Bye Bye Balrogs

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 57</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
I am placing this in a discussion separate from the main &quot;Fall of Gondolin&quot; as changes in Balrog passages are totally independent of any other features of the tale and do not effect it one way or the other.

The problem.

In his legendarium Tolkien introduced the Balrog, defined in the Gnomish Lexicon per BoLT 1, Appendix, under Balrog as:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> a kind of fire-demon; creatures and servants of Melko<hr></blockquote>A &quot;host of Balrogs&quot; appears in the notes for the projected Battle of Unnumbered Tears in the same work, in chapter X, &quot;Gilfanon's Tale: The Travail of the Noldoli&quot;. In BoLT 2, &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds; ...<hr></blockquote>Later accounts in the Silmarillion and Annal traditions continue the tradition that there are large numbers of Balrogs. In The Lost Road (HoME 5), &quot;The Later Annals of Beleriand&quot;, under the year ****272 [472]:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> There came a hundred thousand Orcs, and a thousand Balrogs, ...<hr></blockquote>The final reference to a large number of Balrogs is in Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10), &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot;, 1099:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.<hr></blockquote>But in his comments Christopher Tolkien gives a scribbled comment of unknown date on this passage:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained' &gt; 'his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him'. In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.' See p.*79, §50.<hr></blockquote>But JRRT never modified any of the passages in earlier manuscripts mentioning large numbers of Balrogs. Even here JRRT does not modify the following sentence stating that the Balrogs who come to Morgoth's defence are slain. Surely it was not JRRT's intention to omit all Balrogs later?

In all late accounts of Morgoth's return to Middle-earth the Balrogs come to to Morgoth's aid against Ungoliant. If there were only ever 3 Balrogs, then either one is killed in the first battle, and 2 remain, or 2 are killed and only remains later. Yet we must have 3 Balrogs distinguished from the rest, Gothmog lord of Balrogs who was slain by Ecthelion, the Balrog who was slain by Glorfindel, and the Balrog who escaped the final fall of Thangorodrim and later became known as Durin's Bane. It is very hard to understand how Tolkien could ever have limited the number of Balrogs to three.

Allowing 7 Balrogs at least lets some be slain by the Valar, perhaps 3, and gives us 4 hidden who can emerge later. Or it may be that Tolkien images the Balrogs to have re-embodied themselves. The Osanwe-Kenta declares:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> So it was also with even some of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.<hr></blockquote>In theory then we might have 7 Balrogs slain by the Valar, the same 7 slain again at Gondolin, and then again by the Eönwë's host in the War of Wrath, save for one who escapes.

However in the third Age speculation on the origin of Durin's Bane there is no suggestion that ir is a re-embodied Balrog, which would surely have been a guess if it were known that Balrogs in the past had re-embodied themselves after being slain. Possibly they were only re-embodied by Morgoth's power and not their own. Yet might not Sauron have also done so, in the Second Age, when at his greatest might?

With such floundering suppositions, hypotheses, and probabilities I will leave the debate to those who enjoy arguments of ignorance.

In QS77 CT does not use the account from the Annals so no Balrogs are mentioned specifically in the story of how the Valar captured Melkor, and in later mentions of Balrogs nothing is preserved to indicate whether they were many or few. This may be the best that can be done, as we really don't know what JRRT had in mind in reducing the number of Balrogs so drastically.

For most of the legendarium it makes no difference whether Balrogs are few or many. The accounts of the battles where they appear are but summaries and give no details of the Balrogs' role in the fighting.

The one exception is the story of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot; from Unfinished Tales. Here are Balrogs in great multitide who play important roles.

Possibilities in a revised Silamrillion?

****1.) Ignore the note as an unimplemented proposition for change that requires too much rewriting to implement. Morgoth has still a thousand Balrogs and more among his followers. There were hundreds at the fall of Gondolin.
****2.) Omit all mention of number of Balrogs from the Silmarillion material and the tale of the &quot;Fall of Gondolin&quot; to at least follow the direction of JRRT's note if not truly able to attain the exact number. If the reader gets the impression that maybe there were maybe about fifty Balrogs, that is still an improvement. This is what CT did in the published Silmarillion, though he did not have to deal with a full account of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;.
****3.) Insist (but perhaps not specifically say) that the Balrogs are limited to 7 (Gothmog, the Balrog slain by Glorfindel, Durin's Bane, and four others) and implement this strictly and allow no re-embodiments.
****4.) Insist (but perhaps not specifically say) that the Balrogs are limited to 7 (Gothmog, the Balrog slain by Glorfindel, Durin's Bane, and four others) and implement this strictly but allow there to somehow be 7 again after the Melkor's return to Middle-earth. Perhaps he either re-embodied those slain, or created new Balrog bodies to make up the number.


</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 58</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Minimizing Balrog numbers in the Fall of Gondolin

This is an attempt to remove as many Balrogs from the account of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin as possible. It has turned out to be astoundingly easy. We may be able to live with even six Balrogs.

Each passage is given a code of the form FG-B followed by a two-digit number.

[ ]******Normalized, usually used for proper names indicating they are here in final form, not as in original text. Eg. &quot;M[orgoth]&quot; probably represents an original &quot;Melko&quot;
{ }******Material to be deleted.
<u>Underline Material</u> inserted for grammatical reasons or as editorial bridge or replacement for deleted material

FG-B01: Balrogs on the dragons of flame.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and upon them rode the Balrogs {in hundreds};<hr></blockquote> FG-B02: Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} <u>one</u> of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents {of iron[?]} and thence loosed unceasingly from {their} <u>his</u> bow{s and slings} till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.<hr></blockquote>I have changed the company of Balrogs to a single Balrog. This links to the next item. Removal of words &quot;of iron&quot; are per the modification of the dragons, and should not be considered part of the changes to be considered in this discussion.

FG-B03: Rog's men attack.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those} <u>that</u> Balrog{s} and smote {them} <u>him</u> grievously, for all {they} <u>he</u> had whip{s} of flame and claws of steel, and {were} <u>was</u> in stature very great. They battered {them} <u>him</u> into nought, {or} <u>and</u> catching at {their} <u>his</u> whip{s} wielded {these} <u>it</u> against {them} <u>him</u> that they tore {them} <u>him</u> even as {they} <u>he</u> had aftoretime torn the [Elves]; and {the number of Balrogs} that <u>this Balrog</u> perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of M[orgoth], for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.
****Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons that were about the city and ordered them thus: {a number} <u>two</u> made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater {company} <u>part</u> rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.<hr></blockquote>This is the most difficult passage. The company of Balrogs, reduced to one Balrog in the previous change, is now attacked by Rog and his company and slain. Some daring emendation.

FG-B04: Entrance into the city.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and behind comes a creature of fire and <u>a</u> Balrog{s} upon it.<hr></blockquote>We should probably allow only one Balrog rider per dragon.

FG-B05: Ecthelion against the Balrogs.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Of these demons of power Ecthelion {slew} <u>drove back</u> three, for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed.<hr></blockquote>Daring but minimal emendation as we cannot aford to slay even one more Balrog if it can be helped and I would like to keep the sentence. Also, the Balrogs are now entering the city by the gap made by the dragon, so meeting three together is not unreasonable.

FG-B06: The Great Market.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares ....<hr></blockquote>or<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... where a force of Or[k]s led by <u>a</u> Balrog{s} came on them at unawares ....<hr></blockquote>This corresponds to FG-C01 but should be considered here and not with the C series.

FG-B07: To the Square of the King.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their forces, and seven dragons of fire are come with Or[k]s about them and <u>a</u> Balrog{s} upon <u>one of</u> them down all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the Square of the King.<hr></blockquote>This corresponds to FG-C02 but should be considered here and not with the C series. Reduce Balrogs from many to one (rather than omit) as in the next paragraph Gothmog lord of Balrogs appears.

FG-B08: The king and his guard.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... the royal house laid on and the king came down in splendour among them and hewed with them, that they swept again much of the square, {and of the Balrogs slew even two score,} which was a great prowess indeed:<hr></blockquote> This corresponds to FG-C04 but should be considered here and not with the C series.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanite</A> at: 8/13/01 9:21:24 pm

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1483

Insist (but perhaps not specifically say) that the Balrogs are limited to 7 (Gothmog, the Balrog slain by Glorfindel, Durin's Bane, and four others) and implement this strictly and allow no re-embodiments

I vote for number 3

for I really doubt that Morgoth was able to:

created new Balrog bodies to make up the number

But there is still:

Silm77
For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.

That leaves us with Sauron + 7 balrogs + many other corrupted maiar. Let me recollect - one inhabits Carcharoth, several others are incarnated goblin chieftains (Boldog), few may be counted among those who assailed the moon (yet with round earth concept they must be omitted). Is this many? Or must be numbers of corrupted maiar reduced from many to several?

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 62</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

There are also vampires, werewolves, other Uruk-spirits seen by early Elves, whatever being took the shape of Amlach son of Imlach, and the &quot;few servants, and those of less might and cunning&quot; that Morgoth left behind in the east to continue the corruption of Men. Some of the beasts other than werewolves that were involved in attempting to spy out Gondolin may have been Úmaiar also. The spiders of Nan Dungortheb?

&quot;Several&quot; seems too small to me. Perhaps &quot;some&quot; might work, but I think &quot;many&quot; may stand. Of the Maiar most seldom took human form in Middle-earth, and even in Aman took forms such as animals or plants, and I would expect such would therefore be true among Morgoth's Úmaiar.

Possibly also the majority of these beings were permanently disabled in the War of the Valar.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanite</A> at: 8/13/01 9:22:43 pm

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 52</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I would also vote for option 3, though I don't think that we should mention the number 7. In any case, we cannot keep the thousands. If we mention 7, though, then we run into the problem of the War of the Powers: were any Balrogs killed then? It seems to me unlikely that no Balrogs took part in that battle, but for any to have died there causes problems in the later wars.

As for re-embodiment: I definitely don't think this should be used. While it does seem logical that the Balrogs, being Maiar, could survive being slain (like Sauron), everything in JRRT's writings points to this NOT being the case.

A few comments on the proposed Balrog changes:

FG-B01: I think we should consider taking out all reference to Balrogs riding dragons. This really falls under both the Balrog and mechanical dragon problems. I know we're not to address the wing debate in this project, but this sentence touches on that. If Balrogs can fly, why are they riding dragons? I think the best thing to do would be to leave the wing situation as ambiguous as possible; i.e., to delete any references that might point in one direction or the other. Additionally, we must remember that at the time this was written, the 'dragons' were machines; there is no other example of anyone using normal dragons for transport.

FG-B03: I think this is good, considering the difficulties. The only possible emendation I would make would be not to specify the number two in &quot;{a number} <u>two</u> made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them&quot;; perhaps 'a few' or 'several'?

FG-B04: Same as FG-B01.





</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 12</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

HerenIstarion has asked me to post on this topic.
I'll start with this quote I guess.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In any case, we cannot keep the thousands.<hr></blockquote>

Why not?
On what basis are you stating this?
And is the statement of at most 7 being stretched beyond intent?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If we mention 7, though, then we run into the problem of the War of the Powers: were any Balrogs killed then?<hr></blockquote>

Yes there were.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It seems to me unlikely that no Balrogs took part in that battle, but for any to have died there causes problems in the later wars.<hr></blockquote>

What later wars?
Did you mean earlier wars?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> While it does seem logical that the Balrogs, being Maiar, could survive being slain (like Sauron), everything in JRRT's writings points to this NOT being the case.<hr></blockquote>

I will say that here you are on the right track of deduction, aside from the general assumption on Balrog natures.



</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 13</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Let me clarify the Balrog deaths at the War.

Morgoth's Ring p. 75.
Annal 1099
&quot;Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword, and Melkor stood at last alone.&quot;

This states all the remaining Balrogs were slain.

Care to guess were new ones came from?

</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 53</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

&lt;&lt;In any case we cannot keep the thousands&gt;&gt;

&lt;Why not?
On what basis are you stating this?
And is the statement of at most 7 being stretched beyond intent?&gt;

Even if the number 7 is disregarded (which we cannot so easily do), this indicates that later on JRRT was thinking of the Balrogs as being FAR less numerous. It appears also that the importance and the power of the Balrogs increased between the Lost Tales and the later Silmarillion (I believe Michael Martinez did an essay on this, and I doubt there's anything I could add to his argument, so check for it at suite 101 if you like).


&lt;What later wars?
Did you mean earlier wars?&gt;

No; I mean later wars. The War of the Powers was the war that ended in the long siege of Utumno, before the Quendi were summoned to Valinor. If any of the 7 Balrogs died there (and I agree, some must have) then we have very few Balrogs to work with in the War of the Jewels.



</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 14</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Even if the number 7 is disregarded (which we cannot so easily do)<hr></blockquote>
Who said disregard it?
I think I said 'stretched beyond intent'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> this indicates that later on JRRT was thinking of the Balrogs as being FAR less numerous. It appears also that the importance and the power of the Balrogs increased between the Lost Tales and the later Silmarillion.<hr></blockquote>
Say rather that the importance and power of 'some' Balrogs increased and I'll happily agree.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> (I believe Michael Martinez did an essay on this, and I doubt there's anything I could add to his argument, so check for it at suite 101 if you like).<hr></blockquote>
No thank you, I don't like.
I 'like' Tolkien pure and without bias.
But thanks for the information anyway.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If any of the 7 Balrogs died there (and I agree, some must have) then we have very few Balrogs to work with in the War of the Jewels.<hr></blockquote>
Again with [the = only] 7 Balrogs.

This sounds like a record stuck in a groove.

I suggest that Balrogs be re-examined if you wish to use them at all in this project.

Of course, you are free to set aside my suggestion.


</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 128</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

-------------------------
Quote:
Who said disregard it?
I think I said 'stretched beyond intent'.
-------------------------

How is this 'stretched beyond intent'?

--------------------------
Quote:
Let me clarify the Balrog deaths at the War.

Morgoth's Ring p. 75.
Annal 1099
&quot;Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword, and Melkor stood at last alone.&quot;
---------------------------------

And now lets add the further clarification from JRRT in how he changed that:
Morgoth's Ring p. 80.
$50 'a host of balrogs, the last of his servants that remained' &gt; 'his Balrods, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him'. In the margin my father wrote: There should not be supposed more than 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'

This seems to show JRRT's latest intent and actually shows an intended change to the text quoted above. As 3 would seem to be quite difficult to reconcile to the 'facts' 7 seems much more likely.


The keeping of 'thousands' of Balrogs would not really be suitable. As noted by CT in BoLT2, p.212, the Balrogs are 'less terrible and more destructible' than they were concieved of afterwords. If Morgoth had thousands of Balrogs available in the War of the Jewels then very short work would have been made of the Exiles.

----------------------
Quote:
Again with [the = only] 7 Balrogs.

This sounds like a record stuck in a groove.
----------------------

What is wrong with that?

---------------------------
Quote:
I suggest that Balrogs be re-examined if you wish to use them at all in this project.
----------------------------

What do you propose?


Tar-Elenion

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.



</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 15</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

HTML Comments are not allowed

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 16</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Does the UBB code here often mistake text for HTML, even when it obviously isn't?

The shorter version.

Why is it stretched?
Because the intent is regarding Maia Balrogs, while the text, even after modification, retains that the Balrogs wrought before the War of the Powers were slain.

These are seperate animals.

I know of the quote and its abuse.
I'm also aware of the removal of the possible allegory to the Christian theology about 1/3rd of Heaven in rebellion.

Yes, if there were thousands of Maia Balrogs then there would be trouble for the exiles. But when the origins are examined you'll find that both thousands and at most 7 co-exist without cancellation of the other and without trouble for the exiles, in the sense intended.

Aiwendil: the skooling on the War of the Powers and the War of Wrath was not needed. Had you read the clarification post directly afterward and posted before your reply, you would have seen that this was so.

Dead Balrogs don't work too well as soldiers in later battles. That's why I asked which you were referring to.

What's wrong with that?
Propaganda.

What do I propose?
Start at the beginning and understand what Balrogs are and were without trying to 'fix' the data.
The fixing will not be needed when that is done.

There was a bit concerning your unbegotten conversation with A.K. which I'm not going to retype.
I was just curious if A.K. ever took his head out of the sand.

This topic interested me enough to send HerenIstarion my conclusion after examination of the origins, and where he then asked me to post here on the topic.
I assume he'll post his thoughts on it when he's done mulling it over.
Until then, a consensus examination would be proper I think, rather than a blatant statement of conclusion.

</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 54</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

&lt;&lt;No thank you, I don't like.
I 'like' Tolkien pure and without bias.
But thanks for the information anyway.&gt;&gt;

If you mean that looking at Tolkien's works in a scholarly way, and trying to draw conclusions about them based on the available facts, is 'biased', you may not like this project very much. At any rate, there are valid arguments for the increasing importance of Balrogs there.

&lt;&lt;Because the intent is regarding Maia Balrogs, while the text, even after modification, retains that the Balrogs wrought before the War of the Powers were slain.&gt;&gt;

There is no reference anywhere, as far as I know, to a distinction between Maiar Balrogs and Balrogs that were 'wrought' before the War of the Powers. In the post-LotR writings, the idea that Balrogs were ever created by Melkor is definitively abandoned, and they are made Maiar. Perhaps you could provide a reference?

&lt;&lt;I know of the quote and its abuse.
I'm also aware of the removal of the possible allegory to the Christian theology about 1/3rd of Heaven in rebellion.&gt;&gt;

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.

&lt;&lt;But when the origins are examined you'll find that both thousands and at most 7 co-exist without cancellation of the other and without trouble for the exiles, in the sense intended.&gt;&gt;

Could you please make specific references rather than leaving us in the dark? What text in particular, did you examine to come to this conclusion?

&lt;&lt;Had you read the clarification post directly afterward and posted before your reply, you would have seen that this was so.&gt;&gt;

I apologize; if you look at the times for those two posts, you'll see they sort of crossed.

It sounds like you have some interesting ideas on this topic; that's why I'd like to see your specific proposal, and your sources.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 129</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Balrogs, etc

'Bob':
Aiwendil asked many of the questions I would have so I won't bother restating them, though some of your replies seem a bit 'vague'. A little more explication might be in order.

re: A.K.
I think he probably would still maintain his position (which has some valid (if, IMO, unsupportable (in fuller context)) points).


Aiwendil:
Conrad Dunkerson has done some 'essays' about Balrogs (well researched and with citation and quotes) in the newsgroups (rec.arts.books.tolkien), entitled 'The Truth about Balrogs'. in Parts 1-6. If you are interested in reading them they can likely be found by 'searching' the newsgroup from 'google'.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000211>Tar Elenion</A> at: 8/18/01 7:00:58 pm

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 17</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If you mean that looking at Tolkien's works in a scholarly way, and trying to draw conclusions about them based on the available facts, is 'biased', you may not like this project very much.<hr></blockquote>
Isn't that exactly what I suggested be done?
Go back and actually do the research yourself, rather than build upon incorrect information.

I once read in a respected location that some chemical-imbalanced conclusion by someone that Balrogs were machines shows some of the scholarly approaches you suggest. On that point, you are correct, I would not like the project then under those circumstances.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In the post-LotR writings, the idea that Balrogs were ever created by Melkor is definitively abandoned.<hr></blockquote>
You're fixing again.

Quenta Silmarillion still holds that the were the first made of his creations. It even goes on to specify that they are Ealar-- not Maiar. Note the difference! Then there is a later term--Umaiar. Note the difference here also. Umaiar is not simply 'bad' Maiar. Christopher points to a reference point which shows the difference.

When you backtrack through the origins--this will begin to make more sense. If you want to start in the middle or the end of the origins you will not unlearn what you have learned.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.<hr></blockquote>
The bible. You've heard of that one before right?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Could you please make specific references rather than leaving us in the dark? What text in particular, did you examine to come to this conclusion?<hr></blockquote>
What point wasn't made clear. I examined them ALL. I don't pick and choose by what I think fits best.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It sounds like you have some interesting ideas on this topic; that's why I'd like to see your specific proposal, and your sources.<hr></blockquote>
I suggest to HerenIstarion, since enough time has now gone by, to submit his conclusion. What he has read from me is either correct or the biggest load of garbage ever. Let him decide which extreme, or if necessary somewhere in the middle, is applied. Decide from that.

This still doesn't release you from the scholarly obligation of doing the research yourself on Balrogs instead of building on other perceptions.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>
re: A.K.
I think he probably would still maintain his position (which has some valid (if, IMO, unsupportable (in fuller context)) points).<hr></blockquote>
Valid?

This guy didn't even realize that you were talking of Elven Years. Did he even bother with the math there? 40 E.Y. = 5,760 Sun years, with his contention that elves didn't procreate until at least 3,500 years had passed shows that his figure is more strict than the 'average' OR that the unbegotten don't need 40-50 years, even though that's exactly what they got before Orome took away the volunteers. And the incredible logic of elves popping out kids every 40-50 sun years until the end of the world is laughable. 300 generations? That was utterly--well it was just--utterly. I could state more absurdities, but you already know them I think.

Of course he will maintain his position. Anything else is unacceptable to his perceptions and therefore preposterous.


</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 130</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

------------------
Quote:
Quenta Silmarillion still holds that the were the first made of his creations. It even goes on to specify that they are Ealar-- not Maiar. Note the difference!
--------------------

(ref. MR, p.165)
'Ealar': Spirits
Differentiated from 'fear' (spirits) in that 'fear' are the indwelling spirits of the Incarnates, while 'ealar' are not incarnate with 'hroar'. Would not 'ealar' be applied to the Ainur in general?

------------------------
Quote:
Then there is a later term--Umaiar. Note the difference here also. Umaiar is not simply 'bad' Maiar. Christopher points to a reference point which shows the difference.
-------------------------

(for easier feference)
CT refers to the relationship between 'Maiar and Umaiar' and 'Vanimor to Uvanimor' in MR p. 79 and SoME p. 293 et. al.


'u-' indicates a simple negation in earlier versions, while 'il-' or 'ul-' indicates an opposite. Later 'u' had the sense of 'bad, uneasy or hard'.
(See BT 42).

'Maiar': 'the Beautiful', 'Umaiar': 'not-Beautiful'

-----------------
Quote:
I suggest to HerenIstarion, since enough time has now gone by, to submit his conclusion. What he has read from me is... &lt;snip&gt;
--------------------

I will wait for that before simply assuming that I think I know what you are getting at.



-----------------------
Quote:
Valid?
-----------------------

&quot;Some valid&quot;. :)

-----------------------
Quote:
This guy didn't even realize that you were talking of Elven Years. Did he even bother with the math there? 40 E.Y. = 5,760 Sun years,
-------------------------

As the Elves might say: &quot;la&quot;.

---------------------
Quote:
&lt;snip&gt;
I could state more absurdities, but you already know them I think.
------------------

Probably, though, to be fair, I have my own biases that colour my assertions.

-------------------------
Quote:
Of course he will maintain his position. Anything else is unacceptable to his perceptions and therefore preposterous.
------------------------

This is probably somewhat off topic (and likely rather 'mysterious' (and of little interest) to those not involved) so I will cease _here_ (i.e. place), though if you wish to continue the discourse feel free to 'e-mail' me (my 'address' is in the 'profile' section). :)


Tar-Elenion

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000211>Tar Elenion</A> at: 8/19/01 8:43:29 pm

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 55</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I need not restate Tar Elenion's comments on Ealar, Umaiar, etc.; but I agree with him.

&lt;&lt;Isn't that exactly what I suggested be done?
Go back and actually do the research yourself, rather than build upon incorrect information.&gt;&gt;

I agree that it's important not to blindly build upon someone else's research, but certainly it can be considered. Why painstakingly work out conclusions that have already been proven by someone else? And what's the use of writing an essay, approaching it scientifically, and documenting your sources if it's going to be disregarded by everyone else? I don't think there's anything wrong with, for instance, reading MM's essay on Balrogs; if there are errors, they can certainly be refuted, but it may also provide answers that I, for instance, would not have thought of myself.

&lt;&lt;Aiwendil: I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.

Bob: The bible. You've heard of that one before right?&gt;&gt;

As a matter of fact I have. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, not being a practising Christian, but what does this have to do with Tolkien? Was your original reference (something about a third of heaven) something to do with the Silmarillion or merely an analogy that went right over my head?


</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 71</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Aiwendil

Actually, we can keep the thousand Balrogs if we want to. One late note can be disregarded when so much more definite full late material is being disregarded. At the moment I'm just trying to see the implications if we try for seven Balrogs maximum, and it came out better than I thought it would (though I'd still feel more comfortable with at least a dozen.)

I don't see that Tolkien necessarily made all Balrogs much more powerful.

Durin's Bane may always have been more powerful than some, and apparently a sorcerer to boot as he used a counter-spell against Gandalf's shutting-spell. Gothmog might have been even more powerful, but Ecthelion kills it by tripping it and himself into a well where both died. Water could quite be a weakness to a fire spirit. Durin's Bane also had its fire quenched by water until it finally got into the open again and could flame on. In a well full of water it also could possibly have drowned.

CT's opinion about later Balrogs being more powerful gives no citations. The only Balrogs we ever see outside of undetailed event summaries are those at the battle of Gondolin, and one powerful Balrog in Moria. That's not really enough to draw conclusions from.

For the War which results in the destruction of Angband, only the Annals of Aman specifically mentions Balrogs in the passage about the destruction of the Host of Balrogs which I cited in my first post here, the one to which JRRT attached that bothersome note about seven. If you want to stick to seven strictly that vivid passage of the withering would probably have to go, unless you wish to imagine a re-embodiment, not explicitly mentioned.

Tolkien's story there seems to be that most of the Balrogs came to Morgoth's aid and &quot;died&quot; then, but some few were left behind in the depths of Thangorodrim, perhaps trapped there, perhaps wounded, perhaps just being smart and hiding. Some or all of these later came to Morgoth's rescue on his return.

But I agree, even dropping that passage doesn't get rid of the problem. It's hard to imagine, just because it was not mentioned, that no Balrogs were destroyed in that war. But sometimes the best thing you can do with a problem is admit you don't know the answer.

Which brings me to the Balrogs with wings. Or rather, Balrogs who can fly, as there are some who support winged Balrogs but not flying Balrogs. If Balrogs could fly then the question arises why they did not fly over the wall of Gondolin, perch on high towers, and rain down their firey darts. And again, why did the eagles not notice Sauron's raid which must have gone right by their eyries? Thorondor was so clear about the value of his protection of Gondolin in &quot;The Wanderings of Húrin&quot;, and then lets an entire army of Orks, Balrogs, and dragons cross in.

JRRT could have solved these problems easily, the same as any writer of fan fiction can, by a little addition or a little rewriting. That Balrogs ride on the new fire-drakes is one of the givens of the old FG, and is used throughout. Eg. Ecthelion is struck down by a Balrog's whip, but Tuor hews off a foot of the dragon on which it rides. I'd rather not make changes in Tolkien's text because some Balrogs might possibly be able to fly, though no-one has ever definitely caught one doing it.

I agree about the problem with &quot;two&quot;. My difficulty was that we have only six Balrogs at the most left alive. If we say &quot;a number&quot; what number could that be? Since this is the smaller part of the Balrog troop, the number must be either two or one. If you know there can only by six Balrogs at the most, then saying &quot;a number&quot; here just sounds wrong. I also want a word or phrase more imprecise than &quot;two&quot; but which could easily mean &quot;two&quot;. I couldn't and can't think of any that satisfy me. The &quot;lesser part of them&quot;? Perhaps &quot;a smaller part of them&quot;? &quot;A couple of them&quot;?


Bob W,

Revelations 8:12<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The fourth angel sounded, and one third of the sun was struck, and one third of the moon, and one third of the stars; so that one third of them would be darkened, and the day wouldn't shine for one third of it, and the night in the same way. <hr></blockquote>Tolkien generally disliked allegory and did not much use it, but occasionally does. If you see an allegory pertinent to the number of Balrogs or something else in this thread you think might be explained by this text then explicate it for us. Please don't rudely say it's the Bible. That's not what Aiwendil was asking. He was asking its pertinence.

I also do not know of any reference distinguishing between types of Balrogs. The note indicating three or at the most seven simply indicates Balrogs. If there is such a reference, please point it out to us, or please point out the references from which you deduce this conclusion.

No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were machines.

No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were &quot;created&quot; by Melkor, unless speaking specifically of texts before the latest accounts for some other reason.

If Úmaiar does not mean something like evil Maiar, then explain what it does mean. If an eäla cannot be an Ainu or Maia or Úmaia or Vala, then explain why not. My reading of the text in which it occurs*** I believe the only such text*** is that it would refer to all Ainur, except possibly those that have become permanently incarnant. Perhaps their eälar actually become fëar at that stage. Tolkien never uses the term eäla elsewhere in published writings so who can say. Possibly there are also spirits created as eälar inside Eä who are not Ainur and also not incarnates.

Whether this passage is later or earlier than the one which appears in the published Valaquenta and defines the Balrogs as originally Maiar is an open question. But it probably doesn't matter, since Maiar were, at least in origin, eälar, that is, disincarnate spirits. What Tolkien has changed in these latest writings is the idea that Melkor himself created the Balrogs.

If you want to put forward an hypothesis on something, please give your citations and your reasoning, not implications that we haven't done research ourselves because we haven't come up with the same answer you have, an answer you have not yet provided.

I still can't see what you are getting at.

</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 56</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

&lt;&lt;One late note can be disregarded when so much more definite full late material is being disregarded.&gt;&gt;

But all of the definite late material that has so far been disregarded has been disregarded under rather different circumstances. I assume you are mostly referring to the Myths Transformed round-world version. This has been rejected because it is merely a projected change, and cannot be reconciled with the existing texts save through major editorialization. The 7 Balrog note is different in two ways: First, it does not cause such serious problems for revision; you have shown that this figure can be worked into even the very old FG from BoLT. Second, it is a change that, even if we cannot follow to the letter, we can follow in spirit. Such a distinction would be meaningless with regard to the Myths Transformed material; either the world was round or it wasn't. But on the Balrog question, we have the option of deciding that even if the number 7 causes insoluble contradictions, we can follow the idea of the note, reducing the thousand Balrogs to an indefinite, but much smaller, number. I think that this option is certainly better than simply forgetting about the note.

&lt;&lt;CT's opinion about later Balrogs being more powerful gives no citations. The only Balrogs we ever see outside of undetailed event summaries are those at the battle of Gondolin, and one powerful Balrog in Moria. That's not really enough to draw conclusions from.&gt;&gt;

I think it is. For the moment, in considering Balrog strength, I suggest we consider only the late sources; we have:

1. LotR: The Balrog here is quite powerful. It is a foe, in the words of Gandalf, 'beyond any of you'. Note the reactions of Gandalf and Legolas on first seeing the Balrog. Legolas: 'Ai! Ai! A Balrog!'; Gandalf: 'A Balrog. Now I understand. What an evil fortune. And I am already weary.' It seems that what's distressing them is the very fact that this is a Balrog; there is an inherent assumption here that Balrog=very powerful. Remember that nothing about this Balrog was previously known, and if we assume that Durin's Bane was somehow more powerful than an ordinary Balrog, the Fellowship certainly had no way of knowing that.

2. Last Writings: Here (HoME XII) Tolkien is concerned with the figure of Glorfindel, whose fame comes mainly of his battle with a Balrog in Cirith Thoronath. Here it is assumed throughout that slaying a Balrog is truly a great deed, and that Glorfindel is one of only a few people who has done so.

3. The Late '7' Note: This indicates, at the very least, that Tolkien's ideas about Balrogs had changed considerably, and, taken with the evidence from Last Writings and especially LotR, leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that Balrogs were now much more powerful. Further, in limiting the total number of Balrogs to '3 or at most 7', JRRT shows that this is not an increase in power for just some Balrogs; otherwise he could have simply retained the host and made a few captains such as Gothmog more powerful. This note indicates that he thought of Balrogs as a group; if they increased in power between 1920 and 1970, they ALL increased in power.

4. Myths Transformed: The discussion of 'Boldogs' here has implications for Balrogs. A distinction is made between the Balrog demons and Maiar of lesser might who become famous Orc-captains. There is, I think, an assumption here that Balrogs are among the more powerful Maiar servants of Morgoth, distinct from the less powerful Orc-spirits.

True, the 'host' remained in the immediately post-LotR writings, but the important thing is that it was eventually changed (possibly in response to the powerful Balrog in LotR). We need not be concerned with when that change occurred; the fact is that this was JRRT's final view.

&lt;&lt;If you want to stick to seven strictly that vivid passage of the withering would probably have to go, unless you wish to imagine a re-embodiment, not explicitly mentioned.&gt;&gt;

This, I think, is the most troublesome section, and the only possible reason not to stick to the number 7. Right now, I think the best option is to remove the withering passage and not to specifically refer to 7, leaving the text ambiguous as in the '77.

Regarding the 'two' Balrogs: I'm also at a loss to come up with another suitable phrase. I suppose 'two' can stand if we decide to stick to 7 total, though if anybody else has a suggestion it would help.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 131</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I seem to have 'lost' what is being referred to with the 'two Balrogs' comments. Could someone please point it out? Did it have something to do with Rog's folk?

Tar-Elenion </p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 943</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I don't venture down here enough; certainly not as much as I used to. I think that this debate would benefit from a bit of parsing, i.e. address one issue at a time. I'm not weighing in on the merits, but rather advocating some civility. Few enough wander into this forum and new faces should be greeted somewhat gently, considering that much work has been done and newcomers may not be familiar with how things are hashed out.

Things seem to have quieted down a bit, nonetheless lets try to make the debate friendlier, shall we? As the only member of &quot;management&quot; with a strong fondness for this forum (others are interested, just so I'm not misunderstood), it seems that newcomers are to be welcomed and perhaps educated a bit before tearing their arguments to ribbons.

As I said to someone in another messageboard, Bob do I know you?

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 58</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Tar Elenion:
Yes, it does have to do with Rog. Check jallanite's
FG-B03.

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 807</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> As the only member of &quot;management&quot; with a strong fondness for this forum...<hr></blockquote>I resemble that remark! <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)">

I usually try to follow the work going on &quot;down here&quot; (I like that phrase -- &quot;down here&quot;. In the basement of the Barrow Downs? With power tools, picks, and shovels?), but I almost never post since my HoME kung-fu isn't nearly strong enough to contribute meaningfully most of the time. I'm very fond of this forum.

Mithadan, I take it your (very mild) chastisement is aimed at the Canon regulars, but I've been following this discussion closely (I have a special place in my heart for Balrogs, it seems), and for the record I thought that some rather aggressive posts by Bob were handled with grace and restraint. What's with the 'tude, Bob? That baby keeping you up nights? I'm interested in hearing your views, too, but there's no need to be so curmudgeonly about it. Why not post this composition you've sent to HI so we all can have a look?

To get back on topic, I am in strong agreement with limiting the number of Balrogs as the MR note suggests, and I'll add my own feeble contribution to the discussion: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> From LotR, Bk II, Ch 7, The Mirror of Galadriel

'It was a Balrog of Morgoth,' said Legolas; `of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.'<hr></blockquote>

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 944</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

No slight intended Underhill. I was more commenting upon the fact, that once upon a time, the only wights posting &quot;down here&quot; were Lindil, Saul and I. For clarification's sake, my mild chastisement was intended for all concerned and not just the canonites (not to be confused with canaanites).

For the record, I also support a lesser number of Balrogs during the War of the Jewels, though if I understand Bob correctly (and this is one of the sources of the heat of this debate; lack of clarity), he suggests that there were many but most were destroyed during the siege of Utumno. This works too. Anyway, considering the power of the Balrogs in later conceptions, where only the greatest warriors stand any chance of effectively contesting a duel with a Balrog, the Noldor simply could not have lasted against 1000 of the beasts.



--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 18</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> As I said to someone in another messageboard, Bob do I know you?<hr></blockquote>
If I said yes, would it make my advice more valid or less?

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 19</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> What's with the 'tude, Bob? That baby keeping you up nights? I'm interested in hearing your views, too, but there's no need to be so curmudgeonly about it.<hr></blockquote>
Didn't think I had a 'tude'.
I can get one if you like---just let me know.

I gave some advice that it should be examined again.
Then demands of proof and quotes were issued, and rather rudely too.

It's not my job to hand out answers to a group of people who profess to research everything.

If the consensus is that the at most 7 quote stands no matter what, then it doesn't matter what I would say since it would be refuted as 'clearly and without a doubt' the quote means this... *insert perception by whomever*.

I simply question those perceptions.
For this I am labelled 'unscholarly' and 'curmudgeonly', and in the last label I assume it's more about the bible comment.
Or is it about the 'vagueness' of the replies?
See above for that---concerning handing out answers.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 947</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

If you said yes, I would still reserve the right to voice my own more or less informed opinion, though if I knew who I were debating with it might affect the degree of deference I would accord the poster's &quot;scholarship&quot;. I was merely commenting that your mode of argument seems familiar to me, even if your nickname does not match.

You made some good points, though my skepticism concerning the concept of 1000s of Balrogs pre-dated the note which appears in MR. Up to now, this discussion appears to be a matter of strict construction vs. divining JRRT's intentions (perhaps &quot;reasonable construction&quot;). As such, it probably cannot be resolved with certainty and must be a matter of opinion.

So Bob, do you have any opinions concerning &quot;round Arda&quot; or the extent of commerce out of the East Gate of Moria?

Congrats on the baby, whoever you are.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 20</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was merely commenting that your mode of argument seems familiar to me, even if your nickname does not match.<hr></blockquote>
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
And more importantly; does it matter?

As for any other questions asked, I have replied in private to you, using the email linked with your name on the Downs. Look there.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You made some good points, though my skepticism concerning the concept of 1000s of Balrogs pre-dated the note which appears in MR.<hr></blockquote>
I understand the note and its place in the evolution of Balrogs.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 949</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Your familiarity or lack thereof matters not a whit. Doesn't amount to a pile of jack.

Lets resume the discussion. Was I correct in supposing that you propose a greater number of Balrogs early on whose numbers are whittled down dramatically? If so, when? Or, are you suggesting that the definition of Balrog might include entities of lesser power, not fitting the LoTR image of a great, fiery entity (with wings <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)"> ) but greater than orcs, etc? If so, where does the Boldog fit in? Lets assume some semblence of civility, put aside all slights perceived or otherwise, and have at it.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 59</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Bob: Neither I nor, I'm sure, jallanite, intended any rudeness. Alas, it is the nature of internet forums, I think, to create the impression of hostility when none is present. Understand, please, that by asking you for sources I meant in no way to scorn or reject your comments; on the contrary, I was interested enough by your ideas to wonder whence they came.

&lt;&lt;It's not my job to hand out answers to a group of people who profess to research everything.&gt;&gt;

This is, perhaps, an example of the tendency I mentioned above toward the perception of hostility; I'm not sure whether it was intended, but I at least detect a note of antagonism in the above sentence. I have not, as far as I can recall, ever professed anything on this forum.

&lt;&lt;If the consensus is that the at most 7 quote stands no matter what, then it doesn't matter what I would say since it would be refuted as 'clearly and without a doubt' the quote means this... *insert perception by whomever*.&gt;&gt;

No one has said that the '7 quote' stands no matter what. However, as one of the principles behind this project is to use the latest ideas of Tolkien that can be incorporated into the legendarium, it is looking as if that quote will have to be followed. If you can provide some evidence for another possibility, please do so; we'd all be sincerely interested to see it.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 133</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Gentlemen,
As Aiwendil points out communicating in this medium can lead to (mis)perceived inferences of hostility where none was actually intended and can result in actual 'hostilities' breaking out with fully realized intent. If 'Bob' wants to maintain his privacy lets let it go at that. He has put forth some interesting ideas (albeit vaguely) with the intent of having those on this forum further their _own_ research. He has noted that he gave 'Heren Istarion' some of these concepts and interpretations in a (probably) more specific form and is leaving it for 'H.I.' to post them.
'Bob' took me up on my offer to discuss some other matters (regarding a debate elsewhere on the 'Awakening') privately and seems a not unreasonable person overall. Lets give 'Bob' a break and see what he has to offer and accept it or not on its own basis.
When (or if?) 'Heren Istarion' gets around to posting what 'Bob' has given him we can see what 'Bob' is implying then. (And accept or tear it apart as needed <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)"> ).

Tar-Elenion </p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 73</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Tar Elenion:

On the number &quot;two&quot;. In FG a diversion is created by Gothmog when<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... a number made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater company rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.<hr></blockquote>If we assume seven Balrogs maximum, then six only are alive at this time, so the smaller part of the company really must equal &quot;two&quot; or &quot;one&quot;, and &quot;one&quot; seems to me very improbable.

I was attempting to keep the number down to seven in total without actually saying so, or specifying any exact numbers and in this sentence lost the ability to do so.

Most posters who earlier considered the matter, including myself, felt that it would probably be impossible to actually reduce the Balrogs to seven (except by deleting large portions of the battle sequences in the fall of Gondolin), but that at least we might remove the specific indications of a large number of Balrogs. My attempt was however to do whatever was necessary to truly go all the way down to a maximum of seven Balrogs, on the principle that I might as well try the extreme first, if only to prove that it cannot be satisfactorily done.

Too my surprise, I found that we can use seven Balrogs. Therefore perhaps we should drop the game of being vague about the actual number being &quot;seven at most&quot; and include that phrase when Balrogs first appear in the revised Silmarillion.

But if we decide not to actually use the note in the text, then the number in this passage should be vague. Unfortunately English understandibly seems not to contain a word of a kind that can be used here to mean vaguely any quantity and which would also be felt right if the actual number turned out to be two. In my idiolect, at any rate, a number imeans a number somewhat above &quot;a couple&quot; or &quot;a trio&quot;, few means &quot;five-ish&quot;, several means &quot;sevenish&quot;, some must be more than &quot;two&quot; to feel right in this context, and so forth... &quot;Two&quot; of anything is too easily observable as that exact quantity to allow for substitution of a vaguer term in general use.


Aiwendil:

I agree totally that making Balrogs more powerful was likely one of the reasons JRRT reduced their numbers.

And having fewer active in the wars and in the fall of Gondolin makes it easier to understand how the Elves were able to resist.

Yet if that note had not come down to us, the problem of Balrog's varying in power would not have seemed horribly bothersome, perhaps would not have been noticed by many.

The Balrog of Moria, managed to destroy an entire dwarf kingdom. Or did he? We don't know to what extent he did so alone, and to what extent he gathered a force of Orks and trolls. The story of the fall of Moria is never told. Smaug the dragon, without help, alone destroyed the kingdom of the Lonely Mountain, but it was also a smaller kingdom.

Is a Balrog more powerful than a dragon?

According to one passage in BoLT 2 Balrogs are as powerful or more powerful, as given in chapter II, &quot;Turambar and the Foalóke&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ****Now those drakes and worms are the evillest creatures that Melko has made, and the most uncouth, yet of all are they the most powerful, save it be the Balrogs only.<hr></blockquote>Yet we are told of the death of only one dragon in FG and the possible fatal wounding of another, while many more Balrogs are slain. Perhaps this is explicable because these dragons are new, improved versions of metal and pure fire, more powerful than any before? Possibly also the power of armored dragons to resist attack was greater than that of Balrogs (or most Balrogs), though Balrogs might have had great offensive capibilities.

Smaug, as a winged dragon, one of the last kinds created by Morgoth, might have been more powerful than most of the dragons of the First Age.

(This is all unanswerable speculation of course!)

Though it is not actually said, I get the impression that the Great Worms bred, and Smaug and other dragons came from that brood. As Thórin remarks in his story of Smaug's devastation, it was<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... the usual unhappy story, it was only too common in those days.<hr></blockquote>This links with the note under TA 2570 in Appendix B:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> About this time Dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves.<hr></blockquote>Where are these other dragons? Slain, probably, as the years went by. And if dragons are slain, then why not Balrogs?

It also seems to me that the slaying of so many Balrogs at FG is partly because of the suicide mentality of many of the defenders: expecting to die, knowing they are going to die, they fearlessly make any effort to take their enemies with them. Ecthelion's suicide grip on Gothmog is an example.

Of course, I am rationalizing, but probably only as we all would do if a version of FG with its many Balrog slayings had been included by Christopher Tolkien in The Silmarillion, or if that note simply did not exist. We would live not unhappily with the thousand Balrogs.

Gandalf rightly warns the party to fly. There is no use in staying, and the Balrog, like a dragon, is far more powerful than any of the party. That does not mean that he might not have been slain, as Bard slew Smaug, or Éowyn and Merry slew the Witch-king, or Glorfindel unexpectedly slew his Balrog in a single duel rather than in the press of battle where odd chances are more likely, where perhaps twenty Balrogs were slain by Elves, but hundreds of Elves may have been slain by single Balrogs. Gandalf's remarks may owe more to realizing that this being is Durin's Bane, and having encountered the counter-spell that this creature cast against Gandalf's shutting-spell, than to it being a Balrog. That Legolas &quot;wailed&quot; is perhaps more convincing of the power of any Balrog. But might he not also have wailed if a dragon appeared?

But the note exists, and it can be used, and should be if acceptable changes can be made.

My changes in FG were designed to be minimal, yet I feel, naturally, that it would be better not to be so daring if possible. Then in another mood, I also feel that perhaps changing those three Balrogs driven off by Ecthelion to one is a necessary improvement, even though it would involve yet more changing of the original text, which is not perhaps necessary.

Where does one stop on the slippery slope of making minimal emendations and writing fan fiction? I don't really like reducing the party of Balrogs with bows and slings to one Balrog with a bow, however much I like the effect of the tale that is produced. Should I have made them two, one with bow and one with sling, and then had one slain? That would be more difficult to accomplish.

Perhaps another version should be attempted, by myself, or someone else, also trying to keeping the number strictly to seven or less, but purposely making it as different as possible from the version I produced.

If very different versions are possible, then to some extent we are writing fan fiction to fill in Tolkien's gaps. I think in some moods my Balrog work is very close to the fan fiction line, closer than I am comfortable with. But perhaps still not unexceptable.

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 21</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Was I correct in supposing that you propose a greater number of Balrogs early on whose numbers are whittled down dramatically?<hr></blockquote>
No, they got decimated in the end at the War of Wrath.

But please note that the dastardly NOTE refers to the Balrogs in the War of the Powers _where it was inserted_ and to which it particulary applies.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If so, when? Or, are you suggesting that the definition of Balrog might include entities of lesser power, not fitting the LoTR image of a great, fiery entity but greater than orcs, etc?<hr></blockquote>

Fiery entity---yes, but not necessarily in all cases.
Lesser power Balrogs---yes.
Greater than Orcs---yes.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If so, where does the Boldog fit in?<hr></blockquote>

Boldog as far as I know is an Ainu-Orc.
I have heard a suggestion or two that this possible title may be basis as a defintion for lesser Balrogs. The Author himself, while unsure as to if it is a title or name, still classifies it creature-wise as Ainu-Orc(s).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> have at it<hr></blockquote>
Is this to be a re-enactment of Arthur and the Black-knight?
And who is who here?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If you can provide some evidence for another possibility, please do so; we'd all be sincerely interested to see it.<hr></blockquote>

I have given the process by which I began the examination to HerenIstarion [who has the my truest answer in his possession], Mithadan and Tar-Elenion.
This is a cut and paste response I made:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The defintion and evolution of Fays is a good place to start, especially the later distinction between the original groupings of Fays [Nermir, Tavari, Nandini, Orossi, Oarni, Falmarini, Wingildi] and the differentation made where they are no longer Fays, and where Fay is defined as a child of the
Gods [later changed to Maia]---a reference here to the Tom Bombadil thread is in order I think. Add in the evolution of the Earthlings [closely tied with the now homeless and definitionless Spirits [who make a re-appearance as Ealar---see the Eagles question by JRRT which seperates Ealar and Maiar as non-equivalent. Follow it with the evolution of Orcs [which is inescapably tied with Balrogs in every reference and respect]. Of particular interest is the LoTR time-frame alteration where Orcs are the 'Spawn of the Earth'.<hr></blockquote>

Tar Elenion made this comment in private discussion of the topic in reply to some points I had made clear [or semi-clear anyway], and I ask him to forgive me for the presumption of quoting him without permission [non-repeated; as private email is private and I truly do apologize]. Since you already stated the conversation, I thought the least I could do is show that SOME type of answer was 'discerned'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> So we have the 7 Valaraukar (Maiarin Balrogs) as Balrog lords and other 'Incarnate Balrogs' (as the lesser Balrogs that could form the larger numbers?<hr></blockquote>

My reply was: 'That is essentially correct.'

I stated the point that began the examination for me---the offer of Balrog-Lordship to Hurin in the Lays as a point that may introduce perceptions as to what a Balrog really was or _could_ have been, and if the acceptance of the offer would have re-defined Hurin as a Balrog. It went from there back to the beginning to follow the processes.

I also mentioned to T.E. issues about the investment of Will into Balrogs, and questioned him as to why this would be necessary for Ainu who were as capable as Melkor in this without his aid, among other points of contention.

As a further suggestion: read the part about Trecherous gifts and lies and note that there is a differentation between those who followed him in the beginning and OTHERS [a natural presumption would be other Ainu, but this is _presumption_] who are 'corrupted' with these 'presents' and lies.

And now you have all the information needed to determine if the issue needs examination here or not since my suggestion alone was insufficient.

To quote the Geico Geko: 'Stop calling me.'


</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 694</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

jallanite posted:Where does one stop on the slippery slope of making
minimal emendations and writing fan fiction? I don't really
like reducing the party of Balrogs with bows and slings to
one Balrog with a bow, however much I like the effect of
the tale that is produced. Should I have made them two,
one with bow and one with sling, and then had one slain?
That would be more difficult to accomplish.

lindil:I favor a &quot;if it can't be used after updating the names and eliminating old concepts - then don't use it&quot; model, due to the very question jallanite raises in the above quote.

The Fall of Gondolin has proven to be far more complex than i ever dreamed, even from the relative sidelines, and much of this is due to the complexity of the ideas contained in the story, [Balrogs, various types of Dragons, old and new Elvish , etc.] but it has been compounded by a relatively liberal editing scheme that let's us cotemplate replacing 3 balrogs w/ whips and bows w/ varying numbers andcombinations of B's w/ varying combinations of weapons.
I am by no means bashing all of the work of aiwendill and jallanite and others, just pointing out the dilemna that J is acknowledging as having it's roots in the working principles that allow this much freedom.

I will reread the points brought up Bob W , is there a reason you can't post it directly Bob? lost file or somesuch?
Waiting for H-I to post it [or not] is a little bizarre [i] [ and sorry if a reason was put forward earlier I missed]. After all we have a Silmarillion to edit <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)"> .




<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000000e Creation of a Revised Silmarillion</a>
Lindil's Tolkien/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>,
http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>.
'In the begining was the Word. And the Word was with God.And the Word is God'. </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 60</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Bob:
&lt;&lt;But please note that the dastardly NOTE refers to the Balrogs in the War of the Powers _where it was inserted_ and to which it particulary applies.&gt;&gt;

Ah. Now I think I understand what you mean. It's a possibility I hadn't considered before. If I understand you correctly, you mean that of the various Maiar demons that served Morgoth, only seven were involved in (and killed in) the War of the Powers. Still, I don't think I can accept this as a correct interpretation of the note; the note says that at most 7 &quot;ever existed&quot;. I suppose a looser interpretation of the note is possible, as we've already gone as far as considering disregarding it entirely.

&lt;&lt;Boldog as far as I know is an Ainu-Orc.
I have heard a suggestion or two that this possible title may be basis as a defintion for lesser Balrogs. The Author himself, while unsure as to if it is a title or name, still classifies it creature-wise as Ainu-Orc(s).&gt;&gt;

Agreed. I don't think we can stretch the Boldog thing as far as some have suggested.

&lt;&lt;So we have the 7 Valaraukar (Maiarin Balrogs) as Balrog lords and other 'Incarnate Balrogs' (as the lesser Balrogs that could form the larger numbers?&gt;&gt;

Here's where I'm still a little confused. Do you mean that the other Balrogs weren't Maiar? Or just that they were less powerful Maiar?

jallanite:
&lt;&lt;But the note exists, and it can be used, and should be if acceptable changes can be made.&gt;&gt;

Agreed. I've gone back and forth on this myself: whether it would be better to use the note without question (it is his latest idea on Balrogs) or to almost disregard it (if he suggested the obviously absurd number 3, how seriously can we take 7?). Overall, however, I think we do have to follow it, if it can be made to work.


The question then is whether it can be made to work. I think the thing to consider here is not the Fall of Gondolin, but the War of the Powers. For after changing the 'host' to '3 or at most 7', JRRT does nothing about them all being killed by Manwe. The problem then is like Myths Transformed on a much smaller scale: can we take up the projected change without engaging in 'fan fiction'? As much as I don't want to have to lose any of the Lost Tales Fall of Gondolin, I think the answer is 'Yes'; we're obbligated to stick with 7.

&lt;&lt;Where does one stop on the slippery slope of making minimal emendations and writing fan fiction? I don't really like reducing the party of Balrogs with bows and slings to one Balrog with a bow, however much I like the effect of the tale that is produced. Should I have made them two, one with bow and one with sling, and then had one slain? That would be more difficult to accomplish. &gt;&gt;

It certainly is a tricky issue. I think we should try to remember that what we are doing is making a canon Silmarillion, not rewriting the Fall of Gondolin. That is, it is the Fall of Gondolin material that must be made to fit the 'true' story, not the other way around. Or to put it another way: we should be using only parts of the Fall of Gondolin that can be readily made to agree with the canon; we are NOT simply revising the Fall of Gondolin.

With these considerations in mind, I think that if it comes to basically writing fan fiction in our attempt to correct the Lost Tales, we should drop the older material entirely.

I don't really like this option (as the Fall of Gondolin is one of my favorite stories) but I do support it.

&lt;&lt;I am by no means bashing all of the work of aiwendill and jallanite and others, just pointing out the dilemna that J is acknowledging as having it's roots in the working principles that allow this much freedom.&gt;&gt;

I don't think the problem is so much with the principles as with our application of them. Rather than fiddling with the late note, and the Lost Tales, and Boldogs and such, I think we should perhaps strictly follow the latest conceptions of Tolkien, and simply drop any old stuff that does not agree. We are under no obbligation to use the Lost Tales material; we shouldn't bend the canon in order to preserve it.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 954</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

No one said this would be easy (or even necessarily possible). Many would agree that the Lost Tales material is too obscure or dated to provide any basis for establishing canon. M. Martinez is one holding this position (he suggests that Lost Tales and even some later material cannot be considered part of the same mythos due to changes in JRRT's intentions such as the departure from the &quot;mythology for England&quot; position). My feeling is that in the absence of any statement of contrary intention or revision by JRRT, some parts of Lost Tales can be deemed to have &quot;survived&quot;. Parts of FoG may fall in this category. But I too hesitate concerning mechanical dragons, 1000s of Balrogs and other such details.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 22</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Is there a reason you can't post it directly Bob? lost file or somesuch?<hr></blockquote>

No.
No lost file or somesuch.

I didn't and don't _want_ to participate in this project at any level other than helpful suggestion, although this is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain, much to my dismay.
Thank you very much H.I. [I forgive you anyway].

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Waiting for H-I to post it [or not] is a little bizarre.<hr></blockquote>
I work in Bizarre ways. I leave Mysterious to someone else.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I don't think we can stretch the Boldog thing as far as some have suggested.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not discounting the idea actually, and I think I even stated it was interesting. I had already looked into it, and from what I have seen, it even _sort-of_ fits to a degree---but is not the end-all-beat-all answer to the question.

There is the Mysterious jump from 3 to 7 [leaving the Mysterious number of 4---coincidentally or not, the number of _named_ Maia Orc-Lords].

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Here's where I'm still a little confused. Do you mean that the other Balrogs weren't Maiar? Or just that they were less powerful Maiar?<hr></blockquote>

Both and neither---according to your interpretation of Spirits.

</p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1507
many many balrogs

Many Many Balrogs





When (or if?) HerenIstarion gets around to posting what Bob has given him we can see what Bob is implying then (and accept or tear it apart as needed)

I apologise if my absence caused any inconvenience. In several spots here I seem to be summoned to judge delicate matters in which I must confess, I lack great amount of knowledge, Yet, never claiming the role of a jury here, I may submit my own opinion, which, was of course influenced by Bob’s ideas (which were quiet new to me, yet which, nevertheless, are worth listening and worth thinking over), but I can get more or less logical basis under them, I deem, even if some of these may seem mere speculation. Yet, I always had a notion that professor himself worked 50/50, using both his previous materiel (or, a scientifically, “evidence”), as well as intuition in using, reconciling or even rewriting this “evidence”. If the thing “ringed true”, it took place in the Legendarium. Thing certainly rings true (to me)


1) Seven + Many

After such a prologue, I’m still at a loss were to begin :rolleyes: . Maybe, I’m even late, for Bob almost answered all the requests. But I still would add my portion into the boiling soup in this pot. Here we have again the passage from Silm77, quoted in this thread several times. I for myself used it in my first post here, yet I must admit my opinion changed since then I will repeat it, highlighting important places (for indeed the passage bears great importance):

Yet so great was the power of his uprising that in ages forgotten he contended with Manwë and all the Valar, and through long years in Arda held dominion over most of the lands of the Earth. But he was not alone. For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.


It follows, some of the spirits were seduced by Morgoth in the “days of his greatness” – when was this? – the original greatness of Melko was expressed in the Music, when some of 'co-singers' were drawn to his side. It may be assumed (speculation of course, with no textual evidence, but still…), than increasingly discussed 7 “great” Balrogs may have been seduced there.

Here I must take a step aside for a while.

Before Arda we have certain spirits, and, even they differ by their names, I always had a feeling that the order to which the all belong, make them equal in status, if not in rank. (Ëalar)

After creating Arda some of them enter it to be distinguished by their names, yet their nature remains the same – Valar (called so for their power, and being Powers of the World) and Maiar (less powerful, but beautiful, called so for their beauty) yet, both, Valar as well as Maiar, are Ëalar – spirits not embodied, and, au contraire Fëar, spirits incarnate, having hröar (i.e. Children)

But the names Maiar and Valar apply to the function the bearers of them accomplish. The spirits on the other side, being of the same order, yet exercising opposite functions, are defined by adding prefix U before the name of a function of spirits named above. That gives us Umaiar – Not-Maiar, Maiar-doing-opposite-things. For Valar there is only one equal opponent – Morgoth – Black Enemy of The World (having Valar as Powers of the World, it makes more evident the opposition of name of a function) So, we can easily call the 7 “great Balrogs” Umaiar, and that will not in a least break the rule. Or, according to the passage, spirits that remained with him till the days of his fall, spirits able to exercise the same rank of functions as Melkor/Morgoth himself, even if with less intensity.

Then we have “spirits corrupted afterwards”. If we weigh wording carefully, this without trace of a doubt, means “after the days of his greatness”. When are the days of his greatness ended? I will be bold enough to suppose his 'greatness' was 'ending' in two steps - first when he was driven forth by Tulkas, and that stage prolonged till his captivity in the end of the war of Powers, in which his last “host of balrogs“ was destroyed (“the Annals of Aman”) But who are those balrogs (for I don’t think it necessary to omit the great passage of balrogs assailing the standard of Manwe), which are so easily withered in Manwe’s wrath? Spirits corrupted afterwards, and, as elves just awoke, and there is no trace of men yet, we must assume them to be some other ëalar, but of lesser strength and not opposed in function to Maiar, so there is no need to consider them as Umaiar, yet rather than opposite to those spirits which incarnate Eagles, Ents and so on. If I were allowed to use invented term, I would rather call them Ulëalar.

That’s very well, you may think, yet why calling them balrogs at all, than?

Return to the passage once more – “Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.”

Valaraukar – 'Mighty Demons' (Or 'Demons of Terror') certainly means 7 great ones, yet translation “balrog”, applied to those in ME, is not literal:

ÑGWAL- torment. Q ungwale torture; nwalya- to pain, torment; nwalka cruel. N balch cruel; baul torment, cf. Bal- in Balrog or Bolrog [RUK], and Orc-name Boldog = Orc-warrior ‘Torment-slayer’ (cf. NDAK).


Not only 'mighty', but 'tormenting' spirits. One can apply such a term even to one’s own not so pleasant neighbour, disturbing one’s sleep by night with some naughty noisy behaviour. ;)

That, speculatively, gives us 7 Valaraukar proper, and indefinite number of other Balrogs (tormenting spirits), which are more than orks (not including Ainu orcs, see the definitions here (http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000025op=74)[link lost in the migration to UBB - H-I], but less than 7 great ones and more easily destructible. Them being lesser than Umaiar does not abolish their 'fiery' nature, as opposed to the ëalar of the “good” attitude, such as eagles of Manwe, or some free agents, not directly obeying, yet more or less loyal to Valar (Bombadil, Goldberry (direct opposition – fire/water). Having the same inherent power of Fire as the great Valaraukar, they may easily be confused by the elves (who haven’t seen the thing but yet the whole Silm is the elvish point of view on the history of the world) with the Valaraukar proper. That partly answers the argument of Legolas' and Gandalf's reaction of 'ai, ai, Balrog' scene – for Legolas any fire spirit is balrog, and even if it is not a Valarauko, it is the thing which was before Arda, and therefore beyond the match of any mortal or immortal Child, Gandalf – or, rather, Olorin, is a Maia, and (speculation again, yet why not?) can distinguish what a Balrog “proper” is. Such 'Ulëalar' Balrogs may have been destroyed in the War of Powers, and leave 7 Valaraukar unharmed to have their whole company in action at Gondolin.

Yet I mantioned two falls of Melkor/Morgoth, and must go back to the second fall now. The second fall is much more important for the theory. Now Melkor 'really' falls, and becomes irredeemable, in fact, becomes 'Anti-Vala' only after killing of Trees of Valinor. This is marked with the change of his name from Melkor to Morgoth, and his loss of ability to change his shape. From now on his lust to have others under his will is irresistible, and among the 'other spirits corrupted afterwards' most desirable are Children of Eru. What it has to do with Balrogs? It is mostly concerned with them (and I see it now, thanks to Bob Wehadababyitsaboy:

THE LAY OF THE
CHILDREN OF HURIN

but Bauglir said: 'O bravest of Men,
'tis fate unfitting for thus fellhanded
warrior warfain that to worthless friends
his sword he should sell, who seek no more
to free him from fetters or his fall avenge.
While shrinking in the shadows they shake fearful
in the hungry hills hiding outcast
their league belying, lurking faithless,
he by evil lot in everlasting
dungeons droopeth doomed to torment
and anguish endless. That thy arms unchained
I had fainer far should a falchion keen
or axe with edge eager flaming
wield in warfare where the wind bloweth
the banners of battle -- such a brand as might
in my sounding smithies on the smitten anvil
of glowing steel to glad thy soul
be forged and fashioned, yea, and fair harness
and mail unmatched -- than that marred with flails
my mercy waiving thou shouldst moan enchained
neath the brazen Balrogs' burning scourges:
who art worthy to win reward and honour
as a captain of arms when cloven is mail
and shields are shorn, when they shake the hosts
of their foes like fire in fell onset.
Lo! receive my service; forswear hatred,
ancient enmity thus ill-counselled --
I am a mild master who remembers well
his servants' deeds. A sword of terror
thy hand should hold, and a high lordship
as Bauglir's champion, chief of Balrogs,
to lead o'er the lands my loud armies,
whose royal array I already furnish;
on Turgon the troll (who turned to flight
and left thee alone, now leaguered fast
in waterless wastes and weary mountains)
my wrath to wreak, and on redhanded
robber-Gnomes, rebels, and roaming Elves,
that forlorn witless the Lord of the World

Chief of Balrogs

That offers something to 'mull over', does not it?

I really doubt the Balrogs 'proper' (that is, Valaraukar) would bear a mortal, even that it was Hurin, 'mightiest of Men' as their Lord. More logical it seems to me that this offer meant lordship over some other balrogs (= Tormenting Spirits)

But to draw a parallel of such balrogs with Balrogs proper, they must resemble each other. That is easily explained in the pre-children period – when lesser balrogs are formed by 'fiery ëalar'. After the second fall of Melkor/Morgoth, the ranks of Balrogs are supplied from different origint (Children) I think Bob won't mind if I give a citation from his letter to me

Is it possible or even probable that Melkor (as a
master of the matter of Arda - where he had placed a significant portion of himself) be able to 'alter' the appearance of 'followers' to the super-soldier
description given of Balrogs (or as you say; a change of his hroa (or body)). All this assumes that Balrogs could be 'found' rather than the automaton ancestry
they sprang from.

That explains why balrogs, presumably destroyed in the war of Powers, are present again in the Siege of Angband, when:

Grey Annals:

But even as the vanguard of Maidros came upon the Orcs, Morgoth loosed his last strength, and Angband was emptied. There came wolves, and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs a thousand, and there came worms and drakes, and Glaurung, Father of Dragons. And the strength and terror of the Great Worm were now grown great indeed, and Elves and Men withered before him; and he came between the hosts of Maidros and Fingon and swept them apart

But Morgoth’s ability to produce new balrogs certainly diminished after a time, as he spent his power.


2) Wings? no Wings?

Would the changing of hröa of new made Balrog end in him acquiring wings? That is a painful question, and a “hardtalk” occurred several times about this topic, which is to much of quoting to repeat. Check it out around the Downs in manyfold threads :)

3) Theology and Tolkien



Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, not being a practising Christian, but what does this have to do with Tolkien? Was your original reference (something about a third of heaven) something to do with the Silmarillion or merely an analogy that went right over my head?

I have a strong notion that one of the aspects of the Tolkien’s work is that, besides other great virtues, it is somehow a retelling of Christian Legend, which Professor himself called 'sub-creation'. That is why I rather picture him as Aulë when the dwarves were offered to Eru, than any other of his characters. Some aspects were discussed and may be checked here (http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000240)[link lost in the migration to UBB - H-I]

Yes, Tolkien disliked allegory, yet he used it, when it was somehow 'direct' allegory (cf Leaf by Niggle – the whole peive is an allegory!

But I deem it’s time to finish – I’m the hell tired of typing.

You have the speculation. You are entitled to 'tear it up' as necessary

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In several spots here I seem to be summoned to judge delicate matters<hr></blockquote>
Apologies. We both know what the original intent was, and this wasn't it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I may submit my own opinion, which, was of course influenced by Bob’s ideas<hr></blockquote>
I noticed the alterations. <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Maybe, I’m even late, for Bob almost answered all the requests.<hr></blockquote>
Again, not the intent. In the interim, thanks to several devious references by someone---my old identity here was all but written out for everyone to see who understood---which most CERTAINLY was not any intent of mine. For the benefit of the someone who worked so hard to accomplish this revelation:

Yes, I admit it, you can stop now.
I am the person who posted here moons ago under the name _Saulotus_.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> We must assume them to be some other ealar, but of lesser strength and not opposed in function to Maiar, so there is no need to consider them as Umaiar, yet rather than opposite to those spirits which incarnate Eagles, Ents and so on. If I were allowed to use invented term...<hr></blockquote>

I see you're not entirely happy with the Spirits of Elemental Earth [Air, Water, FIRE, and Earth] aka Earthlings [ne--Nermir, Tavari etc.] explanation. No matter. But then I don't recall mentioning Giants, Ogres, Mermaids [from which Goldberry derives---possibly a homage to old Fairy Tales, in much the same I suspect that the word Maia is, as found in the Olive Fairy Book] or any other [fouler and fairer] things older than Sauron.

And Ealar still doesn't equal Ainu. But I think you somewhat accept this in your opinion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Valaraukar – “Mighty Demons” certainly means 7 great ones, yet translation “balrog”, applied to those in ME, is not literal<hr></blockquote>
You can find more information on this in _Quendi and Eldar_ Author's Note 28 as another readily available place.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> One can apply such a term even to one’s own not so pleasant neighbour, disturbing one’s sleep by night with some naughty noisy behaviour.<hr></blockquote>
Funny you should mention that.
Have you ever been awakened on a _Wednesday!_ night at 3 a.m. to your neighbor's inebriated friends singing _quite_ off-key and honking their car horn in beat to a song with lyrics, which if I remember correctly are: &quot;on the radio ooo-ooo [honk-honk], {something something} on the radio ooo-ooo [Honk-honk]&quot;
I think it was Donna Summer. Donna Summer? If I had to be awakened in such a manner, at least it could have been with a more tasteful song. The theme to 'I dream of Jeanie' would have more tasteful than _that_ was.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> for Legolas any fire spirit is Balrog, and even if it is not a Valarauko, it is the thing which was before Arda<hr></blockquote>

Quite right on Legolas I think.

Befor Adra? Is it?
Arda [or Ea if you prefer] was first in creation... _Then_ the Ainu came to Arda and entered _into_ the story of TIME.
The Ainu are before Creation, but not before Time.

I mentioned a reference to the Tom thread, and it's relevance with Eru sending the Secret Fire into the heart of the world.
Further information on the secret fire is a whole seperate discussion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think Bob won't mind if I give a citation from his letter to me<hr></blockquote>
No. I think it's actually just desserts. <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)">


</p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1522

Quite right

The more correct wording would be:

Before awakening of the Children

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 74</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

Introduction

So HerenIstarion has given us a version of Bob's contstruction which Bob himself would not provide.

Best way to begin is perhaps to set out the four latest accounts of the origin of the Balrogs in the probable order to their writing. All are from Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10).

1. The Úmaiar Origin

I believe the word Úmaiar occurs once only in JRRT's published material, in this place, where JRRT defines its meaning. The passage is from &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot;, Commentary on the second section of the Annals of Aman §30:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... But Melkor dwelt in Utumno, and he did not sleep, but watched and laboured; and whatsoever good Yavanna worked in the lands he undid if he could, and the evil things that he had perverted walked abroad, and the dark and slumbering woods were haunted by monsters and shapes of dread. And in Utumno he multiplied the race of the evil spirits that followed him, the Úmaiar, of whom the chief were those demons whom the Elves afterwards named the Balrogath. But they did not yet come forth from the gates of Utumno because of their fear of Oromë<hr></blockquote>Two other references by CT to Úmaiar cite this same passage.

Here Úmaiar are clearly defined as &quot;the race of the evil spirits that followed him [Morgoth]&quot;, and the chief of the Úmaiar are the Balrogs. Again, I believe this is JRRT's published use of Úmaiar.

The concept of the Children of the Valar still appears in &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot;, so it is not surprising that Melkor can also multiply the race of the evil spirits.

As to the unique form Balrogath, which might puzzle some, it is simply Sindarin for 'the Balrogs'. The suffix -ath is explained most fully in JRRT's commentary on the poem &quot;A Elbereth Gilthoniel&quot; in The Road Goes Ever On:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> But the suffix -ath (originally a collective noun-suffix) was used as a group plural, embracing all things of the same name, or those associated in some special arrangement or organization. So elenath (as plural of êl, pl. elin) meant &quot;the host of the stars&quot;: sc. (all) the (visible) stars of the firmament. Cf. ennorath, the group of central lands, making up Middle-earth. Note also Argonath, &quot;the pair of royal stones,&quot; at the entrance to Gondor; Periannath, &quot;the Hobbits (as a race),&quot; as collective pl. of perian, &quot;halfling&quot; (pl. periain). The ath is not a genitive inflexion as some have guessed.<hr></blockquote>

2. The Old Version of &quot;Making&quot; the Balrogs

&quot;The Later Quenta Silmarillion (I)&quot;, §18:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and in the North Melkor built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the first made of his creatures: their hearts were of fire, but they were clothed in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days. And in that dark time Melkor made many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world; yet the Orcs were not made until he had looked upon the Elves, and he made them in mockery of the Children Ilúvatar.<hr></blockquote>

3. The &quot;Valaquenta&quot; Account

CT in Morgoth's Ring indicates no changes in the published version of the origin of the Balrogs in the &quot;Valaquenta&quot;. So here it is:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.<hr></blockquote>Here othersmight refer to spirits who were not Maiar, or might mean other Maiar corrupted later. The Valaraukar are &quot;dreadful among these spirits&quot;, that is either dreadful among all the spirits, or dreadful among the spirits corrupted later. Comparison with other accounts strongly indicates the former meaning.

4. The ëalar account

In his notes on the late Quenta Silmarillion version CT gives a replacement passage to the account that appears there, in &quot;The Later Quenta Silmarillion (I), Commentary on Chapter 3, 'Of the Coming of the Elves', §18:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The actual text of LQ 2 my father emended at this time very hastily to read:
These were the ( ëalar) spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days. And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world; and his realm now spread ever southward of the Middle-earth. But the Orks, mockeries and perversions of the Children of Eru, did not appear until after the Awakening of the Elves.

There is a footnote on the word ëalar in this passage:
'spirit' (not incarnate, which is fëa, S fae, ëala 'being'.<hr></blockquote>The spelling of Ork with a k indicates later writing. The change is that Melkor no longer &quot;makes&quot; the Balrogs (as he also did in previous versions of this passage in Silmarillion texts). Instead they originate as discarnate spirits, most easily identified with the Maiar who appear in the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account (and are discarnate spirits) and with the Úmaiar of the Úmaiar origin where Úmaiar means the former Maiar who have become Melkor's evil followers.

This passage is, I believe, contains JRRT's only published use of the word ëalar.


Interlude

The published Silmarillion in chapter 3 contains a combination of the Úmaiar account and the ëalar account.

I will refer to HerenIstarion's explanation of Bob Wehadababyitsaboy's theories as the Elucidation.


Who are the other spirits?.

The Elucidation slides over any suggestion that the other spirits were other Maiar. Surely that should have been considered? The three other accounts indicate Balrogs were all of one origin. Two assumptions are made here without notice or question in the interpretation of the Valaquenta account:
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 1. The spirits who later followed Melkor are not Maiar.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 2. The spirits who later followed Melkor are weaker than those who followed him in former days.

If either is false, then the argument fails. So best omit the question?

In the Úmaiar account all Balrogs are Úmaiar, in the ëalar account all Balrogs are ëalar, in the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account there is no indication that those spirits who joined Morgoth later were either, on the average, less or more powerful than those who joined him in his earlier days.


Quiet redefinition of ë.

From the Elucidation<blockquote>Quote:<hr> But who are those balrogs (for I don't think it necessary to omit the great passage of balrogs assailing the standard of Manwe), which are so easily withered in Manwe's wrath? Spirits corrupted afterwards, and, as elves just awoke, and there is not other trace of men yet, we must assume them to be some other ealar of lesser strength and not opposed in function to Maiar, so there is not need to consider them as Umaiar, yet rather than opposite to those spirits which incarnate Eagles, Ents, and so on. If I were allowed to use invented term, I would rather call them Ulealar.<hr></blockquote>Note this third admitted unsupported assumption. No evidence of any kind anywhere. In the Úmaiar account all Balrogs are Úmaiar, in the ëalar account all Balrogs are ëalar, in the Valaquenta account there is no indication that those spirits who joined Morgoth later were either, on the average, less or more powerful than those who joined him in his earlier days.

Also since ëalar are by definition discarnate spirits, can they indeed by identified with the spirits inhabitating Eagles, Ents, talking ravens, and so forth? Are not those spirits, bound to incarnate forms, by definition fëar rather than ëalar?

Perhaps not, Tolkien did keep changing his mind on such matters. Morgoth's Ring, &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot;, Section Six, Notes, §160:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Manwë however sent Maia spirits in Eagle form to draw near Thangorodrim and keep watch on all that Melkor did and assist the Noldor in extreme cases.<hr></blockquote> Morgoth's Ring&quot;Myths Transformed&quot;, VIII, Orcs:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Huan and Sorontar could be Maiar*** emissaries of Manwë.^4 But unfortunately in The Lord of the Rings Gwaehir and Landroval are said to be descendants of Sorontar.

4**See p. 138. -- At the bottom of the page bearing the brief text V (p.*389) my father jotted down the following, entirely unconnected with the matter of the text:
Living things in Aman. As the Valar would robe themslves like the Children, many of the Maiar robed themselves like other lesser living things, as trees, flowers, beasts. (Huan.)<hr></blockquote>This obviously dates from a period when JRRT had decided that Maiar did not reproduce. But Ósanwë-Kenta, perhaps a later text, provides a possibility that eagles could be Maiar and could procreate:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hröar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a &quot;self-arraying&quot;, it may tend to approach the state of &quot;incarnation&quot;, especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). &quot;It is said that the longer and the more the same hröa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it. As raiment may soon cease to be adornment, and becomes (as is said in the tongues of both Elves and Men) a 'habit', a customary garb. Or if among Elves and Men it be worn to mitigate heat or cold, it soon makes the clad body less able to endure these things when naked&quot;. Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a &quot;spirit&quot; (that is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a hröa for the furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate without the hröa. The things that are most binding are those that in the Incarnate have to do with the life of the hröa itself, its sustenance and its propagation. Thus eating and drinking are binding, but not the delight in beauty of sound or form. Most binding is begetting or conceiving.<hr></blockquote>Again in Morgoth's Ring&quot;Myths Transformed&quot;, VIII, Orcs, JRRT considers spirits who have becomes permanently incarnate as Orcs, until death of their body. He then continues:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ****But again*** would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs.<hr></blockquote>Tolkien here seems to skipped to the problem of what happens when spirits who have become incarnate reproduce. Whence the spirits that come into the bodies of their progeny? He then he considers that possibility that Eru might create spirits/souls for Eagles descended from original Maiar-eagles, and for other descendants of Maiar who have taken on incarnate forms, but not for Orcs. Later in the same essay he considers whether such beings might indeed still be beasts with no true fëa but with increased intelligence.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The same sort of thing may be said of Huan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level*** but they still had no fëar.<hr></blockquote>Tolkien's late text &quot;Of the Ents and of the Eagles&quot; ( The War of the Jewels (HoME 11)) used in chapter 2 of the published Silmarillion is vague, probably purposely. We are just told that spirits (no indication of kind or origin) will come among the plants and animals at the time of the waking of the Children and for some time afterwards, and so there will be, for a time, some sentient animals and plants. The Eagles of Manwë are particularly mentioned. There is no indication that these spirits are all of the same kind, or whether this will be done by means of the Valar and Maiar, or by Eru alone. Possibly various different origins and methods are imagined: e.g. Eagles by Manwë as he later sent the Istari, Ents as fëar sent by Eru when the early Elves tried awakening the original dumb versions of those creatures, talking ravens, who knows? The spirits of the Ents seem to be fëar similar to those of Elves, Dwarves, and Men. The spirits of the Eagles of later generations would probably be fëar also. And it is possible that a part was played by spirits who are neither Ainu in origin nor fëa sent by Eru, being such as seem to be prevalent in the period when JRRT wrote The Book of Lost Tales and which might be still part of his cosmos.

The Elucidation's postulation of a particular class of spirits in respect to Ents and Eagles is pure speculation in actual disagreement with such texts as do mention the problem. The use of ëalar for weaker spirits only, and in particular for incarnate spirits dwelling in permanent bodies contradicts Tolkien's useage.


Two kinds of Balrogs

The point of the Elucidation is that in some cases when Tolkien says Balrog, he actually means another rank of creature of the same name. Otherwise you could not have both 1000 Balrogs appearing at one time along with Balrogs of whom &quot;3 or at most 7 ever existed&quot;. And the distinction between two Balrogs must appear in the texts we have, not be simply a late construct of JRRT which he never wrote down, or it remains an improveable possibility.

Only a single example from the entire corpus is provided which might indicate any such distinction. In the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account occurs the sentence:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.<hr></blockquote>This would appear to be a naming of the same kind of creature in both Quenya and Anglicized Sindarin ( Balrog pluralized as in English).

Yet Elucidation attempts to portray Balrogs as different from Valaraukar despite the apparent identity in the text:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Valarauka*- &quot;Mighty Demons&quot; certainly means 7 great ones, yet translation &quot;balrog&quot;, applied to those in ME, is not literal:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ÑGWAL- torment. Q ungnwale torture; nwalya- to pain, torment; nwalka cruel. N balch cruel; baul torment, cf. Bal- in Balrog or Bolrog [RUK], and Orc-name Boldog = Orc-warrior ‘Torment-slayer’ (cf. NDAK).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a “mighty”, but a “tormenting” spirits. One can apply such a term even to one's own not so pleasant neighbour, disturbing one’s sleep by night with some naughty nosiy behaviour.<hr></blockquote>There are two claims here:
****1. Valaraukar and Balrogs are different despite the apparenty identity.
****2. The meaning 'torment' is too light to be applied to a true Maia Balrog.

Both claims are wrong.

Taking the second claim first, one can indeed use the term &quot;torment&quot; lightly of anything bothersome. One can also use torture (given as the meaning of one of the Quenya descendants of the stem) in that way also. And one can use it more seriously. Tolkien does both. Lets look at some serious uses.

From The Book of Lost Tales 2, &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Yet as meed of treachery did Melko threaten Meglin with the torment of the Balrogs. Now these were demons with whips of flame and claws of steel by whom he tormented those of the Noldoli who durst withstand him in anything**- and the Eldar have called them Malkarauka.<hr></blockquote>Or from The Lord of the Rings, &quot;Many Meetings&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You would have became a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for trying to keep his Ring, if any greater torment were possible than being robbed of it and seeing it on his hand.'
...
But her brothers, Elladan and Elrohir, were out upon errantry: for they rode often far afield with the Rangers of the North, forgetting never their mother's torment in the dens of the orcs.<hr></blockquote>From &quot;The Council of Elrond&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It was taken with torment from Thráin in the dungeons of Dol Guldur. I came too late.<hr></blockquote>From &quot;The Black Gate Opens:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> And now he shall endure the slow torment of years, as long and slow as our arts in the Great Tower can contrive, and never be released, unless maybe when he is changed and broken, so that he may come to you, and you shall see what you have done.<hr></blockquote>From The Silmarillion, chapter 13:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Then the Elves smote upon the gates of Angband, and the challenge of their trumpets shook the towers of Thangorodrim; and Maedhros heard them amid his torment and cried aloud, but his voice was lost in the echoes of the stone.<hr></blockquote>From chapter 18:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.<hr></blockquote>From chapter 19:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Howling he led before them, and the walls of the valley of the Gate echoes with the clamour of his torment.<hr></blockquote>From chapter 21:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> At first his own people did not know Gwindor, who went out young and strong, and returned now seeming as one of the aged among mortal Men, because of his torments and his labours;<hr></blockquote>&quot;Spirit of torment&quot; is good enough as a name.

Now to the second case: it is wrong to claim that Balrogs is different from Valaruakar. Of the two entries in the &quot;Etymologies&quot; containing Balrog the Elucidation chooses the one that is least informative. Better is:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> RUK-*demon, Q rauko demon, malarauko (* ñgwalarauko¯, cf. ÑGWAL); N rhaug, Ba.<hr></blockquote>So at the time of &quot;The Etymologies&quot; there was Q Malarauko and N Balrog 'Demon of torment' from earlier * Ñgwalaraukó. But in the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account the Q form (in the plural) is Valaraurkar indicating the Q form no longer begins with the stem ÑGWAL- 'torment' but 'power, might'. Would the Sindarin form not also have this new etymology? From The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), &quot;Quendi and Eldar&quot;, Author's Notes, Note 28:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Some other derivatives are in Quenya: rukin 'I feel fear or horror' (construed with 'from' of the object feared); ruhta- 'terrify'; rúkima 'terrible'; rauko and aruko &lt; * grauk-) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature', especially in the compound Valarauko 'Demon of Might', applied later to the more powerful and terrible of the Maia servants of Morgoth. In Sindarin appear, for instance, raug and graug, and the compound Balrog equivalents of Q rauko, etc.); groga- 'feel terror'; gruitha 'terrify'; gorog (&lt; * guruk) 'horror'.<hr></blockquote>The word &quot;etc.&quot; in &quot;equivalents of Q rauko, etc.&quot; indicates that Sindarin Balrog has the same origin and meaning as the Quenya word. The etymology has changed for both the Quenya and Sindarin forms, the two are identified as equivalents, and the meaning is &quot;the more powerful and terrible of the Maia servants of Morgoth.&quot; This is exactly what every other definition of Balrog has given us, save that the ëala account might also allow other kinds of spirits who were not Ainu, though the description of those spirits who became Balrogs certainly indicates most were Maiar. It is interesting that the form Valarauko here ends o and not in a. I suppose someone desperate enough might claim Valarauko meaning 'Demon of Might, Balrog' is to be distinguished from Valarauka. But if so, then it is Valarauko that refers to Maiar spirits, at least when Tolkien wrote &quot;Quendi and Eldar&quot;. I see this as an unimportant change of ending.

What is worse is that even if the Quenya form and the Sindarin form in the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account were both unrelated in origin and had different literal meanings, it would prove nothing about the kind of creature referred to. For example &quot;Quendi and Eldar&quot; in The War of the Jewels provides several occurrences of cognate forms of cognates Quenya and Sindarin that have acquired dissimilar meanings and words originally unrelated that have become in meaning identical or almost identical between the two languages. The &quot;Valaquenta&quot; seems to be simply giving a Quenya name and a Sindarin name for the same beings, and the arguments in the Elucidation that things are not what they seem fail.


The offer to Húrin

The Húrin passage is interesting. Yes, Húrin is offered a post as &quot;chief of Balrogs&quot;. Perhaps it could happen, since at this period in Tolkien's work Balrogs had been created by Morgoth, and perhaps created totally obedient to him. (Of course Gothmog might still be Morgoth's son at this time, and perhaps some Balrogs had other origins) But I can well believe that if Morgoth said to his Balrogs, &quot;Obey Húrin!&quot;, they would have obeyed Húrin if he created them to always obey him. This of course is speculation. But it is equally speculation that they would not have obyed him. And the passage does not say that Húrin will be physically made into a Balrog.

I personally look at this more in the light of a similar passage in The Book of Lost Tales 2, &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> For this Meglin's reward was to be a great captaincy among the Orcs*** yet Melko proposed not in his heart to fulfil such a promise*** but Tuor and Eärendel should Melko burn, and Idril be given to Meglin's arms*** and such promises was that evil one fain to redeem.<hr></blockquote>Should words of Morgoth indeed be trusted? In Unfinished Tales, &quot;Narn i Hîn Húrin[/i] the heroic captive does not think so:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him, and offered him his choice to go wither he would, or to receive power and rank as the greatest of Morgoth's captains, if he would but reveal where Turgon had his stronghold, and aught else that he knew of the King's counsels. But Húrin the Steadfast mocked him, saying: 'Blind you are Morgoth Bauglir, and blind shall ever be, seeing only the dark. You know not what rules the hearts of men, and if you knew you could not give it. But a fool is he who accepts what Morgoth offers. You will take first the price and then withhold the promise; and I should get only death, if I told you what you ask.'<hr></blockquote>

Nothing in the poem suggest the Húrin would be physically changed, the mention of Balrogs was removed from the offer in &quot;Narn i Hîn Húrin&quot;.


The Balrogs Return

From the Elucidation:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> That explains why Balrogs, presumably destroyed in the war of Powers, are present again in the Seige of Angband ...<hr></blockquote>The &quot;word&quot; presumably gives it away. Actually that new Balrogs could be created (or self-incarnated) is something I could accept. But I don't have to for the stage of the writing when Tolkien imagined a thousand Balrogs at the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. Tolkien might also have intended that to be a thousand Balrogs of a much larger number that did survive the War of Powers. (This was a war that changed the face of Middle-earth far more than the later War of Wrath that destroyed Beleriand. There might have been a million Balrogs before it began.) Either seems to me possible and undemonstratible


Final word on Maiar origins

But all references to Balrogs' origins refer to them being originally spirits, whether as &quot;spirits&quot;, Maiar, Úmaiar, or ëalar. All Tolkien's rambling about Orc's souls and beasts and various origins for Orcs and yet never a single mention of any other source for any kind of Balrog! An example from Morgoth's Ring, &quot;Myths Transformed&quot;, VIII, Orcs:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Yes; both outside Arda and in it, before the fall of Utumno, Melkor had corrupted many spirits*** some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs.<hr></blockquote>.And in the same article:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar.<hr></blockquote>If the first sentence seems to open that door to at least another kind of spirit than Maiar, that last short sentence shuts the door again, at least at that time in Tolkien's thought. And I cannot find anywhere that his thought changed on this point after he dropped the idea that Melkor created the Balrogs. Here again, Balrogs were originally Maiar.


The War of the Powers

Bob's own posts indicate he believes the Balrogs withered and &quot;slain&quot; in the War of the Powers were the weaker sort, while the few stronger survived. I give the passage with the text Tolkien deleted in braces and the new text in angle-brackets, and the marginal note following:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Thence seeing all was lost (for that time), he sent forth {a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained} &lt;his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him&gt;, and they assailed the stand of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.

[Marginal note:]There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed<hr></blockquote>Since the host of Balrogs is shrunk now, perhaps to three, they are presumably the powerful Balrogs come to Morgoth's aid, the only ones who come. Yet the ones that are withered are supposedly a large number of weaker Balrogs. Where did these come from and what happened to the powerful Balrogs to which the note and emendations refers? The hypothesis, even if it were sustainable elsewhere, does not explain this passage at all, as least by Bob's words.

I suggest tentatively that Tolkien's rough note might be interpreted as <blockquote>Quote:<hr> There should not be supposed more than say 3 .... or at most 7 ever existed.<hr></blockquote>That is, he is reducing the Balrogs tentatively to three in this passage, then noting the maximum number of seven that ever existed. This of course means, if Balrogs cannot be re-embodied or replenished, then there are only four Balrogs during the rest of the First Age.


Conclusion

No distinction between Valaruakar and Balrogs was shown. The argument that attempted this would prove nothing even if Valaraukar and Balrogs were of different eytmological origin and meaning, which it failed to prove.

No distinction between two origins for the Balrogs was demonstrated. Only the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account can, taken alone, be interpreted either to speak either of:
*****1. the Maiar only who joined Melkor's following at two different times, or
*****2. the Maiar who joined first and other spirits of a different kind who joined later.

If the latter is true, then Balrogs might be in part of a different kind of spirit than Maiar. But no other text supports this possiblity. Other texts that treat the origin of Balrogs (after the story of their creation by Melkor has been changed) universally identify them as Maiar, either specifically so, or in the ëalar account by the history given for those spirits which makes it clear the are former Maiar. So even if there are to kinds of spirits here, which I doubt, the Balrogs are from the first group, by definition of every other source after the dropping of the story of their being Melkor's creations.

No case of any incarnate becoming a Balrog was found. A case of a promise of to make a mortal &quot;chief of Balrogs&quot; was put forward. This has usually been taken to mean a chief under Morgoth commanding Balrogs. No-one has yet suggested, to my knowledge, that the similar offer to Meglin meant that he was to be changed into an Orc.

</p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1528

Tear it up, as I expected. Alas. I loved it

Yet you should have noticed the words 'speculation' and 'intuition' in the post above. From your own post it's clear that Professor's mind on the subject changed so many times (balrogs created/corrupted, Morgoth's will imposed/not imposed, ability to recreate/no such ability, thousands/ 3 to 7) that it, well… hm, left the space for such improvisations.

Indeed, why rely only on later writings (part of those is presumably lost anyway, and noone can claim that with them was not lost the theory of two different types of balrogs ;)), if a whole lot, from the beginning to the end brings opportunity not to omitt nor the note 3 to 7, simply naming those Valaraukar, or Balrogs, and the rest lesser, or merely balrogs, nor the beautiful passages involving thousand of them dying on the battlefield. For, in the long run, all the revising done down here is a fiction, though very qualified one (for who may guess what would the thing look like if JRRT himself finished it?). My contribution is only modest in the project, not in the least due to the above named reasoning, and I myself claimed not to have a vote in the final decision, contenting myself with a role of an advisor. You are of course free to accept (if you find them useful) or reject (if they are of no use) theories provided, still more our methods seem to differ a bit – you relying precisely on textual evidence, me intuitevly filling the gaps, even sometimes I can come to contradict some of the above named textual evidence. I don’t think each of them is inferior to another.

I had a great pleasure composing those 'neobalrogizms', and spent a beautiful evening on it :D , for which I'm grateful to Bob Wehadababyitsaboy, who made it possible (and he still may be capable of providing the theory with more evidence , ability which, alas, I lack for now)

Remainig convinced in two balrog types theory, still always at your service

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 24</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> So HerenIstarion has given us a version of Bob's contstruction which Bob himself would not provide.<hr></blockquote>
Well the majority of the end conclusion came out anyway, in fact directly before your post.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I will refer to HerenIstarion's explanation of Bob Wehadababyitsaboy's theories as the Elucidation.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, H.I. added his own opinion here and there, which you acknowledge. <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> And it is possible that a part was played by spirits who are neither Ainu in origin nor fëa sent by Eru, being such as seem to be prevalent in the period when JRRT wrote The Book of Lost Tales and which might be still part of his cosmos.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, and here I think your use of 'might be' is highly discrectionary.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Yet Elucidation attempts to portray Balrogs as different from Valaraukar despite the apparent identity in the text<hr></blockquote>
For myself, the difference comes from the account of where the Note was placed into the text and of what meaning it had.
It accompanies a change in text, which is concerning the last remaining faithful servants.
Here Maia servants or Balrogs, of which there were 3 or at most 7, applied to the now faithful servants rather than the 'host' which disappears.

Concerning terminology, if I were to ask you of the Children of Eru [All inclusive, as in your examples---this can easily be replaced with Balrogs] to whom would you think I was referring? And are there differences? And how important are they?
Since they are grouped under the same category, they _must_ be the same race and {gender!} as this is the defining criteria you use, where you seem to discount the all inclusive origins of the word itself.
This is without addressing the adopted children of course.
This is the same as accepting all Ealar as Ainu [Valar or Maiar] without taking into consideration that the Author himself questions the validity of the assumption, or WHY the assumption is questioned.

Finding the meaning of the Note is the key. Applying it _universally_ to one 'species' is the problem area.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Nothing in the poem suggest the Húrin would be physically changed, the mention of Balrogs was removed from the offer in &quot;Narn i Hîn Húrin&quot;<hr></blockquote>
True, and I think I even stipulated it could well have been a lie to coerce him with _these_ treacherous gifts of weapons and unmatched mail. What treacherous gifts could Melkor give to an Ainu?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> A case of a promise of to make a mortal &quot;chief of Balrogs&quot; was put forward. This has usually been taken to mean a chief under Morgoth commanding Balrogs. No-one has yet suggested, to my knowledge, that the similar offer to Meglin meant that he was to be changed into an Orc.<hr></blockquote>
The question there was, would this by 'defintion' turn Hurin into a Balrog, even though from other papers, the ability of Melkor to affect such physical changes at this time seems vastly diminished or possibly even vanished.
If so, then 'definition' needs to be re-examined.
As for Maeglin, the same sort of 'definition' arises. Physical change was probably beyond the abilities anymore of Melkor, now tied to earthly form. But this is from already having SPENT it beforehand.
Spent on what you ask? That is the question.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Bob's own posts indicate he believes the Balrogs withered and &quot;slain&quot; in the War of the Powers were the weaker sort, while the few stronger survived.<hr></blockquote>
The assumption you believe I made concerning the Balrogs of The War of the Powers where those Balrogs were the weaker ones is incorrect. These are the original Ainu followers of Melkor.
And frankly, I don't know how Elves would have known the difference later, as these Balrogs were destroyed before the Elves could ever see them, shake their hands, and ask to melt S'mores with them.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I'm grateful to Bob Wehadababyitsaboy, who made it possible.<hr></blockquote>
Not my true intent. <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)">
Helping to solve the dilemma that stymied the progression of revision text---was.

</p>[i]

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 75</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

Bob Wehadababyitsaboy posted:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Concerning terminology, if I were to ask you of the Children of Eru [All inclusive, as in your examples---this can easily be replaced with Balrogs] to whom would you think I was referring? And are there differences? And how important are they? Since they are grouped under the same category, they _must_ be the same race and {gender!} as this is the defining criteria you use, where you seem to discount the all inclusive origins of the word itself. This is without addressing the adopted children of course.<hr></blockquote>The Eruhíni are of three kinds, Treebeard's Free People are of four, then five kinds, the Úvanimor are of many kinds. Noldor are of one kind as are Dwarves, though of seven original kindreds. We know this because of what Tolkien wrote. We also know about the single origin and kind of the Balrogs because of what Tolkien wrote. Eruhíni means what Tolkien says it means. So does Balrog. We have early accounts in which Morgoth creates the Balrogs and we have later accounts giving a different view. The later definition is our concern.

In Morgoth's Ring, &quot;Myths Transformed&quot;, VIII, Orcs, dated by CT to 1955, there is a later addendum:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar.<hr></blockquote>This seems clear and complete enough, at least in this sentence and at this time.

From 1959-60 in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), &quot;Quendi and Eldar&quot;, Author's Notes, Note 28:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Some other derivatives are in Quenya: rukin 'I feel fear or horror' (construed with 'from' of the object feared); ruhta- 'terrify'; rúkima 'terrible'; rauko and arauko &lt; *[/i]grauk-[/i]) 'a powerful, hostile, and terrible creature', especially in the compound Valarauko 'Demon of Might', applied later to the more powerful and terrible of the Maia servants of Morgoth. In Sindarin appear, for instance, raug and graug, and the compound Balrog equivalents of Q rauko, etc.); groga- 'feel terror'; gruitha 'terrify'; gorog (&lt; * guruk) 'horror'.<hr></blockquote>The word &quot;etc.&quot; in &quot;equivalents of Q rauko, etc.&quot; indicates that Sindarin forms have the same origin and meaning as the Quenya forms above. Tolkien is saving space in noting that Sindarin raug, graug and [/i]Balrog[/i] are respectively equivalents to Quenya rauko, arauko and Valarauko. The meaning of Q Valarauko S Balrog is '&quot;Demon of Might&quot;, applied later to the more powerful and terrible of the Maia servants of Morgoth'. Again, Balrogs are unequivocably Maiar, even being defined as such. Would Tolkien compose this definition if most Balrogs were not Maiar in origin?

Maiar origin of Balrogs is totally consistant with the Úmaiar account, the ëalar account, and the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account however these may be interpreted. JRRT may (or may not) have considered that some of the spirits that followed Melkor were not Maiar in origin, but he clearly stated that Balrogs (not just some Balrogs) are.

There is really no way to squeeze in Balrogs of different origin except to unnecessarily postulate it as a temporary idea that JRRT later changed. Either the texts state that Balrogs are Maiar, or they are ambiguous. But they only ambiguous if other spirits than Maiar are thought possibly to be mentioned. If not so, they also indicate the Balrogs are Maiar. None of these ambiguous texts, if interpreted to allow the presence of non-Maiar spirts, can be interpreted to indicate that any Balrogs must in origin be of these non-Maiar spirits.

Bob Wehadababyitsaboy posted:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> This is the same as accepting all Ealar as Ainu [Valar or Maiar] without taking into consideration that the Author himself questions the validity of the assumption, or WHY the assumption is questioned.<hr></blockquote>I have doubts that discarnate spirits who are not Ainur or Maiar in origin appear in later writings, but quite recognize the possiblity that JRRT did intend such. That Tom Bombadil might be such is in origin an old idea, though by the time he appears in LR he seems to have become very incarnate indeed.

All three late accounts of Melkor's power after the destruction of the lamps are unfortunately ambiguous on whether Morgoth's followers, when they become the subject of the texts, were all of Maiar origin. Tolkien does not specifically say in the Úmaiar account that all the Úmaiar were in origin Maiar, or in the ëalar account that all the ëalar who followed Morgoth were in origin Maiar, and the &quot;Valaquenta&quot; account can be interpreted to refer to non-Maiar spirits joining Morgoth later (in company perhaps with late-joining Maiar spirits). But JRRT does specifically say in other passages that Sauron and the Balrogs were Maiar, whatever may be the case with some of the other spirits who followed Morgoth. What reason to reject such statements about either Sauron or Balrogs?

There is no problem in the history of Balrogs as originally written in the &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot; and its sequel &quot;The Grey Annals&quot;. In the &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot; §18:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.<hr></blockquote>What does &quot;the last of his servants that remained&quot; mean? Perhaps it is a clumsy writing of an idea that would be better phrased as &quot;all of his servants that remained&quot; or &quot;the last of his servants&quot;. If not, then JRRT means something like the last of his servants that remained at his command, speculation warning here*** other servants being unable to come to his aid, cut off from him by the army of the Valar and their people or buried in Angband or maimed and unable to take part in combat. Indeed if &quot;the last of his servants that remained&quot; applies to &quot;Balrogs&quot; rather than &quot;host&quot;, it is almost implied that there were indeed other Balrogs who remained at Melkor's command, being held yet in reserve and who never did play a part after the single host of Balrogs he sent was destroyed and Melkor was captured before he could send more. (Speculation warning*** he saw that summoning up those he had held in reserve would do no good at this time.)

This is not just supposition. In §52:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Yet many evil things yet lingered in Middle-earth that had fled away from the wrath of the Lords of the West, or lay hidden in the deeps of the earth. For the vaults of Utumno were many, and hidden with deceit, and not all were discovered by the Valar.<hr></blockquote>

So there is no difficulty when Balrogs reappear to rescue Morgoth from the webs of Ungoliant.

And if any think the thousand Balrogs in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears seem too many to have survived, then it can be guessed that Morgoth created more in the same manner that he had created them before, whatever that was. I have no idea which solution JRRT intended, or if he noticed any problem here at all.

In the Úmaiar account revision to &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot;, Morgoth multiplies the spirits who follow him, and among them are the Balrogs. There is no problem in &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot; with Balrogs continuing to multiply, just as do Orcs. In &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot; the Children of the Valar still exist, so multiplication of Balrogs is certainly possible. (Question: are some Balrogs female?)

The note on the &quot;Annals&quot; limiting the number of Balrogs to seven at most causes difficulty only in a single later text in the Annals: the mention of a thousand Balrogs in the account of the Battle of Unnumbered Tears in &quot;Annals of Beleriand&quot;. Otherwise seven or even four Balrogs present no problem at all.

So why did JRRT not revise this text mentioning the thousand Balrogs?

This is a puzzle only if the note reducing the Balrogs to seven at most is an early one.

Otherwise the obvious answer is that Tolkien thought of the entire account of the battle which contained this text to be obsolete. He had written a new draft of the Battle of Unnumbered Tears as part of the full but never completed &quot;Narn i Chîn Húrin&quot;. That account is primarily based on &quot;The Annals of Beleriand&quot; and would in his mind largely be its replacement. The parts that differ most are given in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), &quot;The Grey Annals&quot;, Note 2, A further account of the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. In this version the thousand Balrogs are entirely omitted. The only mention of Balrogs is in the retained account of the death of Fingon where the number of Balrogs present is not given.

Similarly, corresponding parts of the Silmarillion typescripts were also mostly left unchanged throughout the Túrin story including such obsolete material as Húrin's discovery of Gondolin in the company of Haleth the Hunter who should not even exist any more. With so much other old material untouched it is no suprise that the thousand Balrogs are here also left alone. These were obsolete texts to Tolkien.

For all this material Tolkien was concentrating on new accounts in &quot;Narn i Chîn Húrin&quot; and &quot;The Wanderings of Húrin&quot;.

What need for JRRT at any time to resort to the device of two kinds of Balrogs of different origin? Where is the slightest evidence that the concept ever occurred to him?

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 26</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar.
This seems clear and complete enough, at least in this sentence and at this time.<hr></blockquote>

Are you attempting to have me enter into a debate on this?
It’ll be a long wait for you if that is your objective.

As FYI:
You would be wise to think about this quote of all Balrogs as Maiar more carefully.
I have already advised that Orc origins and Balrog origins are inescapably linked [when one changes, so does the other---always did] from beginning to end of the text history.

As for other Ealar, you might want to examine The Watchers of Cirith Ungol, Pukel-men [see The Faithful Stone], and Trolls, unless you think that ‘primitive human types’ refers to Apes who turn to stone. But then, Elves would have defined Trolls as Orcs too, so you won't get ahead there much---or will you?

I notice you also seem to be confused as to what a fea is defined as. Incarnation isn't a quantity that identifies it. Nor is it with Ealar. They can be either incarnate or not.


</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 150</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Not that I know anything whatsoever about Balrogs (except for the fact that they don't have wings! <img src=wink.gif ALT=";)"> ), or bidding them farewell, but I shall place my thoughts right here in this white box anyway!

*braids herself up, preparing for the brutal heresy that is about to escape her lips*

Perhaps the almighty J.R.R. Tolkien MADE A MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!!!

*writhes screaming on the floor for several minutes, eventually slowing down to a childish rocking motion, gasping for air*

Okay, okay. *deep breath* That's all I can bear to say in this message. *gasp* Only time will tell if I can bring myself back to post more here.

<p align=center>Every leaf a miracle ~ The woods are lovely, dark, and deep
<a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1585
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

GAL, GALAM- talk loud or incoherently. Q clamour; N glamb, glamm (*ngal, influenced by lambe [LAB]) barbarous speech; Glamhoth = Orcs. See LAM, GLAM. [The stem was changed subsequently to GYAL- and Q alme to yalme

Again can be used o define trolls as well as orcs, + as well as my noisy neighbour again in the game.

And here we also have

quendi and eldar, Appendix C. Elvish names for the Orcs:

For these shapes and the terror that they inspired the element chiefly used in the ancient tongue of the Elves appears to have been *RUKU. In all the Eldarin tongues (and, it is said, in the Avarin also) there are many derivatives of this stem, having such ancient forms as: ruk-, rauk-, uruk-, urk(u), runk-, rukut/s, besides the strengthened stem gruk-, and the elaborated guruk-, guruk.

the same stems as for the balrogs, mind you!

etymologies:

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko, gwalarauk, cf. GWAL); N rhaug, Balrog.


So far for the comments :)

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 61</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

Sorry if the frequency of my posts has somewhat declined; I've just started college, which, alas, means forcible separation from several of the HoMe books. I'll try to keep up here as much as possible, but with classes starting tomorrow it's going to be sort of tough.

Anyway, about the whole Bob/HerenIstarion suggestion:

First, to HI's most recent comment: I don't think we can really take Elvish philology too far in this direction. Just because two words come from the same root does not mean that there is any kind of fundamental connection between those two words. Moreover, the Elves themselves probably didn't learn anything about Balrog and Orc origins until they reached Valinor - a fairly late stage in their lingual development.

As to the body of the 'Elucidation' as jallanite calls it: I'm inclined to agree with jallanite; while an interesting suggestion, it simply doesn't have enough support from the texts. Keep in mind what our goals are here. We're not writing a speculative essay on Middle-earth; we're trying to establish an authoratative canon. We simply cannot pick up on this interesting but dubious interpretation and try to assert that it is THE truth.

However, while I don't agree with most of the suggestion, there is one piece that has aroused some interest in me. It occurs to me that an intermediate option between strictly following the '7' note and basically disregarding it is this: we could take it to mean that only seven Balrogs fought and were killed in the War of the Powers, though others existed that were encountered later. It's not a reading that I particularly like, but it's another option if we find that keeping the number to 7 simply can't work.

I think we need to step back from the Fall of Gondolin project a little and think again about the Principles, and what this little exercise has told us about them. Perhaps we shouldn't use the Lost Tales material as extensively as we had planned, if we can't really make the Balrog situation work.

</p>

[Gothmoga]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 17</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Ahhh the old potato, Balrogs eh? well if I may put in my two pennyworth, Balrogs are probably the greatest creation of God, the most affable and handsom loyal and fierce with a wicked sense of humour, kind to goblin imps, unless they are feeling peckish of course, they don't possess wings or so I believe, but the most important thing of all ... well they kill Elves, by the Dragon load, in fires at midnight, on roccky mountain passes anywhere they find an Elf they bbq it, which in my book is pretty cool. or hot, oh whatever.

<font color=cyan> "Name Him Not"
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Creating a Simple link</TITLE></HEAD>http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul<IMG SRC=http://www.animationcity.net/gifs/2rings.gif></A></BODY></HTML></p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1591



First, to HI's most recent comment: I don't think we can really take Elvish philology too far in this direction. Just because two words come from the same root does not mean that there is any kind of fundamental connection between those two words. Moreover, the Elves themselves probably didn't learn anything about Balrog and Orc origins until they reached Valinor - a fairly late stage in their lingual development

Ah, you hit the mark, but you made quite an opposite conclusion

That is the point - is not it natural that they called anything horrible using ruku stem? And is not it natural to suppose, that, if, and cause they learned of the origins only in Valinor, that they may have been mixing up ruku-s of different origins, lacking sufficient knowledge of later time, still more that annals represented are history of the grey elves, who have never been to Valinor at all! Hence my remark of Legolas, for whom any creature resembling fire spirit will be a balrog, (and if we take elvish philology far enough, any more or less physically strong orc can be a balrog too)


edit: license agreement - the last statement is included rhetorically, and may not be considered as a section to be teared up

Edited by: HerenIstarion at: 9/4/01 11:46:08 am

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 62</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

True, the RUK- stem probably didn't originally have any kind of special connection with the Umaiar spirits of fire; but once the Eldar learned what these spirits were, and applied the term Balrog to them (note that a &quot;balrog&quot; is not just a &quot;rog&quot; demon; it is a special type of &quot;rog&quot;, a demon of power), that term seems only to have applied to the umaiar. The Sindarin word Balrog was not coined by those ignorant of the nature of these demons; it was made from Quenya Valarauko after the return of the Noldor. Further, whoever it was that wrote the Quenta Silmarillion (Rumil or Pengolodh or whoever) certainly would have been educated as to the nature of Morgoth's servants.

Consider the word Vala. We know that this is from a primitive stem meaning &quot;power&quot; (the same that gives us bal- in balrog). We might then suppose that the word &quot;Vala&quot; would be applied to any number of beings more powerful than the Elves - it could represent any of the Ainur. But this is not the case; instead, it is used only for a small, special, class of beings, and there is no evidence anywhere for its use in any other connection. It is the same with &quot;balrog&quot;.

</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 78</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

To Bobwehadababyitsaboy:

You posted:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You would be wise to think about this quote of all Balrogs as Maiar more carefully. I have already advised that Orc origins and Balrog origins are inescapably linked [when one changes, so does the other---always did] from beginning to end of the text history.<hr></blockquote>

I advise you that Orc origins and Balrog origins are not inescapably linked.

I can also play the game of making unsupported statements.<img src=smile.gif ALT=":)">

I will say that only once is a change in their origins linked, when Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not actually create life, or wanted to make this more clear, JRRT then introduced Orcs has probably perversions of Elves and Balrogs as spirits who followed Morgoth. Before they were both made by Morgoth, no particular details being given except once in &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot; where it is first suggested &quot;that certain of the Noldoli were twisted to the evil of Melko and mingled among these Orcs, for all that race were bred by Melko of the subterranean heats and slime.&quot; Later Tolkien included Men as also part of Orc ancestry.

You posted:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I notice you also seem to be confused as to what a fea is defined as. Incarnation isn't a quantity that identifies it. Nor is it with Ealar. They can be either incarnate or not.<hr></blockquote>I don't think I am confused. In my remark on Eagles I should have said originally incarnate spirits except for a doubt as to whether fëa are not also originally discarnate, and sent by Eru into a body. Originally also has its faults.

In Morgoth's Ring, &quot;Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth&quot;, towards the end in smaller type is a glossary of terms including:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> fëa**'spirit': the particular 'spirit' belonging to and 'housed' in any one hröa of the Incarnates. It corresponds, more or less, to 'soul'; and to 'mind', when any attempt is made to distinguish between mentality, and the mental processes of the Incarnates, conditioned and limited by the co-operation of the physical organs of the hröa.<hr></blockquote>The definition continues but actually does not even mention the possibility of a fëa being discarnate or 'houseless', though of course JRRT makes much of that elsewhere. I did not intend to indicate that a fëa cannot be &quot;houseless&quot;.

For ëalar there is only one definition, that in Morgoth's Ring, &quot;The Later Quenta Silmarillion (1), Commentary on Chapter 3, 'Of the Coming of the Elves':<blockquote>Quote:<hr> These were the ( ëalar) spirits who first adhered to hin in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: there hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the Noldor in later days.
...
There is a footnote to the word ëalar in this passage:
'spirit' (not incarnate, which was fëa, S fae). ëala 'being'.<hr></blockquote>There is no other mention anywhere of ëala, pl. ëalar. Since it is here defined as 'not incarnate' I purposely and with notice speculated diffidently that if an ëala became permanently incarnate it might then have become a fëa. Strict adherence to this, the only definition we have, would actually demand that meaning. But I think that to be pressing the note too hard, especially since the particular mention of fëa also suggests, though does not definitely state, that it is an opposite term to ëala, which in turn suggests that if a fëa can become discarnate then an ëala can perhaps become incarnate.

In the Ósanwe-Kenta occurs:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Pengolodh also cites the opinion that if a &quot;spirit&quot; (that is, one of those not embodied by creation) uses a hröa for the furtherance of its personal purposes, or (still more) for the enjoyment of bodily faculties, it finds it increasingly difficult to operate without the hröa.<hr></blockquote>I tend to think that &quot;spirit&quot; in this sentence means ëala, and that ëala might be better defined as something like &quot;spirit, but one of those not embodied by creation&quot;.

But I can't prove either definition is the correct one from this single passage. Safest is perhaps to use eala only for a spirit that was not embodied by creation and is not embodied at the time we are speaking of it? Safer and more scholarly is not to use a technical term at all when its exact meaning is not ascertainable.

You posted<blockquote>Quote:<hr> As for other Ealar, you might want to examine The Watchers of Cirith Ungol, Pukel-men [see The Faithful Stone], and Trolls, unless you think that ‘primitive human types’ refers to Apes who turn to stone. But then, Elves would have defined Trolls as Orcs too, so you won't get ahead there much---or will you?<hr></blockquote>I have examined these areas many times.

On 'Primitive human types', the full passage is in Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10), &quot;Myths Transformed&quot;, IX:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ****Since Melkor could not 'create' an independent species, but had immense powers of corruption and distortion of those that came into his power, it is probable that these Orks had a mixed origin. Most of them plainly (and biologically) were corruptions of Elves (and probably later also of Men). But always among them (as special servants and spies of Melkor, and as leaders) there must have been numerous corrupted minor spirits who assumed similar bodily shapes. (These would exhibit terrifying and demonic characters.)
****The Elves would have classed the creatures called 'trolls' (in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) as Orcs*** in character and origin*** but they were larger and slower. It would seem evident that they were corruptions of primitive human types.[/blockquote]

Within the legendarium &quot;primitive&quot; should simply mean &quot;early&quot;. But &quot;human types&quot; is odd. Three very differing types of human beings appear in the legendarium and one can therefore suspect others exist that don't appear. The three types are:
***1. Normal Men, for want of a better term.
***2. Drúedain.
***3. Hobbits.

Hobbits seem to be more differentiated: Treebeard was willing to add them as a fifth element of the Free Peoples, though he almost certainly also knew about Drúedain. But he may not have been very knowledgeable about that kind of classification.

The reasons for the differences between these three kinds nowhere appear in any of Tolkien's published writing.

I could make a case that Hobbits were a cross between &quot;Normal Men&quot; and Petty-dwarves, but it would only be intellectual exercise. I don't believe that Tolkien thought that.

It does not appear that any of these three were necessarily more primitive than the other within the legendarium. Hobbits were unknown in the old stories, they came along later, but the oldest stories are almost entirely concerned with the traditions of the Eldar and then the general history of Beleriand for the First Age and such other rational creatures as came to dwell in Beleriand. For the Second Age there is almost nothing but a small amount of surviving literature from Númenor, mostly about Númenor.

In his later work Tolkien often thinks outside the legendarium, considering the Silmarillion and related stories as Númenorean legends and not altogether accurate. The Sun was actually coeval with the earth and so forth. In this context &quot;primitive human types&quot; might include various hominids. The word &quot;human&quot; doesn't allow us to go back as far as apes.

Another posibility is that JRRT actually means primitive human types of Orks, that is early forms of creatures bred from his first experimentations with humans. A difficulty with this is in the previous paragraph some Orks were only &quot;probably&quot; later corrupted from Men. How can it be &quot;evident&quot; that trolls derive from something that is only probable, not definite? This may be putting too much pressure on exact meaning and logic in a &quot;quickly written&quot; note.

In the quoted passage most Orks are corruptions of Elves, probably some of Men, and also there are among them (the Orks) spirits incarnate in Ork forms. (Such as Boldog, I assume.)

For &quot;trolls&quot; on the contrary, Tolkien claims they are the same in character and origin but &quot;it would seem evident that they are corruptions of primitive human types.&quot; But what does Tolkien mean by &quot;seem evident&quot;? What is the evidence? Does he mean their size, larger than Orks, indicates such an origin, or their appearance compared to Orks proper, which he never really gives us? Tolkien knew much more than we do and what was evident to him may not be to us.

If I were to try and combine this with other statements on trolls, I would say that Morgoth corrupted certain &quot;primitive human types&quot; (whatever that means exactly) into counterparts of the Ents, increasing their strength, making them rock hard like Ents. But sunlight turned them to stone, unlike Ents who were rock hard but had no problem with sunlight. And these trolls had little intelligence. Hence in Appendix F of LR:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In their beginning far back in the twilight of the Elder Days, there were creatures of dull and lumpish nature and had no more language than beasts. But Sauron had made use of them, teaching them what little they could learn and increasing their wits with wic<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote>Whether Tolkien would have agreed with such a combination of these disparate passages is questionable.

Of course in &quot;Myths Transformed&quot;, VIII, Tolkien questions that Eru would provide fëar for such creatures as Orcs. This actually provides a nice solution to the problem of how Eru could allow an entire kind of creature to be corrupted. Individual Elves and Men would be corrupted by Morgoth and bred to produce creatures to his liking, but their offspring would be beasts without spirits. Eventually these beasts can by training and breeding again learn to speak and to operate at a higher level, but they remain soulless beasts.

But there is no evidence that Tolkien envisioned this solution.



================================================== ==================


To Onewhitetree:

Yes, Tolkien made many casual errors here and there.

Unfortunately it is often impossible to tell where Tolkien nodded and where he intended something that is difficult to fathom.

Attempting to reconcile some of these into a coherent structure may be possible. But if the discrepencies are true errors then the resulting structure that reconciles them would, however successful, not be what Tolkien intended.

How can one judge this?

Partly it depends on how many gyrations of assumption and special interpretation of particular passages must be made to support a theory that reconciles an apparent contradiction.

And whether the result seems absurd or not.

At the moment I think the theory of two kinds of Balrogs requires far too much assumption and special interpretation compared to the theory that Tolkien changed his mind about the number of Balrogs.

That the arguments given so far fail does not indicate, of course, that other arguments might not succeed.


================================================== ==================


To HerenIstarion:

I am not sure of the point of your note on Glamhoth. Tolkien indicates it as a synonym for Orks in several places, and, as you point out, it might have other uses. And ....

In &quot;The Etymologies&quot; two separate stems are given: ÓROK- for &quot;orc, goblin&quot; and RUK- for 'demon'.

In &quot;Quendi and Eldar&quot;, Appendix D, only RUK- survives as the main stem. (Whether stems are given in form CVC or CVCV doesn't matter.) Sindarin orch derives from * urkó or * urká with affection from the final vowel opening the initial u to o, hence when the final vowel was lost and k changed to ch finally after r, we got orch.

This is a good example of why one can't use etymology to determine meaning.

The following is explained clearly in the article.

Orch was applied in Sindarin as the particular name of the kind of creature Tolkien calls &quot;orc&quot; or &quot;goblin&quot; in English, but in Quenya of course this did not happen because the there were no such beings in Valinor. So Q urko remains &quot;vague in meaning, referring to anything that caused fear to the Elves, any dubious shape or shadow, or prowling creature&quot;.

Upon the return of the Noldor to Beleriand they recognized that their word urko corresponded to the more general S urug[/i] in meaning, but used it in any case for orch 'orc, goblin'. But they also coined a particular new form orco as an adaptation of S orch for the precise meaning when required.

For the same people having unrelated names in different languages see Q Elda and S Edhel, both the common term for Elf in their respective languages and generally equivalent. But Elda was not held to properly include the Avari, while Edhel did so. Q Elda was an adjectival form meaning &quot;connected with the stars&quot; while S Edhil comes from *edeló 'one who goes, traveller, migrant'. The Q cognate of Edhil was Eldo considered only an archaic variant of Elda. The S cognate of Elda was ell- &quot;only use in the m. and f. forms Ellon, Elleth elf-man, elf-woman; the class plural El(d)rim; and final -el, pl. -il, in some old compounds&quot;.

Here then are two words of different origin that have come to have almost the same meaning as far as naming the same people.

So oddly enough, Q Elda which was held to exclude the Avari derives from a word which included all Elves, while S Edhel which original meant only those who went on the journey has been expanded in meaning to include those that did not. This is what Tolkien claims, not my interpretation.

Using etymology alone for meaning is dangerous.

Nice only a few hundred years back meant 'foolish'.

Corn means primary 'grain' in British English (primarily 'wheat' in England and 'oats' in Scotland), but in North American English speech it means maize and nothing but that, often to the shock of a North American who has been mis-reading works written by British authors, or has assumed that cobs of corn are found in the Bible because of the KJV appearence of corn in the story of Joseph.

Tolkien's languages are full of such purposeful constructions in their invented history so the meaning must be determined mainly be context and JRRT's definitions, not by etymology. Etymology helps on occasion, often very much so, but the context is primary. As it is in decyphering unkown words in any real language.

From LR, Appendix F:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Hobbit was the name usually applied by the Shire-folk to all their kind. Men called them Halflings and the Elves [/i]Periannath[/i]. The origin of the word hobbit was by most forgotten. It seems, however, to have been at first a name given to the Harfoots by the Fallohides and Stoors, and to be a worn-down form of a word prserved more fully in Rohan: holbytla 'hole-builder'.<hr></blockquote>Would it be now proper to say that any peoples dwelling in underground tunnels can be called hobbits, as say Men living in caves, or Orcs, or even animals such as foxes? Of course not. Would it be proper to say that actually only the Harfoots are real hobbits? Of course not. Hobbit came to mean what Men called halfling (a name those who were named halflings did not particularly like) and that was now its meaning regardless of what it once may have meant. Hobbits who live above ground and don't build holes are still Hobbits.

Of course Gandalf is a little more precise when speaking of Gollum:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, ....<hr></blockquote>The precision is because in some ways it is anachronistic to call Gollum a hobbit, just as it would be anachronistic to refer to 6th century mainland Jutes as English, because some of their relatives had bcome English. From Unfinished Tales, &quot;The Hunt for the Ring&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Gollum would not know the term 'Hobbit', which was local and not a universal Westron word.<hr></blockquote>You can't use the etymological meaning of names applied to kinds of peoples to prove much of anything as to whether they are identical or different.


----------------------------------------------


To Aiwendil:

In my normal, very sceptical way, I would just add that we don't know when or by whom Valaruako/ Balrog was coined or its original meaning.

It might have originally meant any great demonic being, and later become restricted to the firey creatures with whips and claws that Tolkien calls Balrogs in his legendarium, or might have been such from the first.

We don't know when the word originated. A proto-form * Balaraukó might have existed before or been created during the Great Journey and produced descendants in both Quenya and Sindarin with the same meaning.

The name might have been, as you suggest, coined by the Noldor and then adapted into Sindarin, or perhaps only half translated, as with some of the names Tolkien discusses in the back matter to &quot;The Shibboleth of Fëanor&quot;.

It might have been of Sindarin coinage:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> And ere long the evil creatures came even to Beleriand, over passes in the mountains, or up from the south through the dark forests. Wolves there were, or creatures that walk in wolf-shapes, and other fell beings of shadow;<hr></blockquote>. The Noldor would then have adapted it to Quenya.

We don't know what exact meaning it would have had in Sindarin. In &quot;The Etymoglogies&quot; BAL- means &quot;power&quot; and there are a number of Noldorin (which in the later legendarium would be Sindarin) forms, eg. Bala and Balano for Vala and Ballannor for Q Valinor.

But later JRRT appears to have removed these forms. From Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, letter 347, written in 1972:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Orbelain is certainly a case of 'phonological' translation (of which the Noldor were quite capable), since Valanya (adj.) must be from older * Balania which would &gt; S. * Belain, but no such form existed in S.<hr></blockquote>An alternate Sindarin name for the Day of the Valar, the Day of the Powers, was Rodyn which might be the word used in Sindarin for the Valar, or might be a form derived therefrom.

So did the element bal- even exist in later Sindarin, except in old names such as the Island of Balar? In the &quot;Etymologies&quot; we have two different stems, BAL- 'power' and ÑGWAL- 'torment' which both by normal change would be bal- in Sindarin. If both survived they might have coalesced to mean 'powerful and tormenting'. Or one may have disappeared in Sindarin, or both. The collision of these forms may be why Tolkien later decided that the Valar would no longer be the Belain in Sindarin.

Another question is whether the Noldor at a late date would use the stem Val- in a construction describing such horrible demons. In &quot;Quendi and Eldar&quot;, Notes on the language of the Valar, Pengolodh explains:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Thus we see that vala is no longer used of any power or authority less than that of the Valar themselves. One may say A¯ vala Manwe! &quot;may Manwe order it!&quot;; or Valar valuvar &quot;the will of the Valar be done&quot;;<hr></blockquote>This might suggest that the form Valarauko was of old coinage, from before the stem val- became so restricted in Quenya useage. That a story of the destruction of Balrogs by Manwë just previous to the Morgoth's capture was remembered might also indicate that the word was of old origin.

I present this only as speculation, with the probably vain hope that someone might be able to shed some more light on this very unimportant matter or point out anything I might have missed.

</p>

[obloquy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 65</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

This discussion is absolutely fascinating. Bravo, all involved.

</p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1607


Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar.
This seems clear and complete enough, at least in this sentence and at this time.

Who's Boldog, I wonders, who's Boldog? :rolleyes:

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 697</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

Aiwendil posted:As to the body of the 'Elucidation' as jallanite calls it: I'm inclined to agree with jallanite; while an
interesting suggestion, it simply doesn't have enough support from the texts. Keep in mind what
our goals are here. We're not writing a speculative essay on Middle-earth; we're trying to
establish an authoratative canon. We simply cannot pick up on this interesting but dubious
interpretation and try to assert that it is THE truth.

lindil: agreed

Aiwendil posted:I think we need to step back from the Fall of Gondolin project
a little and think again about the Principles, and what this
little exercise has told us about them.
very much agreed.
Although we are it seems relativly close to having jallanite's draft version and all encouragement should be given to seeing it conclude.

then a look at the principles and a look at just what we want our translations from the elvish to look like.
i.e. are we trying to produce a version that has a maximum chance of passing CRRT's muster?
If so [and i think that is a valid consideration] qanything other than the slightest editorializing will have to go.
Perhaps much less than we wish of FoG will be usable.

lindil



</p>[i]

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 892</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Many Many Balrogs

Aha! This is just a point I've been meaning to post on for days. First let me say that I, too, have found this discussion to be quite fascinating! Now on to my point:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think we need to step back from the Fall of Gondolin project
a little and think again about the Principles, and what this
little exercise has told us about them.<hr></blockquote>This exercise has served as a fine exhibit for the opinion I was trying (rather unsuccessfully) to articulate in the Principles of Editing The Silmarillion thread. During those discussions, jallanite supposed that what I was advocating was...<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ...a fully fan-fictionalized expansion of the summarized material, including, for example, full details of Eärendil's voyage and the War of Wrath.<hr></blockquote>I didn't bother to contradict him then because I didn't have a good concrete example of a principle that I was arguing in the abstract.

But here's a fine example! As a bystander, I'd favor something along the lines of jallanite's experimental revision -- especially when the alternative is losing the details of the expanded version altogether. Not a completely fan-fictionalized version, but one that reconciles conflicting texts even though it may have to push the envelope of so-called scholarly editing to do so.

One can easily see how trying to follow very austere and strictly scholarly principles of editing could lead to a version that is much the same as the published Sil -- whole detailed sections of the legends thrown out on principle in favor of summaries, because including the detailed texts would require a little creative revision.

Frankly, shooting for a goal of producing a document that would pass CRT's muster seems like an impractical (and even undesirable) goal for a list of reasons too long to mention. (When I heard that he keeps a wild boar in his garden to discourage over-zealous fans, I didn't think much of it -- until I saw Hannibal!)

Anyway, my humble two cents, as always, to be considered or discarded as you please.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000005>Mister Underhill</A> at: 9/12/01 9:31:06 am

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 63</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Mr. Underhill: As a bystander, I'd favor something along the lines of jallanite's experimental revision -- especially when the alternative is losing the details of the expanded version altogether. Not a completely fan-fictionalized version, but one that reconciles conflicting texts even though it may have to push the envelope of so-called scholarly editing to do so.

Aiwendil: I still think that to do this would be to completely redefine the project. Our goal is the creation of a canon Silmarillion; that is, one that not only conforms to Tolkien's latest workable ideas, but one that in essence defines the &quot;true&quot; story of events in Arda (I'm leaving aside for a moment here the question of actual history vs. Numenorean legend). What we want is a text that lays down the full extent of the canon as reconstructed using our principles. We are not, as I have pointed out before, trying to create a work of any literary merit. Even if we go through the painstaking process of making the style more uniform, we'll still have the inescapable problem of proportion: a reader who spends hundreds of pages on Turin and Tuor will no doubt be very disappointed to find the whole story of Earendil a mere 20 page summary!

I also like jallanite's changes from a literary perspective, but I do not think I can agree with them from a canonical perspective.

Mr. Underhill: One can easily see how trying to follow very austere and strictly scholarly principals of editing could lead to a version that is much the same as the published Sil -- whole detailed sections of the legends thrown out on principal in favor of summaries, because including the detailed texts would require a little creative revision.

That's a good point, and worth consideration, I think. How is this project different from CRT's creation of the '77? I think there are really two main differences:

1. CRT's goal was to create a veritable Quenta Silmarillion - to create that document which has variously been attributed to Pengolodh, Aelfwine, and the Numenoreans; our goal, on the other hand, is not to reconstruct this particular document, but to construct a canonical history, including sources that would not have been used in the Quenta Silmarillion.

2. The point more relevant to the present discussion: CRT adhered very strictly to the writings of his father, as he could best interpret them at the time, even to the point of excluding material in which there was any possibility of contradiction. Our principles here are slightly less restricting.

Obviously, the point in question is number two; Mr. Underhill has suggested that if we tighten our principles too much, the second difference will cease to exist, and we will in fact have the '77. The first difference will remain, however; while CRT excluded the Narn and the later Tuor, and never could have considered using FG, we can try and are trying to include those.

Mr. Underhill: Frankly, shooting for a goal of producing a document that would pass CRRT's muster seems like an impractical (and even undesirable) goal for a list of reasons too long to mention. (When I heard that he keeps a wild boar in his garden to discourage over-zealous fans, I didn't think much of it -- until I saw Hannibal!)

Aiwendil: I agree. There is no way this project could ever possibly be approved of by CRT. In fact, I get the impression that he no longer approves of his own '77.




</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 895</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Aiwendil posted:

Our goal is the creation of a canon Silmarillion; that is, one that not only conforms to Tolkien's latest workable ideas, but one that in essence defines the &quot;true&quot; story of events in Arda (I'm leaving aside for a moment here the question of actual history vs. Numenorean legend). <hr></blockquote>I defer, as always, to the opinions of the members who are doing the work, but perhaps my point of view is now a bit clearer.


</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 27</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> but perhaps my point of view is now a bit clearer.<hr></blockquote>
As is now mine, from ages ago .

I argued _then_ that anything other than what would be an equivalent of a Tale of Years [or truncated Annals if you like] is the ONLY thing that would approach 'canon'.

But... the project [rightly I think] decided to create a 'Revised' Sil [an animal of a different species]. I'm not sure when the 'canon' Sil issue crept back in, but it's a nasty monster --- who will bite you deeply if you look at it too closely.

</p>[i]

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 65</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<<But... the project [rightly I think] decided to create a 'Revised' Sil [an animal of a different species]. I'm not sure when the 'canon' Sil issue crept back in, but it's a nasty monster --- who will bite you deeply if you look at it too closely.>>

As far as I knew when I came across this project, the goal was to create a canon Silmarillion, not merely a revised one. I imagine that the goal has gone through a lot of changes, however, some obvious and some subtle. I also have the feeling that no two people quite completely agree on what that goal is. It seems that every time the issue of our ultimate objective comes up, people are at odds.

Here's how I see it: Our objective is really twofold, though in practice both parts are accomplished at once. First, we are deciding on a canonical sequence of events for the Silmarillion. Second, we are compiling a narrative that represents this canonical sequence of event.

On the surface, it looks like step 1 is some sort of Tale of Years or Annals thing, and step 2 is a Quenta Silmarillion. But in practice, step 1 is the same as step 2, because it is the texts that define the canon. Or, to put it another way, since we know that what we decide is canon in step 1 will have to be represented by a narrative in step 2, and because we restrict ourselves to using JRRT's text, the canon we come up with in step 1 has to be exactly analogous to the text we're using in step 2. That's why we cannot do a Myths Transformed Silmarillion - because there would be no texts to support our canon.

There is, I think, a conflict in this project between the purely canonical side and the purely literary side. Some people want to let aesthetics play a larger role, and produce something of literary merit that would be enjoyable to new readers. Others want to strictly follow the principles, and ignore whatever difficult questions of style and aesthetics crop up. I think that in a way each of us is torn between these two. Having said that, I have to admit that I tend to lean toward the second option. The first would of course be more of a 'revised' Silmarillion and the second a 'canon' Silmarilion.

Here's my case for the latter: First, it will be much easier to accomplish as a group than would a revised Silmarillion. If we relax our application of the principles, more and more grey areas will appear. As anyone who has followed these discussions knows, we already have a tendency to endlessly debate disputed points. With personal aesthetics playing a larger role, it would be quite difficult to agree upon anything.

Second: In the long run, I think it would be more worthwhile to create a canon Silmarillion. As I said in an earlier thread:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I don't see this project as an isolated effort that will end when we are done; I hope rather that it is one of the first steps toward a new interpretation of the Silmarillion. With all the constituent texts of the Silmarillion now available, it's possible for us to view it and use it in a multitude of ways. I think that trying to establish a canon version as we are doing here is a good start (of course, no single version can ever be considered authoratative), but I also think there's room for other versions.<hr></blockquote>

This canon Silmarillion might, I hope, be the basis for other projects, group or solo, including more literary and readable versions.

Third: Under our current principles, we cannot produce a work of much literary value. We are constrained to using only JRRT's texts and basically not introducing anything of our own. Thus, for instance, we have style discrepancies in the Fall of Gondolin, we have the great problem of proportion between the Narn/Wanderings of Hurin/Fall of Gondolin (taking up well over a hundred pages) and the brief "Of the Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath". I've made this point several times:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If we were to use only the fullest accounts written by JRRT, we would end up with a book that looked something like this: about 150 pages on the elves in Aman and the darkening of Valinor, maybe another 100 on the first few centuries of the war, including Beren and Luthien, then about another 150 pages on Turin, followed by 30 pages of a detailed narrative on Hurin, and then about 20 pages of quick summary for an ending. Clearly these are not the proportions that Tolkien envisioned! Nor would it make for very good reading; the ending in particular, I think, would be disappointing (after 180 pages of the Turin saga leading to . . . nothing?). Casual readers would be disgusted, and true Tolkien fans would rather read HoME.<hr></blockquote>

So, for now, I think we have to stick with the canon idea. Perhaps we should have more of a discussion on this though, as I do consitently get the feeling that no one quite agrees on it.







</p>

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Aiwendil]

Balrog Solutions

In preparation for a possible poll on this subject, I think perhaps we should reopen some discussion on this thread. As I see it, we have the following possibilities with regard to Balrogs in the Fall of Gondolin:

1. Balrogs a thousand

Keep every single Balrog in the old Tale. They are still killed by the dozen by the Noldor.

Pros: This minimizes the changes we would make to JRRT's actual text.

Cons: A number of sources strongly suggest that Balrogs were later considered both more powerful and less numerous. In LotR, the appearance of one is quite dramatic; it is, according to Gandalf, a foe beyond any of the company save himself. Late discussions of Glorfindel suggest that his slaying of a Balrog was an extremely heroic act. A late note to the Annals of Aman proposes that only '3 or at most 7' ever existed.

2. Ambiguity: CRT's idea

Cut down on the number of Balrogs in the Tale as much as possible, but do not insist that there must only be seven. Several Balrogs can be assumed to have died here, and Rog can safely kill at least one.

Pros: This allows us to follow the trend of JRRT's later Balrog ideas without forcing us to cut out major portions of the tale or to be extremely specific about where each of the Balrogs was. There is some precedent for this, as it is the option that CRT went with in the '77. The late note indicating seven can be discounted as a projected change.

Cons: There may not be enough justification for completely disregarding the '7' note. This half-acceptance of the later Balrog concept is nowhere suggested in JRRT's writings.

3. The Elucidation

Assume that there are three or seven powerful Maiar Balrogs, and an ambiguous number of lesser Balrogs, either created by Morgoth or some lesser form of Maiar, possibly Boldog-types.

Pros: We would nominally be following the late note, but would be able to keep most if not all of the Balrogs in the Lost Tales version.

Cons: A distinction between two types of Balrogs is nowhere suggested by JRRT. Later sources indicate that Morgoth was incapable of creating new life. The Boldog passage is speculative and does not give us the authority to convert Balrogs into Boldogs.

4. Seven surviving, ambiguous Balrogs

Assume that there were originally more than seven Balrogs, but that only seven survived the Battle of the Powers. Cut out portions of the Fall of Gondolin that would require us to be precise about where each Balrog was, and whether any more than two died.

Pros: This takes into account the late '7' note to an extent. It does not contradict the Annals of Aman account of the Battle of the Powers. Cutting out sections of the Fall of Gondolin allows us to be ambiguous about what each Balrog was doing.

Cons: This does not follow the late note to the letter; the note says that no more than 7 'ever existed'. Significant portions of the Tale would be lost.

5. Seven surviving, non-ambiguous Balrogs

Assume that there were originally more than seven Balrogs, but that only seven survived the Battle of the Powers. Follow Jallanite's proposed revisions that cut the number of Balrogs in the Fall of Gondolin down to 7.

Pros: This takes into account the late '7' note to an extent. It does not contradict the Annals of Aman account of the Battle of the Powers. It retains most of the Tale.

Cons: This does not follow the late note to the letter; the note says that no more than 7 'ever existed'. It may not be justified for us to rewrite the Tale with only 7 Balrogs, since that would require us to provide made up details about where each Balrog was and how many died.

6. Seven ambiguous Balrogs

Only seven Balrogs ever existed. Assume that the Annals of Aman would have been rewritten so that no Balrogs were killed in the Battle of the Powers. Cut out portions of the Fall of Gondolin that would require us to be precise about where each Balrog was, and whether any more than two died.

Pros: Follows the late '7' note. Cutting out sections of the Fall of Gondolin allows us to be ambiguous about what each Balrog was doing.

Cons: Contradicts the latest account of the Battle of the Powers. It is hard to believe that no Balrogs were killed then. Significant portions of the Tale would be lost.

7. Seven non-ambiguous Balrogs

Only seven Balrogs ever existed. Assume that the Annals of Aman would have been rewritten so that no Balrogs were killed in the Battle of the Powers. Follow Jallanite's proposed revisions that cut the number of Balrogs in the Fall of Gondolin down to 7.

Pros: Follows the late '7' note. Retains most of the Tale.

Cons: Contradicts the latest account of the Battle of the Powers. It is hard to believe that no Balrogs were killed then. It may not be justified for us to rewrite the Tale with only 7 Balrogs, since that would require us to provide made up details about where each Balrog was and how many died.

Hmm . . . seven Balrog solutions to match seven Balrogs? Well, those are the solutions that have been presented so far, each deeply flawed in some way. If anyone can think of any more possibilities, post them and, I suppose, we'll add them to the poll. Note that I did not adress the question of re-embodiment; a re-embodiment solution would fall under no. 6 or 7.

[jallanite]

More Horrible Possibilities:

My current thoughts on that most problem-causing of sentences added by JRRT to the margin of a revision removing the word "host" in respect to Balrogs who came to Melkor's aid: There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.As as has been regularly pointed out it is almost impossible to accept 3 as a credible number for all Balrogs that ever existed yet Tolkien uses it. I therefore believe it almost certainly must apply only to the Balrogs slain in the final battle against Melkor at Udûn, that is, as I elsewhere posted, Tolkien meant: There should not be supposed more than say 3 [who came here to Melkor's defense at this time and place] -- or at most 7 ever existed.It would be wrong to remove any mention of the slaying of Balrogs from this passage and yet keep this dependant note limiting the total number of Balrogs to seven.

Accordingly, 3 Balrogs slain in the War of Wrath, leaving only 4 of which one is Durin's Bane. It seems unlikely that all but Durin's Bane would be killed at Gondolin, accordingly, in this scenerio, only Gothmog and the Balrog slain by Glorfindel would be slain at Gondolin. Rog and his troops must fall before Orks.

But there is a further change found in The Peoples of Middle-earh (HoME 12), chapter XIII, "Last Writings", Glorfindel. Tolkien writes of Glorfindel: ... a chieftain of Gondolin, who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a Balrog [> Demon], whom he slew at the cost of his own life.Then later: ... Glorfindel had sacrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim,^10 and so enabling Tuor and Idril daughter to Turgon ....

10 Is the replacement of Balrog by Demon and the use of Demon instead of Balrog in the other two mentions of the battle significant? Is it possible that Glorfindel is no longer fighting a Balrog but some other kind of Demon? What other reason might Tolkien have for using Demon instead of Balrog] in three places, the first by emendation?

So we have a scenerio in which we replace most of the mentions of Balrogs in the story of the fall of Gondolin by Demons.

This does not seem to me satisfactory either because if JRRT had made such a change he would probably have made these new lesser Demons distinct in form and action from the Balrogs, the greatest of the Demons. We cannot.

This partly parallels Bob's suggestion of two kinds of Balrogs, but without any suggesting that Tolkien envisioned two levels of beings who were both named Balrogs or adding any complication of two different origins for these different kinds of beings.

If this supposition is correct, then Tolkien would have revised "The Fall of Gondolin" to include hosts of Demons, of whom the greatest are those called the Balrogs, of whom only four would have then existed. Gothmog would perhaps have still been slain at that time by falling into the Fountain of the King when knocked off balance by Ecthelion.

In this scenerio Glorfindel would then have slain a Demon who was "like a Balrog". Three Balrogs would have survived, two slain in the War of Wrath and one fleeing to hide under Caradhras.

Other variants are also possible, in which some of the original Balrogs become lesser Demons and some are replaced by Orks.

In Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10), Myths Transformed, VIII, Orcs, JRRT writes of embodied Orks: ... but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force.Here "demon-form" appears to be a lower kind of "spirit-state". Possibly what is envisioned is a body of a more subtle kind. Since slaying a spirit embodied in an Ork ought free the spirt embodied, yet JRRT considers that spirit cannot return to "spirit-state", here "spirit-state" seems to refer to the original powerful "spirit-state" proper to an eäla.

Accordingly we have four levels of power: The original "spirit-state" where the ëala can assume various bodily forms. "Demon-form" where the ëala may assume only one particular kind of body. Note that Sauron, after the destruction of his body in the downfall of Númenor was only able to assume a hideous form. Fully incarnate as and dependant on a fully physical body. Ghost form as a houseless spirit dependant on a physical body but lacking one and unable to create one.This does raise further questions. For example, since Sauron is able to re-embodied himself when forced to relinquish his current body by Huan, does this mean that he, and possibly other followers of Morgoth, are less tied to physical form than was Morgoth at that time? Fortunately, praise Eru, such conundrums do not have to be solved for any writing of The Silmarillion that I can see.

[Aiwendil]

The more I think about the various possible solutions, the less I like each. How ironic that the problems which JRRT could easily have cleared up by writing a single sentence or note somewhere are the ones that cause us the most difficulty, while the things that bothered him so much (round vs. flat earth, the origin of Orcs) seem to trouble us little!

I think now that them more we analyze every sentence, the more likely we are to come up with a completely unsatisfactory solution. For example, we could interperet the note as Jallanite proposes, and insist that three were slain in the Battle of the Powers, leaving four for the later wars. But we have no real hard evidence that such a solution is correct; insisting that it is is therefore unjustified. The change of Balrog to Demon is indeed interesting, and I agree that the suggested implication is possible. Or perhaps there is another explanation for the change.

As I think now, we have only two real possible solutions: to follow CRT and disregard the '7' note, or to be extremely ambiguous throughout the FoG. I lean toward the latter. This is not a fan-fictionalized Silmarillion. We are under no compulsion to use all of the old Tale.

We may be able to retain an ambiguous (but possibly 7 or 4) number of Balrogs while keeping more of the Tale than I had previously thought. What if we alter some of the mentions of Balrogs to more ambiguous words like 'Demon' or 'monster'? The latter is I think an excellent generic word.

Or, if many are unwilling to cut out any of the Tale: suppose we write from the viewpoint of a later scribe who is endeavouring to reconstruct a true account of events. It would then be perfectly reasonable to insert an editorial comment here or there explaining that there are varying versions of the legend, and that the number of actual Balrogs at the Fall of Gondolin is unknown. This is perhaps the most realistic option.

[lindil]

Aiwendil:Even if we go through the painstaking process of making the style more uniform,
we'll still have the inescapable problem of proportion: a reader who spends hundreds of pages
on Turin and Tuor will no doubt be very disappointed to find the whole story of Earendil a
mere 20 page summary!

lindil: I have recently come to consider this issue from within the writings themselves. We have
almost no info on earendil and especially the War of Wrath, because much of what would be
known about it passed over Sea w/ those who fought in it. i.e. not the noldor in
beleriand./Eriador. There would have been far less time to compose something like a Narn or
Fall of gondolin, before the departure over the sea. So a compressed version makes a certain
sense. This could be part of the reason that Bilbo resorts to creating his version of Earendil's
story. maybe he could not get a full acount in Rivendell [due to ignorance or secrecy] and so
was gently chiding his host[s] Aragorn we read was not impressed.

any way it may be inescapable that we return to the principles of revision issue/ thread and try and reach as much consensus as possible before making balrog and dragon decisions.

or we can [probably better for momentum] continue to operate peicemeal and revise FoG again [!] after all/most else has been completed.

I think perhaps 2 versions of the project can exist side by side, a 'text ' version w/ no literary accomadation only updating of names anmd deletion of contradictions/obsolete's and then using that as a base have a literary version w/ either editorial glosses such as " this tale of the battle survives from the ancient 'Fall of Gondolin' preserved even in Bilbo's/Aelfwine's day in an older style of the Elf-tounge'

As for the balrog question ... it seems we have more peices to the puzzle of orc/balrog/baldog/demon puzzle than I realized. Yet there is still the clincher to my mind missing. no text in which this occurs just a series of speculations.

it seems replacing balrog w/ demon in Glorfindel's fall is there, but it feels wrong, but then again it is 3:36 am in Ca. so good noght for now.

Good to see your voice Jallanite.


lindil

[Aiwendil]

lindil: We have almost no info on earendil and especially the War of Wrath, because much of what would be known about it passed over Sea w/ those who fought in it. i.e. not the noldor in beleriand./Eriador. There would have been far less time to compose something like a Narn or Fall of gondolin, before the departure over the sea. So a compressed version makes a certain
sense. This could be part of the reason that Bilbo resorts to creating his version of Earendil's story. maybe he could not get a full acount in Rivendell [due to ignorance or secrecy] and so was gently chiding his host[s] Aragorn we read was not impressed.

Aiwendil: Interesting thought. But all indications are that JRRT considered the tale of Earendil part of the Atanatarion, the great tales of the fathers of men from the first age. In Myths Transformed he breaks the later stories down into the Narn Beren ion Barahir and the Narn e mbar Hador; and he divides the latter into Narn i Chin Hurin and Narn en El. He seems to consider these the longer versions of the stories told in brief in the Quenta Silmarillion. I think it's unlikely that he intended the Earendil story to be disproportionately shorter than the others. Not that this is such an important point to decide right now.

Ambiguous Balrogs

Looking back over jallanite's proposed changes recently I was moved to see how much rewriting would be required to make the number of Balrogs as ambiguous as possible (though still possibly 7), while cutting as little of the tale as possible. My idea has been to change mentions of 'Balrogs' to more ambiguous terms such as 'demons' or 'monsters' - both terms that can be understood to include Balrogs, Boldogs, or a variety of other creatures. Here's my attempt - I'll go through each of jallanite's emendations and counter-emend them:

FG-B01: Balrogs on the dragons of flame.
jallanite:
... and upon them rode the Balrogs {in hundreds};

Aiwendil:
... and {upon} with them {rode} came the Balrogs {in hundreds};

Eliminates reference to Balrogs riding dragons. These Balrogs may or may not be capable of flight. Also, if we change the mechanical dragons to real ones, they may no longer serve as transport.

FG-B02: Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.
jallanite:
... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} one of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents {of iron[?]} and thence loosed unceasingly from {their} his bow{s and slings} till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.

I can find nothiing better to do with this passage, unless we decide to cut out Rog's slaying of a Balrog (which we may very well have to do.)

FG-B03: Rog's men attack
jallanite:
... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those} that Balrog{s} and smote {them} him grievously, for all {they} he had whip{s} of flame and claws of steel, and {were} was in stature very great. They battered {them} him into nought, {or} and catching at {their} his whip{s} wielded {these} it against {them} him that they tore {them} him even as {they} he had aftoretime torn the [Elves]; and {the number of Balrogs} that this Balrog perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of M[orgoth], for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.
Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons that were about the city and ordered them thus: {a number} two made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater {company} part rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.

Aiwendil:
... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those} that Balrog{s} and smote {them} him grievously, for all {they} he had whip{s} of flame and claws of steel, and {were} was in stature very great. They battered {them} him into nought, {or} and catching at {their} his whip{s} wielded {these} it against {them} him that they tore {them} him even as {they} he had aftoretime torn the [Elves]; and {the number of Balrogs} that this Balrog perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of M[orgoth], for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.
Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons and monsters that were about the city and ordered them thus: a number made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater company rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.

This leaves the Rog situation as it was; I'll discuss this later. My (risky) addition to the second paragraph, I think, nicely sidesteps the question of Balrog numbers. I wonder if it is justified.

FG-B03.5 Rog's slaughter
{Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done amid the Balrogs, because of tose demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.}
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents of bronze and with great feet for trampling climbed slowly over those of iron, and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride} come {upon} with the dragons of flame . . .

I doubt that the first sentence should be deleted, but I can at the moment think of nothing better. At any rate, Rog, whether he kills a Balrog or not, cannot be said to have done slaughter amid them. The change in the second paragraph eliminates Balrogs riding on dragons.

FG-B04: Entrance into the city
jallanite:
... and behind comes a creature of fire and a Balrog{s} upon it.

Aiwendil:
... and behind comes a creature of fire and Balrogs and monsters with it.

It may seem odd to restore the Balrogs plural. But jallanite's original change here was, I think, designed not to reduce the number of Balrogs in the scene, but to limit the dragons to one Balrog each. If, as I suggest, we eliminate the dragon-riders altogether, the ‘s' on the end of ‘Balrogs' can stand. My ‘and monsters' is dubious, but follows the trend of this proposed revision. I don't think there's any problem with dropping it, though - there's no reason, even if there were only four Balrogs, that not more than one could have been in the square.

FG-B05: Ecthelion against the Balrogs
jallanite:
Of these demons of power Ecthelion {slew} drove back three, for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed.

Aiwendil:
{Of these demons of power Ecthelion slew three} And he drove them back, for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed.

This (rather innocuous looking) bit is quite troublesome. My proposal is probably not justified, though I think would work well. Jallanite's proposal is, of course, good; but the mention of ‘three', as innocent as it looks, says things about how many Balrogs there are and aren't.

FG-B06: The Great Market
jallanite:
... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares ....
or
... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares ....

Aiwendil:
Go with jallanite's first proposal or:
... where a force of Orcs {led by Balrogs} and monsters came on them at unawares

Though I get the feeling I'm stretching ‘monsters' a bit by now.

FG-B07: To the Square of the King
jallanite:
But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their forces, and seven dragons of fire are come with Or[k]s about them and a Balrog{s} upon one of them down all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the Square of the King.

Aiwendil:
But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their forces, and seven dragons of fire are come with Or[k]s a Balrog about them {and Balrogs upon them} down all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the Square of the King.

This Balrog must be kept, and must be Gothmog, as he appears in the next paragraph. I have eliminated the dragon-riding.

FG-B08: The king and his guard
jallanite:
... the royal house laid on and the king came down in splendour among them and hewed with them, that they swept again much of the square, {and of the Balrogs slew even two score,} which was a great prowess indeed:

This can stand.

Not nearly as difficult as I had imagined. Of course, the question here is how far my ‘monsters' can be stretched. In any case in the tale where an individual Balrog is singled out, ‘monster' fails. For, though the term might cover Balrogs, Boldogs, trolls, or whatnot, it obviously is against our principles to state that there are Boldogs or trolls, for instance. Nonetheless, I think we can get away with it. Is there perhaps a light at the end of the Balrog-filled tunnel?

As for Rog: This is probably the most problematic point of the whole tale. Does Rog kill a Balrog or not? He does in the proposal I've just presented, but that is not so much indicative as my preference as it is of my exhaustion. We have three options when it comes to Rog: have him kill a Balrog, have him not kill a Balrog, or be ambiguous about it. I could, unfortunately, not think of a way to achieve the latter. But then I'm very tired.

Is UBB code for underlining 'u' in brackets and '/u' in brackets, or am I just losing my mind? I've had to italicize what I meant to underline.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Mister Underhill]

Posted by lindil:

well I have tried to post this on bye bye balrogs for several hours and all i get is - network is busy!


so... here is a reply which belongs on the bye byre Balrog thread, if any one else can open it feel free to cut and paste it in and i can delete this later - also as i mention at the end , i can't read the new post[s] in the 'intro to the forum/project thread' so if someone will please email them to me - much thanks


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Aiwendil: ... all indications are that JRRT considered the tale of
Earendil
part of the Atanatarion, the great tales of the fathers of men from
the first age. In Myths
Transformed he breaks the later stories down into the Narn
Beren ion Barahir and the Narn e
mbar Hador; and he divides the latter into Narn i Chin Hurin and
Narn en El. He seems to
consider these the longer versions of the stories told in brief in
the Quenta Silmarillion. I think
it's unlikely that he intended the Earendil story to be
disproportionately shorter than the others.
lindil: Very true of course, I was pondering rather how the shortness of the tale could possibly
be explained from within the legendarium itself.


aiwendil: Ambiguous Balrogs




quote:

... and {upon} with them {rode} came the Balrogs {in
hundreds};

lindil : If we are being vague about numbers why not say 'and with them rode the Balrogs

possibly adding [ as captains?]

if we have no specific number then we need not have in mind that a 'horde' was riding in , but
Balrogs riding dragons would indeed stick in the minds of any survivors.

A: if we change the mechanical dragons to real ones, they may no longer serve as
transport.

Lindil: I think it says in the LR quenta that Winged drgons appeared first at the War of wrath.
Glaurung was a crawler.





FG-B03.5 Rog's slaughter

quote:

{Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done
amid the Balrogs, because
of tose demons they had great courage and confidence of
heart.}
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they
had won, while those
serpents of bronze and with great feet for trampling
climbed slowly over those of
iron, and reaching the walls there opened a breach
wherethrough the Balrogs
might {ride} come {upon} with the dragons of flame . . .

lindil: I suggest for the first sentence -
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog <and his company> had done [amid] to the
Balrog{s}, <for because
of [those demons] <them> they had great courage and
confidence of heart.}

Aiwendil: At any rate, Rog, whether he kills a Balrog or not, cannot be said to have done
slaughter
amid them. The change in the second paragraph eliminates
Balrogs riding on dragons.

lindil : I think the word slaughter is OK , do we not 'slaughter ' a single pig? plus there may
well hve been a sort of vengeful glee among the elves as thy took down a balrog.

FG-B04: Entrance into the city
jallanite:

quote:

... and behind comes a creature of fire and a Balrog{s}
upon it.


Aiwendil:
[/QUOTE]... and behind comes a creature of fire and Balrogs and
monsters with it.[/QUOTE]

It may seem odd to restore the Balrogs plural. But jallanite's
original change here was, I think,
designed not to reduce the number of Balrogs in the scene, but
to limit the dragons to one
Balrog each. If, as I suggest, we eliminate the dragon-riders
altogether, the ‘s' on the end of
‘Balrogs' can stand. My ‘and monsters' is dubious, but follows the
trend of this proposed
revision. I don't think there's any problem with dropping it,
though - there's no reason, even if
there were only four Balrogs, that not more than one could have
been in the square.

lindil: hmmm.At the risk of looking dumb why are we cutting down on dragons? sorry if I
missed that point.
Again they are not flying drgons so can not a balrog or 2 ride - whether they need to or not.

FG-B05: Ecthelion against the Balrogs
jallanite:

Aiwendil: the mention of
‘three', as innocent as it looks, says things about how many
Balrogs there are and aren't.

lindil: agreed
FG-B06: The Great Market
jallanite:
quote:

... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them
at unawares ....



or

quote:

... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them
at unawares ....


Aiwendil:
Go with jallanite's first proposal or:

quote:

... where a force of Orcs {led by Balrogs} and monsters
came on them at
unawares


Though I get the feeling I'm stretching ‘monsters' a bit by now.

lindil : much agreed
FG-B07: To the Square of the King
jallanite:

quote:

But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their
forces, and seven dragons of
fire are come with Or[k]s about them and a Balrog{s}
upon one of them down all
the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the
Square of the King.


Aiwendil:

quote:

But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their
forces, and seven dragons of
fire are come with Or[k]s a Balrog about them {and
Balrogs upon them} down
all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the
Square of the King.

Lindil: again I favor keeping the riding balrog and thus I think J's version can stand.

This Balrog must be kept, and must be Gothmog, as he appears in
the next paragraph.
lindil: agreed
A: I have
eliminated the dragon-riding.

Lindil:not sure I understood the tech question, so I will leave that to others.

I favor leaving rog killing one balrog - a canon question. However,[though this is really a
question for a later phase of aesthetic revision -if we have one] I do not favor leaving his name
as Rog, it is what I would call be a literary imposibility in any revision JRRT would have made,
and indeed [though not conclusive] we do not see him in the SoME version

looking in WotJ' I am of the opinion that the '7 at most ever existed' note should be classified
as an unworkable revision. It should temper our hand w/' horde's and hundred's , but I would
not eliminate the Rog scene [ or now that I think of it the four in the courtyard].

Personally I would like to mention trolls somehow though I know it would be a stretch, we are
adding 'demons' aren't we?
Would they not be a logical clarification of 'monsters' ? almost as if JRRT was imaging more
but the details had not yet become clear. They seem to first appear in the hobbit, i see no trace
of them in IV or V or WotJ. They are mentioned in X [MT] as having been made by Morgth,
but did JRRT ever use them? None the less there existance is far more substatial than the
boldog's , although i much agree [literarily] of using that.
Mr Underhill is this not a bit of lore upon which you have pondered?


Actually is CRT adding them in QS77 in Hurin's slaughter before being captured ? I did not
see them in WotJ's when I just looked for it.

-lindil

also can someone please email me the most recent posts in the intro thread , I can not no
matter what I try open it.

- much thanks
-l

[Mister Underhill]

I went ahead and deleted the other topic so we wouldn't end up with split discussion threads.

My small contribution, re: troll lore. As far as I was ever able to tell, CRRT is responsible for the insertion of the trolls into Húrin's slaughter, or at least he never published any version by JRRT in HoME which included trolls. The fact that it's the 77's sole troll reference is puzzling and leads me to conclude that it was probably a misguided editorial addition by CRT. Additionally, I think there is considerable doubt as to whether there are any pre-Third Age day-walking trolls.

As a side note, obloquy has come up with a Balrog theory that would support the "3" note in the Books forum, here (http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000224), which Aiwendil has already seen and probed a bit. I don't know its implications, but it may stand inclusion for the sake of completeness. It struck me on first pass as the first reasonable explanation of the the number "3" that I've seen so far.

My two cents for a straw poll: I lean towards the options that cut the Balrog numbers way down per the "3 or 7" note.

[Aiwendil]

Lindil:If we are being vague about numbers why not say 'and with them rode the Balrogs
possibly adding [ as captains?]
if we have no specific number then we need not have in mind that a 'horde' was riding in , but
Balrogs riding dragons would indeed stick in the minds of any survivors.

Aiwendil: Quite simply, I think it would be a mistake to use the word 'rode' in connection with the Balrogs at all. In the Lost Tales period they were apparently pictured as some kind of elite cavalry - an image that was almost certainly abandoned after LotR. While I'm not saying it's impossible that they rode dragons or other steeds, I think it would definitely be safest to leave out mention of it.

The addition of 'as captains' looks fine to me, filling out the phrase where 'in hundreds' used to be.

Lindil: I think it says in the LR quenta that Winged drgons appeared first at the War of wrath.
Glaurung was a crawler.

Aiwendil: Yes, but I still don't think that it's likely real dragons would have served as mounts. It's hard to imagine Glaurung carrying Balrogs around. Between this and the possibility of Balrogs that can fly, I don't think we can have them ride.

Lindil:lindil: I suggest for the first sentence -
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done [amid] to the
Balrog{s}, of [those demons] they had great courage and
confidence of heart.

Aiwendil: Looks good to me.

Lindil:hmmm.At the risk of looking dumb why are we cutting down on dragons? sorry if I
missed that point.
Again they are not flying drgons so can not a balrog or 2 ride - whether they need to or not.

Aiwendil: I don't think we're cutting down on dragons, unless I've missed something (which is quite plausible). Was there not only one dragon here in the original text?

Well, I've already summed up my opinion on Balrog riders.

Lindil: Aiwendil: Though I get the feeling I'm stretching ‘monsters' a bit by now.

lindil : much agreed

Aiwendil: Then we'd better go with jallanite's first proposal there.

Lindil:I favor leaving rog killing one balrog - a canon question. However,[though this is really a
question for a later phase of aesthetic revision -if we have one] I do not favor leaving his name
as Rog, it is what I would call be a literary imposibility in any revision JRRT would have made,
and indeed [though not conclusive] we do not see him in the SoME version

The only objection I can see to Rog killing a Balrog is the possibility that JRRT actually intended to cut the number down to three. But I think we can disregard that number even if we do not disregard seven - on the grounds that it would have required changes to both the Battle of the Powers and the War of Wrath.

I'm not so certain that the name 'Rog' would have changed. It's perfectly valid Sindarin, as far as I can see. True, we have no root for it; but there easily could be one. Nor is its coexistence with _raug_ demon as in _balrog_ a problem, as the two already coexisted at the time of the Lost Tales.

Lindil:looking in WotJ' I am of the opinion that the '7 at most ever existed' note should be classified
as an unworkable revision. It should temper our hand w/' horde's and hundred's , but I would
not eliminate the Rog scene [ or now that I think of it the four in the courtyard].

Aiwendil: Well, the purpose of my proposed 'ambiguous version' was to make it unclear whether there are seven, or dozens, or two types, or what have you. I think if you go through the proposed changes you'll find that they don't necessitate any more than three Balrogs to have been there at all - not that I believe for a second that there were only three. Of course, knowing about Durin's bane and needing at least one still to die in the War of Wrath gives us a minimum of five. That's the only reason I'm concerned with having Rog kill one. If he didn't, then we'd be able to cover the possibility that (as jallanite suggested) the note means that three came forward and were slain at the War of Wrath, and only four were around in the later wars.

[Why Emus]

Hi,
I'm new to all of this, but I find this Silmarillion project very interesting, and long overdue. I'll see how much I want to get involved, but start by the occasional post here and there.

Regarding Balrogs, I think there has to be a happy medium between the original multitudes and the later 3 to 7. There were a lot of things later in life he said that are too jarring with earlier work to include in all their ramifications, and this is one of them. But clearly balrogs got steadily more and more powerful and fewer in number as time went on in his conception of things.

Solution? Have an unspecified number, but between 10 and 20ish. Use vague terms like some and few, and include all the famous Balrogs death battles. Ditto with size and wing or no: be vague, let people imagine what they will. In the words of Iris deMent, "let the mystery be." This also allows other mysteries to continue, such as the possibility that other Balrogs might be lurking somewhere.

They may or may not have wings, but I think it should be clear they couldn't fly - that would really mess things up back in the First Age.

I don't like the recycling idea at all, and think the second lives of the same small Balrog bunch should be eliminated as a solution.

Buldogs (sp?) are interesting - I don't remember reading about them. What are the details? Just the same, I don't think they should effect the debate very much.

[obloquy]

Welcome, Why Emus!

I don't think it is a very good idea to choose a number that is greatly reduced, but not either one of the numbers from the Note. We don't have a note saying that Tolkien intended to reduce the numbers of Balrogs, we have a note saying that their numbers were between 3 and 'at most 7'. If I'm not mistaken, no other reductions are present in the texts, except the vague reduction from 'a host of Balrogs' to simply 'his Balrogs'.

It's at this point that the Note is said to be written in the margin. But wouldn't a specific figure given in the narrative feel out of place? I don't think the Note was intended to be placed within the text. Perhaps we should not take it as a proposed change, but an implemented change. It seems to me that maybe the marginal note was there to explain his modification of the passage to read 'his Balrogs'. What more would such an explanation have to do to become as canonical as the rest of the unpublished Silmarillion, might I ask? We have both the text before it was modified, and the text after it was modified, as well as the justification for modifying it. Does this not qualify as a canon change to the mythos? I believe so and I think it should be honored where possible. I particularly like jallanite's suggestions for vagueness.

As Aiwendil pointed out to me in another thread, the emended annal's (§50) account of the Balrogs withering before Manwe presents a problem for the suggestion of 3. I say at this point a vague figure between 3 and 7 was chosen, which could mean as many as 4 faithful Balrogs withered.

Well I hope that makes sense. I even edited this post three or four times after posting. Where'd our Post Preview function go?

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Aiwendil]

Obloquy teithant:
Perhaps we should not take it as a proposed change, but an implemented change. It seems to me that maybe the marginal note was there to explain his modification of the passage to read 'his Balrogs'.

The only problem I see with this is that according to the revised passage, the Balrogs appear all to die. They were 'withered by the sword of Manwe', IIRC. When we're dealing with a host, this can mean that the host was essentially destroyed, but some few perhaps survived (as when we speak of an army being destroyed, we don't necessarily mean that each individual soldier was killed). But when we're dealing with only three to seven, this would seem to mean that all of them were killed. At least, that's the way it strikes me. But I agree with you in principle: the note probably accompanied the revision. Perhaps leaving the 'withering' in was an oversight.

I don't think it is a very good idea to choose a number that is greatly reduced, but not either one of the numbers from the Note.

Well, we do have an increase in the Balrog's power, which probably implies a decrease in number. But I agree that it would be a mistake go with a number that is reduced but necessarily above seven.

Why Emus teithant:
But clearly balrogs got steadily more and more powerful and fewer in number as time went on in his conception of things.

Agreed.

Solution? Have an unspecified number, but between 10 and 20ish.

I would only want to do this if it were aboslutely necessary and impossible to use the '3 or 7'. I don't think that's the case.

They may or may not have wings, but I think it should be clear they couldn't fly - that would really mess things up back in the First Age.

I think it's generally agreed that this project will not address Balrog wings or flight.

I don't like the recycling idea at all, and think the second lives of the same small Balrog bunch should be eliminated as a solution.

Again agreed.

Buldogs (sp?) are interesting - I don't remember reading about them. What are the details? Just the same, I don't think they should effect the debate very much.

All the evidence for Boldogs is in HoMe X. In one of several highly speculative essays, JRRT proposes that certain great Orc chieftains were lesser Maiar. He notes that 'Boldog' may have been a Maia, and he says that this name appears several times in the legends. It actually only appears once, as the name of the Orc that led a raid on Doriath in the Lay of Leithian.

There have been various proposals that he intended to replace some of the 'thousands of Balrogs' with these less powerful Boldogs, but there is a something of a paucity of evidence for this.

Regarding Balrog numbers: I think perhaps I haven't been entirely clear in my proposal. My thought process runs something like this: we should follow the note if possible, according to our principles. There are two problems: first, we don't know exactly what the note means. Second, if we pick any particular interpretation, then the Tale becomes far too specific and unambiguous (we end up saying things like 'two balrogs' went here and did that, etc.).

The best solution, in my view, is to come up with a version of the Tale that is ambiguous enough to cover all possible interpretations of the note, by sort of fudging each reference to the Balrogs. I think this is more or less accomplished in my proposed 'Ambiguity' revisions. In any case, I don't think the answer is to choose a specific number of Balrogs.

[Thingol]

Personally I think that mentioning a specific number is a mistake. I really like Aiwendil's revision, it leaves the number of Balrogs open to the reader's interpretation.
"Aiwendil: Well, the purpose of my proposed 'ambiguous version' was to make it unclear whether there are seven, or dozens, or two types, or what have you"
Also how are you going to deal with the quote where the Balrogs are withered by Manwe? In the Silm it adds save some few who hid themselves, but if you are going to restrict the number of Balrogs, the few that hid and fled clearly can not remain. Maybe I missed it earlier in the post, but are you planning on editing the Manwe quote?

[obloquy]

Also how are you going to deal with the quote where the Balrogs are withered by Manwe? In the Silm it adds save some few who hid themselves, but if you are going to restrict the number of Balrogs, the few that hid and fled clearly can not remain. Maybe I missed it earlier in the post, but are you planning on editing the Manwe quote?

Accompanying the Note was a modification from "a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained." to "his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him." This seems to leave room for an unfaithful Balrog (or Balrogs, though this would present even more difficulty for the numbers) who fled before it was too late.

[Aiwendil]

Balrog Solutions . . . yet again

In an attempt to revive the project a bit, I present what I see as our current possibilities for dealing with the Balrogs. I think that we actually did accomplish quite a bit in the last little burst of activity, and that some kind of solution to the Balrog question may actually be in the foreseeable future.

Our current possibilities, then, are:

1. Jallanite's original 7 Balrog rewrite
2. My ambiguity-preserving re-rewrite
3. Something else, which would require yet another rewrite
4. Forget about incorporating the Fall of Gondolin in its entirety

Jallanite's version has the disadvantage of being very specific; my version has the disadvantage of being very vague. Unless we're going to totally disregard the infamous '3 or 7 note', however, we'll be stuck with one of those two problems no matter what we do.

If I can say so without appearing too much of a shameless self-promoter, I would opt for my revisions - mostly because I think they nicely sidestep the whole issue. Option four is not a joke; if it were shown that the original Fall of Gondolin could not be brought into accord with JRRT's latest ideas about Balrogs, I would say that we should simply drop it. At one point I thought that was the only real solution, but now I think we have at least one way out.

Perhaps we should try to bring this matter to some kind of conclusion. I know that the poll function is gone, but perhaps we could vote all the same, just by posting our votes? Of course, if anyone else would like to take a stab at another rewrite, go ahead.

[obloquy]

I think your revision works well, Aiwendil. I vote for it.

I confused the War of Wrath with the Battle of the Powers. I wish someone had pointed it out to me. I was posting based on the incorrect belief that the War of Wrath was the last battle in which Balrogs make an appearance, and after it only Durin's Bane would still exist.

All posts have been edited now (I believe), and there should be no remaining errors.

[ June 07, 2003: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[lindil]

I go w/ Aiwendil's solution/draft.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion Obloquy.
Feel free to edit your previous posts [if only w/ a disclaimer ] so that those reading it for the first time will not
have to get to here to sort out the confusion.

I will start a new voting thread to hopefully generate a little attention so

EVERYONE PLEASE VOTE IN THE NEW THREAD smilies/smile.gif

[Lhundael]

I would say that obloguy is quite confusing to baffle me for two hours!!! But i do agree with lindil and Aiwendil, as well. smilies/cool.gif

[Findegil]

After reading through all this thread, I hesitated long to put my post here. But in the end what it deals with depends on what was discussed here. So there seems to be no better palce for it.

When I read the conclusion of this thread rightly, the decission was to try not to specify any number of Balrogs, but to work with assumption that 7 existed and 3 were killed in the Battle of the Powers. When I started working with the project, I thought we would recone with 7 Balrogs during the War of Jewels. But to this later more.

A German corrospondent asked my how many Balrogs ever existed. Therefore I tried to translate the passage from Annals of Aman* as amanded:§50 It came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken and its halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithfull to him, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone. Ofcause with the famous footnote. While translating this I found (porberbly due tomy bad english) that the second sentence of the passage might be read figurativly. Please correct me if I am worng! Could 'But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword;' be understood as meaning 'It was as if they were withered and slain'?
Probably you already guesed that this would mean that non of the 7 Balrogs were dead in that battle.

Independent of this I think with only 4 Balrogs I would like to reconsider changing Glorfindels Balrog to a Demon suggested by The Peoples of Middle-earht (HoME 12), chapter XIII, Last Writings, Glorfindel. Tolkien writes of Glorfindel:... a chieftain of Gondolin, who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a Balrog [> Demon], whom he slew at the cost of his own life.
Then later:... Glorfindel had sacrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim,^10 and so enabling Tuor and Idril daughter to Turgon ....[/qoute]The footnote 10 reads:[quote]10 In the margin, and written at the same time as the text, my father note: 'The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision.'This would leave us with 3 Balrogs alive in the War of Wrath (2 killed, one hidding in Moria). To make this more clear, here is how I would deal with taht passage:... It was Tuor's thought that they had fallen in with one of {Melko}[Morgoth]'s ranging companies, and he feared no more than a sharp brush in the dark, yet he sent the women and sick around him rearward and joined his men to Galdor's, and there was an affray upon the perilous path. But now rocks fell from above, and things looked ill, for they did grievous hurt; but matters seemed to Tuor yet worse when the noise of arms came from the rear, and tidings were said to him by a man of the Swallow that Glorfindel was ill bested by men from behind, and that a FG-C-9.8 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon out of Thangorodrim> was with them.
... Already the half had passed the perilous way and the falls of {Thorn Sir}[Thoron Sîr], when that FG-C-11.2 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon> that was with the rearward foe leapt with great might on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side upon the lip of the chasm, and thence with a leap of fury he was past Glorfindel's men and among the women and the sick in front, lashing with his whip of flame. Then Glorfindel leapt forward upon him and his golden armour gleamed strangely in the moon, and he hewed at that demon that it leapt again upon a great boulder and Glorfindel after. Now there was a deadly combat upon that high rock above the folk; and these, pressed behind and hindered ahead, were grown so close that well nigh all could see, yet was it over ere Glorfindel's men could leap to his side. The ardour of Glorfindel drove that FG-C-11.4 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon> from point to point, and his mail fended him from its whip and claw. Now had he beaten a heavy swinge upon its iron helm, now hewn off the creature's whip-arm at the elbow. Then sprang the FG-C-11.6 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon> in the torment of his pain and fear full at Glorfindel, who stabbed like a dart of a snake; but he found only a shoulder, and was grappled, and they swayed to a fall upon the crag-top. Then Glorfindel's left hand sought a dirk, and this he thrust up that it pierced the FG-C-11.8 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon>'s belly nigh his own face (for that {demon}it was double his stature); and it shrieked, and fell backwards from the rock, and falling clutched Glorfindel's yellow locks beneath his cap, and those twain fell into the abyss.
Now was this a very grievous thing, for Glorfindel was most dearly beloved − and lo! the dint of their fall echoed about the hills, and the abyss of {Thorn Sir}[Thoron Sîr] rang. Then at the death-cry of the FG-C-11.9 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon> the Orcs before and behind wavered and were slain or fled far away, and {Thorndor}[Thorondor] himself, a mighty bird, descended to the abyss and FG-C-12 {brought up the body of Glorfindel} <Q30 bore up Glorfindel's body>; but the FG-C-12.2 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon> lay, and the water of {Thorn Sir}[Thoron Sîr] ran black for many a day far below in {Tumladin}[Tumladen]. FG-C12.5 <Q30 And the birds of {Thorndor}[Thorondor] stooped upon the Orcs and drove them shrieking back; and all were slain or cast into the deeps, and rumour of the escape from Gondolin came not until long after to Morgoth's ears.>
Still do the Eldar say when they see good fighting at great odds of power against a fury of evil: ‘Alas! 'Tis Glorfindel and the FG-C-12.7 {Balrog}<Last Writings Demon>’, and their hearts are still sore for that fair one of the {Noldoli}[Noldor].Seeing that Tolkien himself has addressed the Balrog already in FoG as 'demon', I think that it adds to ambigous Balrog emandations to leave it open if this is a Balrog or not. From the discription especially the 'whip of flame', one could gues that this Demon is a Balrog, but it also could be a diffrent kind of monster. Thus we would again give the reader the freeness to decide for himself.

Two further points cmae up during my research that we already mist after the decision taken inthis thread:
In our chapter Of the coming of the Elves we took up:§50 {It}Thus it came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken and its halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.>I think we should change this and proberbly add also the footnote:§50 {It}Thus it came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken and its halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a CE-EX-12.5 {host}<AAm, late scribbeld changes his> of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained <AAm, late scribbeld changes faithfull to him [Footnote: There should not be supposed more than 3 or at most 7 ever existed.]>, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.>
And then we have the War of Wrath, were we must change the reference to 'same few that fled':VE-13.04 <Sil77 The meeting of the hosts of the West and of the North is named the Great Battle, the Battle Terrible, and the War of Wrath. > <AB2 The waters of Sirion lay between the hosts; and long and bitterly they contested the passage. But at last [Eönwë] crossed Sirion and the hosts of Morgoth were driven as leaves, and the Balrogs were utterly destroyed> <BT, save VE-13.045 {some few that}they fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth> , <AB1 and Morgoth[‘s army] fled to Angband pursued by the hosts of [Eönwë].>

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Khazad-dûm]

It says here in the encyclopedia of Arda Balrogs were Ainur and of the division of Maiar, just like Gandalf. Perhaps there bodies could be slain but there spirit or essence can reform a physical self if called back. Just like Gandalf. His physical body perished after defeated the Balrog in the felllowship, but was called back and again took physical form as Gandalf the White.

[Khazad-dûm]

oops I forgot to post the links (sorry I'm new lol)

http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/b/balrogs.html

http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/g/gandalf.html

[Aiwendil]

Greetings, Khazad-dum! It's always good to see new people in this rather dusty old barrow.

You are certainly right that Balrogs are Maiar. However, whether they could be re-embodied after being slain is a trickier issue. You mentioned Gandalf - but actually this seems to me to be a counter-example, since Gandalf was only able to return to life by the special grace of Eru. Of course, Gandalf was explicitly limited in his incarnate form in Middle-earth in a way that the Balrogs were not.

Re-embodiment as a possible solution to the Balrog problem was actually considered in the early days of this project (see the first few posts on this thread). I think Jallanite summed up the situation here quite well:

In theory then we might have 7 Balrogs slain by the Valar, the same 7 slain again at Gondolin, and then again by the Eönwë's host in the War of Wrath, save for one who escapes.

However in the third Age speculation on the origin of Durin's Bane there is no suggestion that ir is a re-embodied Balrog, which would surely have been a guess if it were known that Balrogs in the past had re-embodied themselves after being slain. Possibly they were only re-embodied by Morgoth's power and not their own. Yet might not Sauron have also done so, in the Second Age, when at his greatest might?

With such floundering suppositions, hypotheses, and probabilities I will leave the debate to those who enjoy arguments of ignorance.

Jallanite's point here, which I quite agree with, is that we simply don't have enough information to decide one way or the other whether the Balrogs could be (and were) slain and re-incarnated.

Findegil wrote:
When I read the conclusion of this thread rightly, the decission was to try not to specify any number of Balrogs, but to work with assumption that 7 existed and 3 were killed in the Battle of the Powers.

Yes, as far as I can tell/recall, that was our decision.

While translating this I found (porberbly due tomy bad english) that the second sentence of the passage might be read figurativly. Please correct me if I am worng! Could 'But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword;' be understood as meaning 'It was as if they were withered and slain'?

That's an interesting thought. The crux of it is the word 'slain' - can this word be understood to mean something short of 'made to be dead' in this instance? My immediate inclination is to say that it cannot be so construed. I can't think of any other place Tolkien used the word 'slay' non-literally.

But ultimately, even if one admits the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of the sentence, I don't think that's sufficient to allow us any more freedom than we've taken, since there remains still the possibility that it was meant literally.

Seeing that Tolkien himself has addressed the Balrog already in FoG as 'demon', I think that it adds to ambigous Balrog emandations to leave it open if this is a Balrog or not. From the discription especially the 'whip of flame', one could gues that this Demon is a Balrog, but it also could be a diffrent kind of monster. Thus we would again give the reader the freeness to decide for himself.

You know, as I think about it I like this possibility more. Tolkien's change of 'Balrog' to 'Demon' in the Glorfindel essay is somewhat inscrutable, and I recall spending a great deal of time in the early days of the project trying to figure out what thought lay behind it. But, as you rightly point out, we don't necessarily need to determine the reason for the change in order to implement it. I need to think about this a little bit more.

Two further points cmae up during my research that we already mist after the decision taken inthis thread:
In our chapter Of the coming of the Elves we took up

Let's not get ahead of ourselves - I don't think we've officially worked on that chapter yet! (Unless I've simply forgotten it, which is entirely possible).

All right, let's get just a little ahead of ourselves: I agree with the first change, though I think you meant to include more in the { } brackets:

he sent forth on a sudden CE-EX-12.5 {a host of}<AAm, late scribbeld changes his> of Balrogs,

I don't, however, agree with adding the footnote, for two reasons. First, it goes against our decision to leave the exact number of Balrogs ambiguous. Second, it seems clear to me that this was a note Tolkien wrote for himself and was never intended to actually stand in any text (even in a footnote).

[gondowe]

My opinion always was that there are some notes (vagues) writen at any time by Tolkien that must be taken carefully, one of these is this about 3 o 7 Balrogs. I think that if the professor had really stablished this in his mind, he’d must had change lot of passages along the texts, and for one or another reason (time, dead or another change of oppinion) didn’t do it.

Of course in the last mithology aspect we have, there’s no place for neither thousands nor hundreds or dozens of Balrogs, but there could have existed 8, 10 or 15, and they are very few for a coherent tale.
In the passage of the fall of Utumno it could be changed Balrogs for Demons and it’s again coherent with the subsecuent tales.

§50 {It}Thus it came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken and its halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a CE-EX-12.5 {host}<AAm, late scribbeld changes his> of {Balrogs}[Demons], the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.>

So the Demon of Glorfindel can be A Balrog leaving whatever of both words (even knowing Tolkien himself changed the word)

Greetings.

[Findegil]

About Balrogs slain or not in the War of the Powers:But ultimately, even if one admits the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of the sentence, I don't think that's sufficient to allow us any more freedom than we've taken, since there remains still the possibility that it was meant literally. That' right. But I am still interested in oppions from others for my own enlightment indepent of the project itself.

About the 'Demon' slian by Glorfindel: I remember vaguly that we discussed this before, did not find it when I worte the post. I will again search for our old discussion.

CE-EX-12.5: Aiwendil worteLet's not get ahead of ourselves - I don't think we've officially worked on that chapter yet!Oops, your are right. This is part of one of my drafts and not of any chapter discussed here. Thus I could have changed it silently. And of course you are also right that my editing was defectiv.
I agree that to use the footnote means to change a statement by JRR Tolkien into
a statement of on of the scibes in our line of text tradition. This is unwonted and therefore I agree not to use the footnote.
Thus the passage reads:§50 {It}Thus it came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken and its halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden CE-EX-12.5 {a host of}<AAm; late scibbled changes his> Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained<AAm; late scibbled changes faithfull to him>, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.

VE-13.045: Here I am sure that we alrady discussed it. So do you agree to my change?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Khazad-dûm]

Yeah sorry I didn't read all the earlier posts and I agree with that statement that it can't really be proven but I haven't really "studied" (lol) the books as much as a lot of people on the Downs have and that's just the opinion on the subject from someone(myself) who's only read LOTR once (almost twice I'm still working on it :)lol). I just like to post my short opinions on here (I can't write essays on the subjects like I've noticed other do) because my girlfriend laughs at me when I talk to her about it.

Sorry for being way off topic you can ignore this.

Thanks for the greetings by the way!:)

[Elemmakil]

I read through this thread and found it very interesting. I thought I would contribute a few random thoughts:

1. I note in passing that there are, per the late margin note, "3 or 7" balrogs, and that there were 9 Nazgul (along with 3 Elven rings, 7 Dwarven rings, and 9 rings for Men). I don't know that it has any use or meaning, but Tolkien certainly seems to have liked odd numbers!

2. I never liked the thought of "1,000's" of Balrogs - such numbers cheapens them, and does make the idea of a "siege" of Angband laughable on its face - even the early versions of the stories make them somewhat powerful, and I find the notion hard to give credence to.

3. On the other hand, even 7, let alone a mere 3, Balrogs is to me an unsustainable idea. Why? Well, my concern has to do with the duel of Glorfindel and the Balrog. If there are only a tiny handful of Balrogs, does it really make logical sense that even one of these powerful beings would be committed to basically "night watch" duty away from the main battle? Would they not *all* be committed to storming the last stronghold of the Noldor? It would be like sending a fleet of destroyers and cruisers into the main fray, but having your Battleship hundreds of miles away on patrol looking for fleeing ships - that makes no sense at all. Now, if there were somewhat more balrogs (at least a dozen or preferably two or three dozen) then the idea of perhaps 2 to 4 being put in charge of the watchers in the surrounding hills becomes much more plausible.

Like I said, random thoughts.

[Gothmog, LoB]

In my it is pretty obvious that Manwe's dealings with the Balrogs in Utumno actually refer to a physical fight and their subsequent defeat.

Considering that this was the War of the Powers we can be reasonably sure that the Valar and Maiar (and Melkor's minions) did not exactly fight in a way they and the Eruhíni would fight Melkor's creatures later on. The War of Wrath most likely involved a lot of more physical weaponry and violence than the War of the Powers during which many (if not all) of the ealar involved would not yet have been permanently bound to their bodily forms.

In that sense, I see no problems with an unspecified number of Balrogs being 'slain' by Manwe himself at Utumno since that would only have bereft them of their bodily shapes. They wouldn't have died in any real sense.

In fact, we know from Note 5 of the Òsanwe-kenta that only one Vala (Melkor-Morgoth) ever became permanently incarnated. With the Maiar this tends to happen more quickly, but Melian is cited as the only example (although that causes problems if we try to imagine the details of her return into the West prior to the voyage of Eärendil). The Istari we certainly can cite as later examples for this (although their incarnation seems to have been 'special' in the sense that it might have been more binding from the beginning, unlike the slow process that made Melian and Sauron earthbound).

However, the note also includes an interesting revelation about Sauron and his confrontation with Lúthien during the Lay of Leithian. Unlike the old text JRRT seems to have changed his mind about Sauron not losing his body back then and there, stating that 'the first destruction of the bodily form of Sauron was recorded in the histories of the Elder Days, in the Lay of Leithian.'

This suggests that Sauron doesn't become a 'special case' using the One Ring as his anchor to the physical world. And Tolkien also specifies that this extends to Morgoth's mother minions, not just Sauron: 'So it was also with even some of his [Morgoth's] greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.'

A momentary 'nullification' due to the loss of one's hröa didn't necessitate a permanent end. One assumes that fallen Maiar/Úmaiar couldn't 'die' and restore their bodies indefinitely, but they could do so quite a few times.

In that sense I'd argue that there is little problem with the number of the Balrogs aside from the actual descriptions of certain battles.

But there should be an unspecified number of Balrogs throughout all the battles of the First Age, acting as Morgoth's generals and his most fearsome warriors. And there is also no need to mess with any of the details of the fights between Elves and Balrogs (Gothmog & Balrogs vs. Feanor; Gothmog & Balrog vs. Fingon; Gothmog vs. Ecthelion; Glorfindel vs. Balrogs).

It is part of the story that the Eldar in their youth were very powerful, or had the potential to become very powerful, and this explicitly confirmed for Feanor. The idea that this man could have fought of multiple Balrogs of the type the Fellowship faced in Moria isn't far-fetched at all. And with Fingolfin fighting against and physically wounding Morgoth himself there is also no reason to believe that Fingon, Ecthelion, and Glorfindel did what they did.

One could even imagine that some of the other Gondolindrim slew some Balrogs - they could all have made themselves new bodies for the War of Wrath. The Noldor of Gondolin were the cream of the Eldar warriors in Middle-earth, and we know there was later much and long fighting between the Maiar-Vanyar-Noldor host and Morgoth's armies during the War of Wrath. One assumes that Morgoth's creatures and servants were not only fought by the Maiar during that war but by the Eldar (and Edain) as well.

[Findegil]

Nice thoughts, Elemmakil and Gothmog. But what is it you want to change (or to leave as it was, if we changed it)?

And consider, what the group has tried up to now is to reduce the number as far as possible, but not to state any specific number. So the intention was that our text would allow the read to interpret any number 3 or 7 or some more (not hundreds) of Balrogs ever existing. And we would as well not make any statement if they can be re-embodied after the War of the Powers or not.

Generaly we try to avoid fixing the debate matters of Middle-Earth as less as possible.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Oh boy, kicking another hornet's nest...


The reason, I think, that Tolkien changed 'Balrog' to 'Demon' in his 'Last Writings' is that, the Balrogs being very few in number in the later mythos, he wanted to have their deaths be special, extraordinary events.

Since I'm about 99% sure that Tolkien, even on his wildest days, wouldn't dare to change the death of Gothmog by Ecthelion's hand (or rather, his helmet), I think the answer to the above dilemma is pretty simple: Tolkien simply thought that having one Balrog (the Lord of Balrogs even!) killed by an Elf was more than enough, and that adding another Balrog death (much less two as in 'The New Silmarillion'!) was too much.


Not to mention that it gets repetitive:

1) A Balrog (Gothmog) is killed by an Elf (Ecthelion), and the Elf is killed in the process

2) Another (unnamed) Balrog is killed by an Elf (Glorfindel), and the Elf is killed in the process

and in 'The New Silmarillion' at least

3) Yet another (unnamed) Balrog is killed by an Elf/Elves (Rog and co.), and the Elf is killed in the process (well, soon enough, at any rate)


I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this - it is awfully repetitive, and Tolkien would've no doubt noticed this pattern, and changed it to avoid repetition, as well as bringing it in line with the 'maximum 7 Balrogs' idea.


I think that we should adopt the 'Balrog' > 'Demon' change in the case of Glorfindel, and I also propose that we adopt this change in regards to Rog's and the House of the Hammer of Wrath's sally (with the necessary adjustments).

[Findegil]

I could agree to this proposal if we and our readers would have agoof idea what a Demon means other than a Balrog.

respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

I could agree to this proposal if we and our readers would have agoof idea what a Demon means other than a Balrog.

respectfully
Findegil

Really? It's just one of the nondescript Umaiar (there were plenty of these in Morgoth's army, 'Boldogs' being one specific example).

The term 'Balrog' translates to "Demon of Might" in Sindarin - suggesting IMO that there are Demons (Umaiar) of lesser might.

[Aiwendil]

In my opinion, we've been over this and over this, and the solution we came up with was the best available. You might be right about why Tolkien used 'Demon' in the 'Glorfindel' text. But it's speculation.

[Findegil]

Anyhow, we already changed the enemy of Glorfindels deadly fight from Balrog to Demon. And striped Rog's attack from any and all the fight in the City of any direct statment of killing Balrogs. So this seems a ghost discussion. Or what was your intention Arvegil145?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Anyhow, we already changed the enemy of Glorfindels deadly fight from Balrog to Demon. And striped Rog's attack from any and all the fight in the City of any direct statment of killing Balrogs. So this seems a ghost discussion. Or what was your intention Arvegil145?

Respectfully
Findegil

Oh...

I have to apologize - I've been scouring the subforum in search of the latest decisions in this regard, and had somehow come to the conclusion that you didn't make the change from 'Balrog' > 'Demon' and about Rog's killing of a Balrog.

Maybe it's because I've been absent from the project for 7 years, but I could swear that I remembered Rog's sally and his killing of a Balrog to have been included in TNS version of the 'Fall of Gondolin'.


Again, I apologize: this really is a 'ghost discussion'.

[Arvegil145]

Unrelated, but: what is the last explicit mention of Ecthelion slaying Gothmog?

To the best of my knowledge, it's the marginal note to the Grey Annals (WotJ, p. 18).