Bye Bye Balrogs

[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[indarin] fae, ëala[/i] '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 [i/]ëalar[/i] 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 [i/]ëalar[/i] 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>