Tolkien Forums

Of course Tolkien may not have had that in mind at the time, but remember at the time of the Hobbit Elrond wasn't the descendant of Turgon, and he wasn't even an elf in the hobbit, just a man with elvish blood. However things were tailored to suit the Silmariilion, and it seems to me entirely possible that with the other books in mind, "warriors of old" refers to a legend long ago. Don't you think so?

Bard the Bowman wrote: '(...) Glaurung is immortal. Glaurung is a dragon. Does this not contradict Thorin's argument somewhat,...'

I don't recall Tolkien ever certainly stating that Glaurung is immortal. According to the Grey Annals:  year 260: 'Here Glaurung, the first of the Uruloki, the fire drakes of the North, came forth from Anband's gate by night. He was yet young and scarce half-grown (for long and slow is the life of those worms), but the Elves...' And although it's not necessarily an indication of how long he will live after coming to his full might, he seems to have grown slowly by human standards anyway, as by Sun Year 455 'Glaurung, Father of Dragons, came forth in his full might' or by year 472 'And the strength and terror of the Great Worm were now grown great indeed.'

In any case, how long is meant with 'long' and slow? If Tolkien wants Thorin to say 'one thousand years, maybe', instead of 'practically forever', I see nothing necessarily problematic with that as being consonant with this statement from the Grey Annals (at least).

Bard the Bowman wrote: 'Well the thing is this Galin. Glaurung is a spirit. Obviously a Maiar of great power, and Maiar are immortal. Therefore Glaurung is immortal.'

I'm also not aware that Tolkien ever referred to Glaurung as an immortal Maia (Maiar is plural). I know there are some who interpret the matter so, but it is not necessarily or obviously so in my opinion.

Other options to explain Glaurung (if desired) are available.

Moreover, in the later 1950s we see Tolkien himself searching for an answer to explain his adoption of talking beasts -- noting text VIII Myths Transformed, Morgoth's Ring, despite that Glaurung is not specifically mentioned there along with Huan and the Eagles.

Bard the Bowman wrote: 'Tolkien said Glaurung spoke by the evil spirit that was in him. We can only assume this means he was a Maiar.'

You are obviously free to assume what Tolkien means by this statement, but I need not assume JRRT can only mean Glaurung is a Maia.

So far I see nothing necessarily inconsistent with Tolkien's revision to Thorin's statement -- regarding Glaurung or Quenta Silmarillion in general. The revision may be inconsistent with respect to your interpretation of something, but that's a different animal in any case.

Bard the Bowman wrote: 'A different animal? A dragon is different than a dragon?' 

That's my expression to refer to two different things -- an 'animal' is not really meant. It's kind of like saying something is a 'horse of a different colour' for example.

'I fail to see what else Tolkien can mean by evil spirit other than Glaurung being a Maiar.'

Glaurung being a Maia contained in worm form is certainly an option of course. Again I feel that, so far (also keeping in mind that not everything Tolkien wrote on the subject has necessarily been published), there are other explanations still open to JRRT as well. And looking a bit closer at the passage being referred to: 'Then suddenly he spoke by the evil spirit that was in him, saying 'Hail son of Turin...' appears in the Grey Annals of the early 1950s, in a phase of writing where Tolkien appears to change his mind about the ability of Morgoth to create spirits (already hinted at in The Lord of the Rings by Frodo). In this period Tolkien will first write that Morgoth simply made orcs for example, but then a seemingly new and different idea is presented through the Elf Pengolodh, who also notes that the Wise of Eressea have a theory about orcs being made from corrupted Elves.

At some point within the 1950s Tolkien seems sure enough that Melkor could not create spirits (certain letters reflect this notion as well), although he does not rule out other kinds of makings that would be more 'puppet like'. And in the early 1950s Tolkien will already refer to Balrogs as corrupted Maiar. But what did Tolkien mean when he wrote this statement from Grey Annals? Possibly he had changed his mind by the time he had arrived at this sentence... yet it's very interesting that in the part of the Narn from the later 1950s, when Nienor meets Glaurung on the hill, Tolkien initially wrote (concerning the eyes of the dragon): '... they were terrible, being filled with the fell spirit of Morgoth, who made him.'

So if I read the external history correctly, as originally written in the later 1950s Tolkien imagined that Morgoth still 'made' Glaurung. In the old sense? Did JRRT simply forget that he had rejected this notion in general? But if 'made' refers to the old sense, the 'evil spirit' of the early 1950s could reflect the idea that Morgoth simply created dragons with spirits, and thus they were not Maiar. Yet again, at some point Tolkien underlines the last three words of this description 'who made him' and in pencil elsewhere on the page he writes (barely legibly) 'Glaurung must be a demon [??contained in worm form]' So here we appear to have Tolkien 'revising' a concept that -- I would have guessed -- was already abandoned by this time.

Of course we end up with the same question in any case! If Glaurung must be a 'demon' of some kind (contained in worm form), or a demon in some sense: of what kind and in what sense is the question. But as I say I think there are other options open to JRRT other than an 'immortal' Maia.

For myself I also wonder: did Tolkien simply happen to write 'demon' here instead of Maia? Or was he unwilling, for some reason, to imagine Glaurung as a Maia; and if so, could part of that reason be reflected in this 1960 revision to Thorin's statement, at least in its ultimate form. And as I say, in the later 1950s Tolkien would muse that even talking beasts do not necessarily have fear -- plural of fea, and elvish word roughly equivalent to spirit -- again he doesn't mention dragons specifically in this essay, but my only point with this is that even at this relatively later time Tolkien still seems a bit unsure as to how to explain his creatures, or at least all of them.

In any case, Balrogs as Maiar had been well enough attested, so Christopher Tolkien incorporated this into the 1977 Silmarillion (he altered certain texts with respect to Balrog numbers however). What did Christopher Tolkien do with the 'Nienor example', considering the text as it existed? He altered Tolkien's 'who made him' to 'his master' (incidentally he altered this for both the recently published Children of Hurin and the version in Unfinished Tales).

Anyway, back to Smaug...

Even though the citation from The Book of Lost Tales raised by Jaidoprism7 is very early, I note that these 'dragons' (at least some) were given spirits, an idea that, in my opinion, is not necessarily superseded by the notion that Morgoth could not make souls or spirits. Before Tolkien began The Lord of the Rings Melkor could 'simply' create some of his minions, and creating spirits was seemingly not an issue -- or at least certain creatures could be created and seemed to be true living things anyway.

During the writing of The Lord of the Rings we appear to have evidence of an emerging alternative, noting Frodo's observation about Orcs at least. But in the early 1950s when JRRT had 'finished' writing the bulk of The Lord of the Rings, he returned to the legends of the Elder Days and initially wrote that Morgoth 'made' orcs for example. However in this phase of writing, still in the early 1950s, we begin to see the evidence of a new idea: 'For, saith Pengolodh, Melkor could never since the Ainulindale make of his own aught that had life or the semblance of life, and still less might he do so after his treachery in Valinor and the fullness of his own corruption.' Quoth Elfwine.' JRRT, the Annals of Aman

In the early 1950s the Balrogs become Maiar, although interestingly, in one copy of the Annals of Aman Morgoth can still 'multiply' them in some way. And in this phase the Wise of Eressea think Orcs are corrupted Elves rather than creatures Morgoth brought into being himself. These notions appear to be in tandem with the shift in thinking concerning Melkor's ability to make.

In 1954, Tolkien will note (draft letter 153) 'But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. (...) There might be other 'makings' all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker's mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-center.'

Also, in the later 1950s Tolkien will muse upon another (relatively seldom quoted) idea as to how evil things might appear in Arda (the italic lettering is reproduced as in the text, the colour emphasis is mine however): 'Evil is fissiparous. But itself barren. Melkor could not 'beget', or have any spouse (...) Out of the discords of the Music -- sc. not directly out of either of the themes, Eru's or Melkor's, but of their dissonance with regard one to another -- evil things appeared in Arda, which did not descend from any direct plan or vision of Melkor: they were not his 'children'; and therefore, since all evil hates, hated him too. The progeniture of things was corrupted. Hence Orcs? Part of the Elf-Man idea gone wrong. Though as for Orcs, the Eldar believed Morgoth had actually 'bred' them by capturing Men (and Elves) early and increasing to the utmost any corrupt tendencies they possessed.' JRRT, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed, text VII.

That's an interesting idea I think, even if not necessarily taken up for orcs specifically.

Hmm. That's a very interesting idea you have there.

Tell me, what is the significance of Smaug having been in the War to the legendarium as a whole? Do we gain any deeper understanding of Tolkien's literary intent by this inference? I don't see what Tolkien could have meant to communicate by such an inclusion - especially one that is referred to in The Hobbit obliquely at best and never spoken of again in LotR or anywhere else in the legendarium. Most of the devices and characters Tolkien employs have some deeper thematic content or meaning. How does this tidbit revise our understanding of Smaug as the draconic antagonist?

I confess myself puzzled, as typically Tolkien makes his purposes very clear when including relics of bygone eras. Artifacts such as Narsil/Anduril are included as symbols of renewal; the "green gem" for the royal bloodline of Earendil that forms a link to a better past (and presumably better future!); the Balrog of Moria as an embodiment of the primal, destructive evil which is antithetical to the values of the Free Peoples.

I don't see what there is to be gotten out of this notion of Smaug having been a leftover of the First Age and am hoping you can enlighten me. It seems to, if anything, warp the meaning and themes of the Hobbit if you change the nature of the primary antagonist in such a significant way by incorporating elements from a story that has an extremely divergent mood as compared to the Hobbit.

Bard the Bowman wrote:

---

Jaidoprism, I am referring to the "warriors of old" statement Smaug makes. He says he felled them and their like has not been seen again. Girion? Uh no. Elves of Valinor? Yes.

---

I'm still not getting this part. I don't understand why you don't think Smaug is refering to Girion's folk. As others have said the book isn't written with 'Elves of Valinor' remotely in mind, there would be no way Tolkien would just drop that reference into a book he was writing which was meant to be more of a stand-alone bedtime read, not part of the 'greater Middle-earth'.

Smaug is refering to the time when Erebor and Dale were prosperous and powerful, with strong defenders. Smaug came along and ruined it all, that's kinda what the book is about and why several references are made to the 'glory days' of old.

Bard wrote: 'In that paragraph Smaug lists off his accomplishments. King under the Mountain, Girion, his people scattered, and the mysterious warriors of old, whose like has not been seen again. Separate things.'

I disagree we have separate things here, as it all works in context in my opinion. The fuller paragraph begins with revenge: 'Revenge' he snorted and the red light lit the hall from floor to ceiling like scarlet lightning. 'The King under the mountain is dead and where are his kin that dare take revenge. Girion Lord of dale is dead and I have eaten his people like a wolf among sheep and where are his sons' sons who dare appoach me. I kill where I wish and none dare resist. I laid low the warriors of old and their like is not in the world today. Then I was young [and tender]. Now I am old and strong, strong -- thief in the shadows.'

I think this is all about then and now, with the initially stated folk being the 'then' and the lack of their descendants or kin being the 'now' (or at least lately no one has dared challenge Smaug). To me this is the easy implication of this passage, and it seems enough other people naturally read it this way too. The warriors of old fits perfectly in context with what Smaug is stating here, essentially: where are the descendants of the warriors of old who dare take revenge upon him -- where are the kin of those he slew when he was but young and tender. By the way the first draft doesn't seem to have 'and tender' so Tolkien appears to have added that at some later point, which is why I bracketed it.

Also, an external factor would be that the revision to Thorin's statement was in the earlier chapters, and if Tolkien thought 1,000 years should affect anything else later on -- like something in the conversation with Smaug for example -- he would never get that far in any case, as the whole project was abandoned much earlier.