[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>