Q: What Is the Precise Scope of ‘Spirit’ in Tolkien’s Works?
ANSWER: I received the following questions in October 2023:
What is the precise scope of the term “spirit” in Tolkien’s works? I mean, are there other spirits whose precise nature (or origin) has not been specified by Tolkien, besides disembodied Maiar, Ringwraiths/Wraiths (technically, spirits, no?), Dead Men of Dunharrow, and disembodied (houseless) elves?
I cannot provide a full answer to this question as I believe Tolkien’s fiction regarding spirits is informed by his Catholicism, and I don’t know much about what the Catholic church teaches. You can certainly find a horde of books and papers that purport to explore and explain various aspects of spirituality in Middle-earth. If you mean to ask me to synthesize all those opinions and hypotheses down to a concise summary, I cannot do that for you.
On a whim I asked ChatGPT to summarize Tolkien’s representations of spirits and souls. The answer was unsatisfyingly vague and limited to almost nothing of value. So let me take a stab at this by answering your questions directly (and maybe a little indirectly).
What Is the Precise Scope of the Term “Spirit” in Tolkien’s Works?
I would say that it covers every thinking, living thing in Tolkien’s fiction. And by “living” I mean “existing as an independent thing with a will of its own”, not necessarily something with a biologically active body.
So Ilúvatar is a “living thing”. That is, He exists and has his own will. He doesn’t need a body but as any Christian (should) believe(s), he became human (through the incarnation of his son Yeshua/Jesus). Tolkien’s fiction doesn’t exactly anticipate the arrival of Christ but it conforms to that eventuality.
The troll’s pouch that Bilbo tried to steal may not be a living thing. Yes, it spoke (and the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount Doom), but speaking doesn’t denote independent life (in my opinion). The sword Gurthang (reforged from Anglachel) supposedly spoke to Turin, too (who was there to hear this voice?). But Tolkien doesn’t attribute a “spirit” to either the pouch or the sword.
The One Ring bears a great part of Sauron’s strength. In Letter No. 211 Tolkien writes: “The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one’s life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself.” He speaks of the Ring both narratively and as commentator acting on its own, having a will (or purpose – the two are not quite the same thing) of its own. But because it came from Sauron, was a part of him in the beginning, I think it’s better to see the Ring as a fractured part of Sauron’s soul or spirit, and not something that had an independent life of its own.
Many people have compared Sauron’s Ring to the horcruxes of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter stories, and I think that’s an apt comparison in some ways. Perhaps Rowling was influenced by The Lord of the Rings in this respect, but Tolkien did not originate the idea of people enchanting objects that then begin to act of their own accord.
So birds and insects in Middle-earth may have “souls”. A Catholic friend once told me that, yes, the Catholic Church teaches that animals have souls. But I believe they distinguish between a soul (that is, something with an independent will) and a spirit such as humans were originally given. We died a spiritual death through Adam’s sin, and we need the Holy Spirit to live again spiritually. But there is no such distinction in Tolkien’s fiction. Nor does he rule out such a distinction. He simply doesn’t dwell on the details.
The thinking fox in the Shire is an artifact of narrative, if you will, the Author’s elaboration on the details of the story. There is no way the Hobbits could have known that a fox passing through the woods saw them and stopped to ponder what they were doing out in the night. On the other hand, there are numerous accounts of animals speaking to people in Tolkien’s stories – possibly influences by Balaam’s Ass in the Bible, but mythology and folklore are filled with talking animals.
So I think that, yes, in Tolkien’s fiction many creatures (perhaps all biologically living creatures) have soul/spirits. He probably simplified things a bit compared to Catholicism’s teachings. I’m not convinced magical talking objects have their own spirits – who would have created them, and why? I don’t see Ilúvatar intentionally creating an evil sub-Sauronic spirit for the One Ring. That spiritual aspect of the Ring had to come from Sauron himself, had to be a part of Sauron.
Could There Have Been Disembodied Maiaric Spirits in Middle-earth?
Sure. There could have been rogue spirits hanging around, left over from the days when the Valar lived in what became Middle-earth – the Days of the Lamps. Or if they weren’t rogue, at least not willing to wholly abandon Middle-earth.
People often wonder what the “nameless things” living under Moria were. I don’t know. You can assume they were some of Melkor’s bred monsters or corrupted Maiar who took on horrible shapes. Or you could assume they are “aboriginals” (like Tom Bombadil), not specifically originating in the order of the Ainur or among the spirits summoned by Yavanna’s thought.
There is no limit to Ilúvatar’s potentiality in creating life, whether biological or spiritual. And by the same token, once that life exists, He allows it the freedom to choose its own direction.
So, Are There Other Unenumerated, Undescribed Types of Spirits in Tolkien’s Arda?
He left enough unexplained enigmas (like Ungoliant and Bombadil) in the stories that I think it’s a safe assumption there are such spiritual beings. Nothing would prevent Ilúvatar from creating another Eä, for that matter. He could have created other orders of spiritual beings after the Ainur who dwelt in the Timeless Halls or elsewhere (not necessarily the Void).
But I’m not aware of any specific statement by Tolkien that fully agrees with the intent of your question. There might be some obscure comment in the recently revised and expanded Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, which I haven’t had time to fully read.
Conclusion
Lacking any real explanation from Tolkien himself (and he did discuss Elvish concepts of spirituality at length – but these questions are not about how the Elves see things), all we can do is extrapolate and speculate.
I’m not well-versed enough in Catholicism’s teachings to understand how closely Tolkien followed them in outlining spirit life in his fiction. He certainly tried to avoid allegorizing his fiction, and he also integrated many influences from non-Catholic/non-Christian traditions.
So I think at best what we have is a fusion of ideas from across the literary and theological spectrum, simplified in order to support a set of narratives that share some cohesion in this respect.
See also
What Kind of Creature Is Goldberry?
Did the Ring Speak to Gollum on Mount Doom?
Could Legolas Really Hear Trees and Stones?
Questions about Ungoliant and Morgoth’s Monsters
How Could the Hobbits Have Known about the Thinking Fox in the Shire?
Who Besides Tom Could See in the Wraith World or Unseen?
How Rare Was Magic In Middle-earth? Should Gamers Have Lots of Magic Items?
#tolkien #middleearth #fantasy #scifi
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
Catholicism does not have an official stance on animal souls and thus the information from your friend isn’t correct. Any definitive statement about the matter from a Catholic perspective isn’t really possible.
Let it be said though that Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes…were all massively influential on Catholic theology and they all argued that animals do NOT possess souls.
I don’t want to pin the blame for my error on my friend. I’m sure he clarified things more than just saying “yes”. I added a link above to an earlier article where I linked to a Catholic Website that explains the distinction (in Catholic theology) between a human soul and an animal soul (such as it is deemed to be). I would say that article is consistent with what you say.
Aristotle did say that animals – and even plants – had souls. I believe Aquinas accepted Aristotle’s view on this. But irrational animals (and plants) wouldn’t be considered to have rational/immortal souls (such souls would be considered to end at death) – which is what we now think of “soul” as meaning. The Aristotelian use of “soul” (psyche, anima) is broader, and ties into Aristotle’s form-matter distinction.
(But, yes, it’s not really accurate to say that “the Catholic Church teaches” anything in particular about this matter – it’s not doctrine. It might be more accurate to say that Aquinas’ influence was great enough that his position might be assumed as default.)
I think this description of Ents in the Silmarillion is illuminating.
Eru (as told by Manwë): “When the Children awake, then the thought of Yavanna will awake also, and it will summon spirits from afar, and they will go among the kelvar [animals] and olvar [plants], and some will dwell therein, and be held in reverence, and their just anger shall be feared.” (Silm, ch. 2)
It’s pretty clear from context that he’s talking about Ents and possibly eagles. What’s interesting to me is that no attempt is made to describe these spirits or what they were before they were summoned. I think Tolkien describes two types of spirits: fëar (spirits that are naturally embodied) and ëalar (spirits that aren’t naturally embodied or unembodied). Generally speaking, the Ainur have ëalar and the Children of Ilúvatar have fëar. The spirits of Ents might be fëar, but they certainly don’t seem to be Children of Ilúvatar. This leads me to believe that there are many types of spirits, and many types of rational incarnates (or beings that exist independently with wills of their own, as you put it), and we have formal knowledge of only a few of them.
Hello Michael,
Fascinating question and response. Regarding the twin meteoric blades Eol forged, I believe there’s something explicit from Tolkien strongly suggesting that Eol transfused some aspect of his dark personality into his creation. I think it’s Melian who senses this phenomenon, and warns that anyone else bearing it may find himself drawn down a darker path, despite purer purposes and intentions.
Oh course, if I’m quoting something out of the Silmarillion, than once again I’ve slipped into a potentially non-canonical explanation.
But nonetheless it’s remarkable that here we may have another example of the perils of phylactery-making, if I’m using that term correctly. In this case, we don’t know whether this was Eol’s purpose or some side effect of his forging process. My take from the stories is that Eol was a sort of ultra isolationist, who would have done literally anything to keep from losing his inviolate home in the dark woods, or bowing to any authority other than his own.
I’d make him out to be a truly neutral character, with tendencies toward evil if threatened. I think those swords he forged were imbued with that “evil ember” of his personality, so to speak. But as Michael wrote here about the Ring, sentience doesn’t necessarily imply a fully developed spirit, capable of independent thought and action. Anglachel/Gurthang is kind of a vampire that causes its wielder to slay indiscriminately. I always assume it spoke to Turin via telepathy of some sort. As Michael wrote about the Ring, I also envisioned it as a fractured part of Eol ‘s spirit, not an independent spirit of its own.
This sword (or perhaps both) has the distinction of being the only sentient weapon described in the canonical texts. Why so, I wonder: Wouldn’t other talented Elven smiths try to imbue their weapons with this kind of “enhancement”? Or was this only Eol’s original sin (like a smaller version of Morgoth’s) because he tried to create new (spiritual) life himself, something we know only Illuvatar could do?
Good point! I could see how some items might take on the personalities of their creators even if they don’t possess intellect or self-awareness. Maybe when Gurthang said “Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly,” what literally happened was that Turin perceived the spiritual essence of the sword and realized that’s what the sword would say if it could talk. Speaking more broadly, maybe artisans are always imbuing their creations with some of their spiritual essence. As as elf in Lothlorian once said, “we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make.”
By the way, in some accounts Eöl was an Avar of the Tatyar clan (and the Noldor were the Tatyar who accepted the summons of the Valar). In this account, there were many Avari in Beleriand during the Wars of the Jewels, and their relations with the Eldar were very bad. Eöl was particularly resentful of the Noldor because he saw them as being renegades of his own clan. That might go some ways towards explaining his unfriendly disposition. https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Quendi_and_Eldar
Elven “magical” (as perceived by humans and hobbits) crafts involve putting their thoughts into the object, yes. But I think there’s something special with Anglachel/Gurthang – more like the “Faithful Stone” of the Druedain or Sauron’s Ring. I think a piece of Eol’s own inherent spiritual strength ended up in the sword — whether he consciously planned that, or it just ended up that way due to his obsessive focus on smithing it.