<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, "Myths Transformed", 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), "Quendi and Eldar",
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 < *[/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 (< *
guruk) 'horror'.<hr></blockquote>The word "etc." in "equivalents of Q
rauko, etc." 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 '"Demon of Might", 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 "Valaquenta" 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 "Valaquenta" 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 "The Annals of Aman" and its sequel "The Grey Annals". In the "The Annals of Aman" §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 "the last of his servants that remained" mean? Perhaps it is a clumsy writing of an idea that would be better phrased as "all of his servants that remained" or "the last of his servants". 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 "the last of his servants that remained" applies to "Balrogs" rather than "host", 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 "The Annals of Aman", Morgoth multiplies the spirits who follow him, and among them are the Balrogs. There is no problem in "The Annals of Aman" with Balrogs continuing to multiply, just as do Orcs. In "The Annals of Aman" the Children of the Valar still exist, so multiplication of Balrogs is certainly possible. (Question: are some Balrogs female?)
The note on the "Annals" 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 "Annals of Beleriand". 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 "Narn i Chîn Húrin". That account is primarily based on "The Annals of Beleriand" and would in his mind largely be its replacement. The parts that differ most are given in
The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), "The Grey Annals", 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 "Narn i Chîn Húrin" and "The Wanderings of Húrin".
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>