Silmarillion - Valaquenta

[Aiwendil]

The Valaquenta (“Account of the Valar”) is the second of the two short works that precede the Silmarillion proper; it almost reads as a dramatis personae for the work ahead – or perhaps for the earlier parts of that work, wherein the Valar are the major characters.

The Valaquenta opens with a short restatement of some of the Ainulindale:

In the beginning Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Iluvatar, made the Ainur of his thought; and they made a great Music before him. In this Music the World was begun; for Iluvatar made visible the song of the Ainur, and they beheld it as a light in the darkness. And many among them became enamoured of its beauty, and of its history which they saw beginning and unfolding as in a vision. Therefore Iluvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Ea.

All this (and in fact the next paragraph as well) has already been told in the Ainulindale. Most writers would probably not have bothered with these first two paragraphs, since the readers have presumably just read much the same thing. Why then did Tolkien put them here? One answer is that it lends verisimilitude to the text – if the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta were real texts, written by different (and possibly unknown) authors in the distant past, we would expect them to go over the same territory a little bit. But there is actually another answer as well: the distance between the two works is in fact not feigned; they were written (and re-written) at different times and in different contexts by Tolkien, who may not have ever intended them to stand back to back. In a sense, Tolkien’s writing habits themselves provided a sense of authenticity.

A question occurred to me as I re-read the Valaquenta for this discussion: why is it there at all? Most works of fiction do not devote a chapter at the outset to describing the characters. Why did Tolkien feel the need to stop the story and tell us about the Valar before he went on?

We learn some interesting details concerning some of the Valar here. For instance about Ulmo:

At times he will come unseen to the shores of Middle-earth, or pass far inland up firths of the sea, and there make music upon his great horns, the Ulumuri, that are wrought of white shell; and those to whom the music comes here it ever after in their hearts, and longing for the sea never leaves them again.

I’ve always liked this idea, and I’m quite sure I’ve heard the distant sound of Ulmo’s horns when looking out over the sea. Again, we have the connection Tolkien draws between water and music.

Another detail I find interesting is the story that Osse, like Sauron, betrayed the Valar and joined Melkor for a time, but repented and was pardoned. Of course, Sauron did not repent – though it will be seen (much later) that he almost does at one point.

We also have tantalizing references to Olorin (Gandalf) and to Sauron, providing a subtle connection with LotR.

The Valaquenta was not originally a distinct work from the Quenta Silmarillion. It originated in the 1930 version of the Quenta Silmarillion (at that time called Quenta Noldorinwa) as a brief preamble. Only in the last major revision of the Silmarillion, in the late 1950s, did Tolkien break off the Valaquenta as a separate work. Tolkien’s finished text of the Valaquenta ends with the words:

Here ends The Valaquenta. If it has passed from the high and beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and if any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwe and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

These words were removed by Christopher Tolkien in the published version and used instead to serve as the end of the Quenta Silmarillion. Nonetheless, it is intriguing to consider Tolkien’s initial placement of them. Why place these words in the Valaquenta?

Additional readings:
HoMe IV, “The Quenta” opening section (earliest version)
HoMe V, “The Quenta Silmarillion” chapter 1 (late 1930s revision)
HoMe IX, “The Later Quenta Silmarillion” (final version)

[Bêthberry]

Another good opening gambit for discussion, Aiwendil.

I write in haste to mention just one possibility about why we have two versions of the creation. This possibility does not negate the idea that it is told from two different perspectives.

Genesis in The Bible actually has two versions of creation, Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 and Genesis 2.5 - 3.24. In the first version, male and female are created co-equally in time, while it is in in the second version only that the female is made from the male's rib. Man is also created before the trees in the garden in the second version.

Whether Tolkien thought of this and emulated the biblical repetition I cannot say.

Fascinating that Christopher moved those words to the end of his Silm. If this is fairy story, those words do not suggest to me any eucatastrophe (thinking in relation to Tolkien's OFS only).

more later....

[Nogrod]

I'm no Tolkien scholar myself, far from it - I only happen to love his world and the stories, and the stupenduos enormity of the scholarship and imagination that is put into it. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but when Aiwendil says:

A question occurred to me as I re-read the Valaquenta for this discussion: why is it there at all? Most works of fiction do not devote a chapter at the outset to describing the characters. Why did Tolkien feel the need to stop the story and tell us about the Valar before he went on?

Doesn't her first speculation above the question, namely:

One answer is that it lends verisimilitude to the text – if the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta were real texts, written by different (and possibly unknown) authors in the distant past, we would expect them to go over the same territory a little bit.

already answer this?

What I mean is that at least I have had the impression that Tolkien was writing these stories or tales as kind of actual accounts written by different persons in the world he had created. And those writers should have a history of their own and thence a knowledge (fair or bent) of earlier stories which they interwoved into their own writing.

Then it would not be a question about why Tolkien, the Author, decided to devote a chapter at the outset to things He had already told, but of his intention of making stories springing right up from a world he had created - like giving that world an autonomy to tell its own stories? Like if in RL-world histories one (calling her/himself only the compilator of the stories) piled up the stories of, say the Deluge, by first giving the Biblical account of it and then presenting the Qu'ran version of it (okay, a bad analogy, but I hope you see the point)?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm no Tolkien scholar myself, far from it - I only happen to love his world and the stories, and the stupenduos enormity of the scholarship and imagination that is put into it. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but when Aiwendil says:
Doesn't her first speculation above the question, namely:already answer this?

I think it's a rhetorical question on Aiwendil (who is a him, I've always been led to believe...)'s part than something he doesn't really have the answer to.

From a purely textual viewpoint, in any case, as Aiwendil points out, the Valaquenta derives from the opening part of the Quenta Noldorinwa- one of the earlier forms of the Silmarillion as we know it. And, at that time, the Ainulindalë no longer existed as cohesive part of the main story (as it did in the Lost Tales), but was, essentially, to be considered its own work (if memory serves, actual work on the post-Lost Tales Ainulindalë didn't begin until about the time of the next version of the Silmarillion- the pre-Lord of the Rings "Quenta Silmarillion", in which it was considered a work apart. And since the Silmarillion didn't include an account of the beginning of time, it was appropriate to have some recounting of it as a part of it's first chapter: that which was broken off the in post-Lord of the Rings era as it's own work, the Valaquenta.

Which is but to go into detail about what Aiwendil said here:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In a sense, Tolkien’s writing habits themselves provided a sense of authenticity.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

Genesis in The Bible actually has two versions of creation, Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 and Genesis 2.5 - 3.24. In the first version, male and female are created co-equally in time, while it is in in the second version only that the female is made from the male's rib. Man is also created before the trees in the garden in the second version.

I was reminded of the two creation stories in Genesis as well when I was thinking about the Valaquenta's repetition of the Ainulindale. Tolkien would surely have been familiar with the coexistence of the two stories in Genesis. There's an interesting difference, though - what's remarkable about the two stories in Genesis is that they are different. They actually seem to contradict one another. But everything that is said in Valaquenta seems to be quite in line with what is said in the Ainulindale. Of course, slightly different and contradictory versions of the creation story do exist within Tolkien's writing, but only if you compare works written at different times. It seems that Tolkien was rather intent on achieving a thorough consistency in his Legendarium, even among texts ascribed to different authors.

Actually, I have a question about Genesis that I've long wondered. I recall that scholars generally agree that Genesis as found in the Torah is actually an amalgamation of several different texts, and that this is why there are two creation stories. My question is how Christian theologians view this. Does the Catholic church agree that the text is an amalgam of different texts? How do they reconcile the two creation stories?

Nogrod wrote:

What I mean is that at least I have had the impression that Tolkien was writing these stories or tales as kind of actual accounts written by different persons in the world he had created. And those writers should have a history of their own and thence a knowledge (fair or bent) of earlier stories which they interwoved into their own writing.

Yes, I agree with this. But my question is 'why include an account of the Valar at all?' I suppose a perfectly justifiable answer is 'why not?' But might there be a literary reason as well?

who is a him, I've always been led to believe...

And you've been led correctly.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Actually, I have a question about Genesis that I've long wondered. I recall that scholars generally agree that Genesis as found in the Torah is actually an amalgamation of several different texts, and that this is why there are two creation stories. My question is how Christian theologians view this. Does the Catholic church agree that the text is an amalgam of different texts? How do they reconcile the two creation stories?

I don't believe that the Catholic Church has an official dogmatic approach to
"who wrote what" regarding the Bible. With regards to the New Testament, we're fairly sure that the ascribed authors actually did write what they were said to, but with regards to the Torah...

If we have any "official" position, it's that we accept the Moses tradition- but really, there is no official position, beyond that the Bible is God's Word: Inspired and Divine. Beyond that, I think you'll find Catholic Bible experts as diverse in their opinions as any Bible expert.

At least, insofar as I am aware. I'm fairly sure the Vatican, at any point, hasn't said "this textual theory is held to be dogmatically sound".

~Michael A. Joosten - Resident Catholic Geek~

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I was reminded of the two creation stories in Genesis as well when I was thinking about the Valaquenta's repetition of the Ainulindale. Tolkien would surely have been familiar with the coexistence of the two stories in Genesis. There's an interesting difference, though - what's remarkable about the two stories in Genesis is that they are different. They actually seem to contradict one another. But everything that is said in Valaquenta seems to be quite in line with what is said in the Ainulindale. Of course, slightly different and contradictory versions of the creation story do exist within Tolkien's writing, but only if you compare works written at different times. It seems that Tolkien was rather intent on achieving a thorough consistency in his Legendarium, even among texts ascribed to different authors.

Actually, I have a question about Genesis that I've long wondered. I recall that scholars generally agree that Genesis as found in the Torah is actually an amalgamation of several different texts, and that this is why there are two creation stories. My question is how Christian theologians view this. Does the Catholic church agree that the text is an amalgam of different texts? How do they reconcile the two creation stories?

Whoops, forgot about this thread for a bit. It is interesting how different those two versions in Genesis are and how Tolkien's are so similar. That similarity would for me suggest he was determined not to appear to create a parody, as I believed he wrote once about why he had no Fall in his mythology. (I believe it was the Fall, although my memory could be faulty here.) Come to think of it, are there "Falls" in other mythologies?

I'm no theologian or biblical scholar, all's I follow are the theories as they affect narrative theory.

Formendacil could well be right about no official stand, although certainly there are hundreds of years of needling over the issue, from all sides. There's a discussion of Biblical inspiration here at the Catholic Ecyclopedia , although I don't think that an online encyclopedia has the full patent on church infallibility. It's not so much about who wrote what as about the concept of divine inspiration.

There seems to be a sense that Inspiration (and what that involves) does not violate the free will of the person who receives the inspiration, so that the writers remain the people they are with their individual characteristics as writers. There is much talk back and forth about specific literal inspiration and more general inspiration. I certainly wouldn't think that Tolkien would have ascribed to the idea that word for word the Bible was dictated from on high--far too simple an idea for a man who was so aware of human creativity. The Bible, of course, is not the sole source of God's word for Catholics, so I assume that Tolkien also would not have regarded it that. But then I'm not a mind reader of authors. Only of texts.

[Aldarion Elf-Friend]

It's interesting that almost all of the discussion about the Valaquenta to this point has revolved around the first two paragraphs. Anyway, here are some observations that I had, that maybe will spark some discussion.

First, I wonder how Tolkien chose what his various gods would be the "god of". That is, most of them are elemental gods - the god of the air, the god of water, the god of the underworld. With the exception of Nienna, I don't think that any of the emotions are represented. Where's Tolkien's version of Venus? He also eliminated the gods of war and battle from the earlier versions in UT. I wonder why he did this - to keep the pantehon from growing unmanageably large?

Another question that jumped out at me when I was re-reading last night is this: What does it mean that Varda came out of the "deeps of Ea"? It's also interesting that Manwe and Varda are each more powerful when in the presence of the other (regarding sight and hearing).

About that, what's up with the Valar taking spouses? I mentioned in the Ainulindale discussion that this is one major departure of Tolkien from the Christian concept of angels, that "neither gave or were given in marriage". Since the Valar didn't reproduce, what was the purpose of these marriages? I wonder what Tolkien was trying to say (if anything) about marriage in this.

Which brings up another interesting point - not only are Tolkien's spirits marrying and not having any children, they do have siblings. Mandos and Lorien are brothers, and Nienna is their sister. Nessa, Tulkas' wife (and the only actual marriage ceremony of the Valar mentioned in the Silm) is Yavanna's sister. I wonder what this means.

So, food for thought.

edited for typos

[Alchisiel]

Aldarion brought up some very good points. Could it be that the marriages of the Valar are spiritual and not a physical marriage as most people think of when thinking about marriage? Could that also be the same circumstance concerning siblings? Just my thoughts.

[Bêthberry]

Doesn't this raise that gnawing question: Does anyone suppose they have belly buttons?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Alchisiel

Aldarion brought up some very good points. Could it be that the marriages of the Valar are spiritual and not a physical marriage as most people think of when thinking about marriage?

I agree:

Originally Posted by Commentary on the first section, Annals of Aman, HoME X

Note that 'spouse' meant only an 'association'. The Valar had no bodies, but could assume shapes. After the coming of the Eldar they most often used shapes of 'human' form, though taller (not gigantic) and more magnificent.

In the Later Quenta Silmarillion, HoME X, it is noted that at that time the previous refferences to the existence of the Children of the Valar were removed - thus Fionwe becomes the herald, not son, of Manwe.

Originally Posted by Note 10b, Commentary on chapter I, Of the Valar

This is an aspect of an important development in the conception of the Powers of Arda, the abandonment of the old and long-rooted idea of 'the Children of the Valar, the Sons of the Valar'. It was still present in the Aannals of Aman, where the Valarindi, 'the offspring of the Valar', were 'numbered with' the Maiar (but they are distinguished from the Maiar). On the typescript text, the conception of the Children of the Valar was struck out.

[Aiwendil]

Interesting comments, Aldarion - and thanks for sparking some discussion of the actual content of the Valaquenta!

First, I wonder how Tolkien chose what his various gods would be the "god of". That is, most of them are elemental gods - the god of the air, the god of water, the god of the underworld. With the exception of Nienna, I don't think that any of the emotions are represented. Where's Tolkien's version of Venus?

A very interesting point. Tolkien does not give us a god of love as the Greeks did. Interesting that the only emotion governed by a specific Vala is sorrow. It's true that many of the Valar - and many of the most important Valar - are "elemental gods". But it's interesting to note how their elemental associations are often extended - for instance, Ulmo is the Vala of water, but because of the nature of water in the Legendarium, he also functions to some extent as a Vala of music. Let me attempt to pair the Valar up with their "spheres of governance" if you will:

Manwe - Air, birds
Varda - Stars (perhaps more broadly, light?), Elves generally
Ulmo - Water, music
Aule - Earth, craft/skill, Dwarves, (to some extent) the Noldor
Yavanna - Vegetation (perhaps, more broadly, life?), the Ents
Namo (Mandos) - Death, doom
Vaire - Stories, weaving
Irmo (Lorien) - Visions, dreams
Este - Healing
Nienna - Grief
Tulkas - Strength
Nessa - Deer? Speed? Dancing? (Not quite sure)
Orome - Beasts, hunting
Vana - Youth
Melkor - Part of the power of each of the Valar

So the greatest of the Valar are associated with elements, except Melkor (though I recall someone in a long ago discussion putting forward the idea that he might originally have been associated with fire). And though Tolkien only gives us one emotion-related Vala, he also gives us Valar associated with such attributes as strength and youth. It's worth noting that Tolkien's earth-god is male. In the western world, we are probably more used to thinking of the earth as feminine, following the Greco-Roman tradition - with Gaea as the primordial (and female) earth-god. But Tolkien is by no means alone in making the earth-god male - Geb of Egyptian mythology comes to mind as a precedent. Also, Tolkien draws a distinction between earth itself (i.e. the rocks and soil) and things that grow on it.

He also eliminated the gods of war and battle from the earlier versions in UT. I wonder why he did this - to keep the pantehon from growing unmanageably large?

This may have had something to do with it, but it seems to me that it was also part of a general 'cleaning' of the mythology (for lack of a better term) that took place over the course of its development. Tolkien's cosmos becomes more orderly as he develops it, and the Valar more wholly good. It seems to me that he eliminated the war gods because they were too morally ambiguous - too evil without actually being, well, evil. This may also have something to do with his elimination of the children of the Valar. Though the Valar remain different from Christian angels in that they marry, the Valar of the Valaquenta bear a much stronger resemblence to angels than do the Valar of the Lost Tales.

[Bêthberry]

I was PMing last week with Nogrod about the connotations of flame and we discussed the various meanings of the word. One of the meanings might bear on this absence of a specific god or goddess of love.

Nogrod pointed out that 'flame' can mean 'lover', as in old flame (or current flame).

The upshot was that we wondered if the Flame Imperishable could be love eternal. Love would then be with Eru/Illuvatar and it would be this primal creator who was (is?) the god of love. The Void and any creatures therein would thus be devoid of love as Melkor failed to find the Flame there. (I think this would pertain to Ungoliant.)

Perhaps Nogrod would be able to expand upon this more fully. Would there be any other indications that Eru is the god of love? Clearly, not quite the amorous divinity of other mythologies.