stating and in your post it was not distinguishable where the facts end and where personal interpretation begins...


----------

