[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.