# Valarauka in the Third age.



## Gothmog (Apr 26, 2015)

I have been pondering a question about Valarauka. I will for the moment simply pose the question and if there is any interest I will post my views later. Now then, the question.

Given all that we know about Valarauka including the statement by Tolkien that there were Three, or at most Seven, before the Wars of Beleriand. How many Should exist during the third age?


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 27, 2015)

I don’t have my books in front of me, but I believe I recall reading that Christopher Tolkien noted that there were lots of Balrogs (Umaiar) in the early tales (through the completion of the _Lord of the Rings_, I think), but as his father began to revise the _Silmarillion_ over the next 20 years, he continually reduced those numbers. 

We can count three, including two from the First Age

Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, slain in the Fall of Gondolin by Ecthelion of the Fountain; 
the Balrog that Glorfindel fought in the Cirith Thoronath above Gondolin; and
Durin’s Bane.
Conrad Dunkerson has written an essay, “How many Balrogs were there?” that addresses this question.


----------



## King Naugladur (Apr 28, 2015)

Because I don't have the Silmarillion now in front of me, does anybody remember if the Balrog Lungorthin has made it into the book?
Thanks,
King Naugladur.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 28, 2015)

With respect to the following section of Conrad Dunkerson's essay:

_"In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'" MR, Section 2 (AAm*) - note 50 just before Section 3 So, this then was the 'turning point'. Yet there is no way of knowing whether this idea of a limited number of Balrogs would have been retained. Given the difficulty in precisely dating these texts it is even possible that the Grey Annals (GA2) reference to 'Balrogs a thousand' post-dated the Annals of Aman note saying there were 'at most seven'."_

This last statement seems unlikely to me.

_If_ I read the explanation in _The History of Middle-Earth_ rightly, GA2 is still an early 1950s work, while the note to the typescript of _Annals of Aman_ is dated to the later 1950s. Mr. Dunkerson might just be referencing the section there, with his AAm*, but in any case, as I read things Tolkien's marginal note is not to the Annals of Aman* (with asterisk), but to a typescript of AAm (no asterisk), which is a different text.

In my opinion the marginal note (and the revision based on it), are the latest written examples (to date so far) that touch upon this matter. If I recall correctly, I think there is at least one case of very many Balrogs not being revised in this general period (later 1950s), in a section where Tolkien did some "later" revising.

This is in _Quenta Silmarillion_ -- for the text and chronology (again, as I tried to understand the matter) see below the Line of Doom.

And I would say that writing is a "positive" thing, that is, the author thinks of an idea and puts it to paper and we know he has thought about it. But not revising is a "negative" thing (again, so to speak) which opens questions. If one is revising a section with very many Balrogs in it, and the new idea of 3 or 7 is in place, why not revise the Balrog reference too?

The answer could be as simple as Tolkien didn't notice it! Or back to dating again, given that both revisions only _generally_ date to 1958-ish or later -- the marginal note to AAm could still be later! So for whatever reason (and if he was going ahead with this revision, as the note and revision to AAm would seem to indicate), Tolkien did not revise every existing passage that "still" referred to very many Balrogs.

Anyway, in my opinion the note and revision to AAm "must" be why Christopher Tolkien revised other passages for his constructed Silmarillion, doing the same thing that Tolkien's revision did to AAm: that is, erase the suggestion of a great number of Balrogs...

... without saying how many there really ever were (as that information was only in the marginal note) 

the Line of Doom
 __________


As for chronology, what we have here is (basically) mid to later 1930s, early 1950s and later 1950s. _The Annals of Aman_ marginal note and revision are dated to the later 1950s. First, in connection with the marginal note to Annals of Aman (which states the number), the actual revision to the text reads: 'a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained' revised to 'his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him.'

So in this instance, the word 'host' was revised by JRRT himself

Moving back to _Quenta Silmarillion_ (mid to later 1930s) 'But at length after the fall of Fingolfin, which is told hereafter, Sauron came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower, with a host of Balrogs. Sauron was the chief servant of the evil Vala, whom he had suborned to his service in Valinor from among the people of the gods. He was become a wizard...'

And in the _Later Quenta Silmarillion_ (early 1950s) changes made in notes referencing the numbered paragraphs are: 'Sauron was the chief servant of the evil Vala...' revised to 'Now Sauron, whom the Noldor called Gorthu, was the chief servant of Morgoth. In Valinor he had dwelt...' So the very next sentence after 'host of Balrogs' was changed, in a note, in the early 1950s. Next...

... the _Later Quenta Silmarillion_ of the later 1950s: the earlier changes were taken up into this later series of copies, thus, again as I read things anyway, Tolkien is not merely looking at the note now, but looking at the changes made and put back into context with what he had written in the 1930s.

And in the later 1950s Tolkien changes section 143 again: 'Now Sauron, whom the Noldor call Gorthu' is revised to 'Now Sauron, whom the Sindar call Gorthaur.' And JRRT also struck out the sentence: 'In Valinor he had dwelt...'

So sometime in the later 1950s, Tolkien, for whatever reason, allowed "host" of Balrogs to stand. Granted the changes at this time are light in any case, and may not count as "true revision" in all senses.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 28, 2015)

_"Because I don't have the Silmarillion now in front of me, does anybody remember if the Balrog Lungorthin has made it into the book?"_

If I recall correctly the name Lungorthin didn't make it into the _Later Quenta Silmarillion_ texts nor the 1977 constructed Silmarillion. Basically very many Balrogs persisted into The Later Quenta Silmarillion of the early 1950s, and the idea that 3 or at most 7 existed hails from the later 1950s (or later, meaning the note was added to a typescript text that itself only existed in the later 1950s).

It might be good to note that the passage regarding the War of Wrath was written at a time when Tolkien imagined very many Balrogs existing! And Christopher Tolkien did not alter this passage with respect to this detail -- possibly because it did not necessarily refer to a "host" of Balrogs, or thousands of Balrogs, in any case. The point is, this passage can't really be raised as evidence to counter the later numbers (3 or 7) from Tolkien, as JRRT, despite some cursory corrections to this section, never truly revised the end part of _Quenta Silmarillion_.

Not that you said otherwise of course


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 28, 2015)

Galin is better at etymology than I, but I believe _Lungorthin_ means “White/Pale Demon/Fire” and _Gothmog_ is “Enemy Dark[ness]” or “Dread[ful] Oppressor”. 

There are several possibilities: Lungorthin might be just another, earlier name for Gothmog (sc. Tveldo Prince of Cats became Thû > Gorthû > Sûr > Sauron). Perhaps Lungorthin didn’t make it out of Utumno, and was ejected from Arda. Maybe Morgoth just didn’t like him, and either demoted him or finished him off himself. 

_It seems to me that a closely related issue is this:_ 
Lots of Maiar “fell” and followed Melkor. If only 3 to 7 of them became Balrogs, perhaps these were the most powerful after Sauron. But what became of all the rest? Do the “missing” Balrogs account for Ungoliant and the “nameless things” “below the deepest delving of the Dwarves” gnawing that world that “even Sauron knows … not”? What of the “devouring spirit” that inhabited Carcharoth, or Draugluin and the werewolves of Angband? Boldog, who appeared as an Orc, is once mentioned as a being a minor Maia (or more properly, Umaia). Should this list include dragons: Glaurung, Ancalagon, or even Smaug? 

If there are only a half-dozen or so Balrogs, then the rest of the wicked Ainur who followed Morgoth much be something other than Balrogs; and we know there were a lot of them from the _Ainulindalë_. Perhaps they repented; but surely Tolkien clearly indicates that many did not, following Morgoth into Arda to make mischief there.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 28, 2015)

Yes the Lungorthin matter seems fairly vague. Christopher Tolkien's opinion appears to be...

"The thane of Morgoth who smote him on the mouth (version I, 59) now becomes Lungorthin, Lord of Balrogs (96) -- which is probably to be interpreted as "a Balrog lord", since Gothmog, Lord or Captain of Balrogs in _The Fall of Gondolin_, soon reappears in the "Silmarillion" tradition."

... which seems reasonable enough.

But it still seems uncertain. As Alcuin said, Tolkien could simply have left the name Gothmog behind for a moment, and changed the name of "the" Lord of Balrogs to Lungorthin, then switched back to Gothmog.

With this type of poetry, one might think of part of the line and need some alliteration (where Lungorthin -- Lord of Balrogs, earlier thane and Thalion) -- although of course Tolkien could have found a way to keep _Gothmog_ in the poem anyway.

On the other hand, looking at it internally as well, if there were very many Balrogs (which there seems to be at this stage, although the Balrogs were not Maiar when Tolkien wrote this poetic version), there could also be lesser "lords" under Gothmog too.

I guess


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 28, 2015)

Maybe Balrog “lords” are like Sith “lords”: either the title goes with the power, or they’re so nasty they kill those who dare not use it. Consider that Aragorn is often addressed as “Lord Aragorn” in _LotR_, Elrond as “Lord Elrond”, Denethor as “Lord Denethor”, and so on. Perhaps it’s simply a title of office.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 29, 2015)

I have a few questions myself, but getting around to the original question first: if 3 only ever existed: we can only have one Balrog left for the Third Age... if Ecthelion slays Gothmog and Glorfindel slays one that is, leaving Durin's Bane for Gandalf.

If 7 only ever existed: that leaves 4 after considering the three above, and I would lean towards having these 4 die in the First Age. Perhaps a couple at the defeat of Morgoth at Utumno, and a couple more at The War of Wrath...

... although I might have to think more about this distribution. It's not set in stone 

Glorfindel's demon

It's interesting that in the very late text Glorfindel II (Last Writings), Tolkien refers to Glorfindel's adversary three times, in each case seemingly preferring the word demon.

1) "... who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a Balrog [> Demon], whom he slew at the cost of his own life."

2) "More important: Glorfindel had sacrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim,*[note 10] and so enabling..."

3) [note 10] [In the margin, and written at the same time as the text, my father noted: 'The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision.']

That's only three examples admittedly, and Balrogs are demons. But considering that not all demons need be Balrogs, why did Tolkien feel the need to revise Balrog to Demon in the first example? I'm not saying he was necessarily thinking of revising this long held notion by having Glorfindel fight a demon other than a Balrog, but to my mind it seems at least a bit odd to change the word Balrog here.

Or have I misread this notation? In _The Shibboleth of Feanor_ Christopher Tolkien explains that he thinks his father changed the name _Ambarto_ to _Umbarto_, which is noted twice: once as "Ambarto [> Umbarto]" and later as "[Ambarto >] Umbarto".

Gothmog

There is early 1950s evidence that Gothmog was still to be slain by Ecthelion in Gondolin: "But at last Gothmog*, Lord of the Balrogs, smote him to the ground..." [*marginal note] "whom Ecthelion afterward slew in Gondolin." The Grey Annals, early 1950s. And perhaps interestingly, in the abandoned revision of _The Fall of Gondolin_ (Unfinished Tales), also early 1950s, the spike on Ecthelion's helm is noted, the spike he used in the much earlier long prose _Fall of Gondolin_ to help slay Gothmog.

wither the Balrogs

1099 "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 his Balrogs ["a host of Balrogs" revised to "his Balrogs"], the last of his servants that remained faithful to him [added], 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 lightening of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone." The Annals of Aman, early 1950s, with the later additions noted.

So, no more Balrogs? Or where was Gothmog? Despite this suggestion, a bit later in the same text, for the year 1100: "Yet many evil things lingered in Middle-earth that had fled 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."

The 1099 passage is the text that Tolkien revised along with his now famed 3 or at most 7 marginal note. So while there is no "host" here in revision, if only 7 ever existed were those Balrogs that survived this battle unfaithful to Morgoth at this point? Or did they lay hidden for some other reason... at Morgoth's command maybe?

Although as I interpreted the passage, the Balrogs (his Balrogs) _are_ the last of the servants that remained faithful to Morgoth, and would still _seem_ to be all of them compared to other servants -- but anyway I know they all can't have perished at this point! Or maybe a Balrog can be withered without being slain, if at least one was slain?

Athlough maybe we (I) shouldn't be pushing such poetic description too far in any case


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 29, 2015)

It rather leaves open the possibility that there were a lot of them at one time, but reduced in numbers over time:

Lots, perhaps even “a host”, at Utumno. Those that gathered around Morgoth at the onset of Manwë were destroyed by that Vala. 
Somewhere between three and seven remained when Morgoth escaped to Middle-earth with the Silmarilli. 
One escaped the wreck of Thangorodrim and the War of Wrath, hiding himself beneath the mountains near Khazad-dûm. 
Remember, Sauron escaped twice: first from the destruction of Utumno, then from the Host of the Valar after the War of Wrath. The Umaia that was Durin’s Bane was roughly as powerful as Gandalf: he had also escaped twice. 

Which brings up a neat point: had Gandalf not destroyed the Balrog of Moria, that fallen Ainu would have been left even after Sauron’s Ring was destroyed. Gandalf didn’t know it, but when he entered Moria, he was getting ready to clean up Middle-earth in preparation for Sauron’s downfall.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 29, 2015)

While it's not attested (since Tolkien wrote "ever" existing), I also thought that the battle at Utumno _could_ serve as a way to move from many Balrogs, to 3 or at most 7 remaining when we get to the later battles.

Do you think I am reading the alteration in the Glorfindel text correctly? Meaning the word Balrog was replaced by the word Demon...

... for some reason?


----------



## Alcuin (Apr 29, 2015)

I don’t know, *Galin*. You may be correct: Tolkien was changing lots of things in the last year or two of his life. From _Silmarillion_, “Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin”,


> There was a dreadful pass, Cirith Thoronath it was named, the Eagles' Cleft, … walled by a precipice, and … a dreadful fall leapt into emptiness. Along that narrow way … they were ambushed by Orcs, … and a Balrog was with them. Then dreadful was their plight, and hardly would they have been saved by the valour of yellow-haired Glorfindel…
> 
> Many … songs … have been sung of the duel of Glorfindel with the Balrog upon a pinnacle of rock in that high place; and both fell to ruin in the abyss. … Then Thorondor bore up Glorfindel's body out of the abyss, and they buried him in a mound of stones beside the pass…



I think the idea that Glorfindel fought a Balrog in the pass is pretty much embedded in the minds of most people who’ve read _The Silmarillion_. It’s kind of like, “Do Balrogs have wings?” I no longer believe they do: I have come to believe it’s poetic language describing the spreading darkness of the demon facing Gandalf on the bridge; but surveys (including the _old_ poll at TTF) indicate that a significant majority of readers do, and for many years I thought so, too. 

You are certainly correct that this can be interpreted two ways: the Balrog _is_ a demon, and Tolkien simply shifted word choice; or a Balrog is a fiercer creature than the Umaia that the refugees of Gondolin encountered high up in the mountains. 

We should see what others think…


----------



## Gothmog (Apr 30, 2015)

Ok. there are a number of things said in this thread so far that I will have to look at carefully and think about before giving my views on them. However, Here is the reason I asked this question in the first place.


We know that all the Valarauka were Maiar as was Sauron. Now Sauron is said to be the Greatest of Melkor's servant because in all the works of Melkor Sauron had a hand. This does not actually mean that Sauron was the strongest or the most powerful only the Greatest. It is a fact that Sauron lost to Huan the Hound of Valinor.


One thing we can be sure of is that all Maiar chose their shapes and wore them in the same way we wear clothes. Sauron lost more than one shape during his time in Arda before finally being reduced to a shadow by the destruction of the One Ring where he lost the greater part of his being. Now, Gothmog, Glorfindel's Bane and Durin's Bane were simply “Killed in Action” and lost the shape they were wearing at the time. They each should have been able to create a new shape soon after in the same way that Sauron did.


So, during the Third age all of the Valarauka should be existing either in their original forms or new forms.




More to follow after I have given much thought to the excellent points put forward here.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 30, 2015)

Thanks Alcuin. I'm probably not being clear, but all I really meant to ask is whether or not you agree (or anyone else agrees) that "fought with a Balrog [> Demon], whom he slew..." means Tolkien changed the word from Balrog to Demon, rather than changing the word Demon to Balrog.

My answer to the secondary question is (that being: if JRRT did change the word Balrog to Demon, and used Demon twice more in this late text) does it mean he was substituting another kind of demon for a Balrog)...

... probably not. That is, Glorfindel slaying a Balrog is such a long held idea, I doubt Tolkien would alter the Balrog to, for example, even a very great Orc-lord, an Orc-formed Maia -- possibly called a Boldog according to text in _Morgoth's Ring._ Anyway, with respect to the Third Age...

"The Balrog is a survivor from the Silmarillion and the legends of the first Age. So is Shelob. The Balrogs, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of Thangorodrim, his fortress in the North. But it is here found (there is usually a hang-over especially of evil from one age to another) that one had escaped and taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains). It is observable that only the Elf knows what the thing is -- and doubtless Gandalf."

JRRT, letter 144, 1954

I've read various interpretations of this, but for myself, I get the impression here, at least, that only one Balrog survived into the Third Age (and my guess is that in 1954 Tolkien still imagined very many Balrogs to exist in the First Age).


----------



## Thorin (Dec 12, 2015)

In _Book of Lost Tales II_, in an earlier rendition of '_The Fall of Gondolin_' considerably shortened and revised for _The Silmarillion_, Tolkien gives the impression that there were LOTS of Balrogs in the attack. I wish Tolkien had kept the original 'FoG', what an incredible page turner!! It is amazing and exciting in _BoLT II_ compared to the finished tale we see in _Silmarillion_. Whether Tolkien changed the amount of Balrogs that could have existed in Middle Earth as well, I don't know. He could have very well done so later on.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 18, 2015)

*Gothmog*, I think I recall reading that by the end of the First Age, Morgoth couldn’t shift his shape any longer: he was permanently bound in the physical manifestation he’d made for himself. 

Likewise Sauron, after his destruction in the Akallabêth, the Downfall of Númenor, was unable any longer to shift shape: if I understand correctly, he was able to form a new body – twice in fact, once at the end of the Second Age and then again in the first half of the Third Age, but only because he had put “the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning” (as Gandalf described it) into the One Ring, which was not destroyed until the end of the Third Age. Sauron could no longer shift his physical appearance, one that sounds (from what little we are told) very like a balrog’s: blackened, burning, and greater than man-high but not gigantic. In his final manifestation, Sauron was unable to represent the finger where Isildur had cut off the Ring: for that, Tolkien gives us Gollum as eye-witness. To push this a little further, I _strongly_ suspect – and this is purely opinion, with no textual proof – that Sauron had or even required assistance from the Nazgûl to regain physical form in the Third Age, especially the Witch-king, who was himself a great sorcerer and necromancer under Sauron’s tutelage. 

Gandalf the Grey sometimes seemed larger than at others: for instance, in Bilbo’s sitting room when Bilbo began to fall under the Ring’s power; and later in Hollin when the werewargs attacked. I don’t immediately recall that he seemed to shift appearance as Gandalf the White (other than cloaking his white clothes in grey ones, a mere mundane concealment). These two instances where Gandalf seemed larger than usual may be his unveiling his “angelic” nature as a Maia, exercising his power to help mortals _in extremis_ when confronted by demonic power (to wit, the Ring’s attempting to possess Bilbo, or Sauron’s necromantic werewolves). 

_(This paragraph added later)_ Durin’s Bane did something similar at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm: “The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly onto the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall”. I believe that, like Gandalf in Bilbo’s sitting room, it was unveiling its true nature as a (fallen) Maia, rather than shape-shifting; though perhaps both the Balrog and Gandalf the Grey could make themselves physically taller, at least for a while. 

Gandalf warned Gimli that Saruman could make himself look like Gandalf, but I read that as some kind of illusion. 

I believe Tom Bombadil was a Maia, and Goldberry, too: that would both explain their powers and fit them sensibly into Tolkien’s mythos. Neither of them seems to be a shape-shifter.

_Radagast_ is the only Maia in the Third Age described as shape-shifter: Gandalf called him “a master of shapes and changes of hue.” 

I also recall reading that every time an Ainu, Vala or Maia, _forcibly_ lost his shape (the only Vala to whom this would apply is Morgoth), he could rebuild another _as long as he retained sufficient native power._ I don’t recall where I read that, in _Letters of JRR Tolkien_ or _Morgoth’s Ring_, but two things affected the Ainur: 

how long they’d held that position, that physical form: the longer they held a form, the harder it was to shift, until they could shift no longer; and
whether the physical form was destroyed. If their physical form is destroyed, their native strength that held it was stripped from them and lost. Their native strength could diminish to the point that they could no longer take form at all: this was true for the balrogs killed in the First Age, both in the war that destroyed Utumno and later at the end of the First Age, and finally with Durin’s Bane atop Celebdil. 
This last is what happened to Saruman. His spirit wanted to return home to the West, but Manwë blew him away with “a cold wind” “out of the West”. _Sauron_ was able to rebuild himself twice after being killed-disembodied, but only because his native power was bound in the One Ring and could not be scattered until it was destroyed. Even so, Sauron was unable to take on a pleasant form: he could no longer conceal his evil nature. After that, he was reduced to “a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape.” So were the balrogs, and so was Saruman, but they were unable to rebuild even once, because their remaining strength was insufficient even after one disembodiment. 

The more I think of it, the more I think this material is primarily in _Morgoth’s Ring_, because there’s also a discussion about how the Elves were unable to rebuild their physical shapes on their own if they were killed, and that they required the assistance, and so also the permission, of the Ainur to regain physical bodies. 

As a last aside, this could explain the barrow-wights. They were, I think, the spirits of evil Elves. There were actually bad Elves in the First Age: Eöl the Smith and Maeglin his son, for instance; Tolkien says those Elves that refused the summons of Mandos left themselves unable to resist the counter-summons of Morgoth. Tolkien writes – and again, I don’t recall just where (*Galin*, do you?) that attempting to speak to Elven spirits was a variety of necromancy, something Sauron taught his followers (e.g., the Witch-king, who sent the barrow-wights into the ancient tombs of the Edain and Dúnedain during Angmar’s wars against Arnor), dangerous and foolish because the disembodied spirits could try to possess the mortal communicating with them. The Witch-king infested the barrow-downs with evil spirits, and these spirits – fallen Elves and perhaps even disembodied Maiar (or more properly, Umaiar, demons) – took over the embalmed corpses of those buried there – a fiendish desecration of the tombs. _Presumably_ the destruction of the One Ring and the Nine undid the barrow-wights, but maybe not: clearing out those tombs would be horrible work in the early Fourth Age. 

But I think the only Maiar left in Middle-earth three years into Aragorn Elessar’s reign were Radagast, Bombadil, and Goldberry. They all seem to be happily tripped out and uninterested in bothering anyone else.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 23, 2015)

I apologize, *Galin*, for not directly addressing this sooner. 

Yes, I agree with you. I read “fought with a Balrog [> Demon]” to mean that the word Balrog was changed to the word Demon. In Tolkien’s world, Maiar are angels. Umaiar are fallen angels, demons. The Balrog is a demon, and not just any demon, but a particularly big, bad, ugly one that scares Elves and Men and Dwarves just by being in the same room. (It’d scare me!) 

In _Silmarillion_, “Valaquenta”, “Of the Enemies”, Tolkien (or his editors) writes,


> [O]f the Maiar many were drawn to [Melkor’s] splendor 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.



Later in “Quenta Silmarillion”, “Of the Coming of the Elves”, there is a strikingly similar passage


> [I]n Utumno [Morgoth] gathered his demons  about him, those spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendor, 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 in Middle-earth in later days.


This last also bears a striking similarity to the initial description of Durin’s Bane: “a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.”

In the “Index of Names” we find the definition,


> _Balrog_ “Demon of Might”, Sindarin form (Quenya _Valarauko_) of the name of the demons of fire that served Morgoth.



So if Tolkien did not intend the word “Balrog” to mean “a big bad really scary fire demon”, and then proceed to use the Sindarin and English words more or less interchangeably, somebody with access to his original texts sure conflated and interchanged them pretty freely.


----------



## Elthir (Dec 23, 2015)

> ... and again, I don’t recall just where (*Galin*, do you?) that attempting to speak to Elven spirits was a variety of necromancy, something Sauron taught his followers (e.g., the Witch-king, who sent the barrow-wights into the ancient tombs of the Edain and Dúnedain during Angmar’s wars against Arnor), dangerous and foolish because the disembodied spirits could try to possess the mortal communicating with them.


 
Hi Alcuin, you're thinking of a section of _Laws And Customs Among The Eldar_, page 224 _Morgoth's Ring_... right before the section on the Lingerers, and so not far before the section "Of The Severance Of Marriage" if we have different editions.

And thanks for your answer to my question on the switch of words. I feel bad that you went to the trouble of rounding up those citations though, as the only reason I wondered is that I find the change, if we are correct, rather odd. Why would Tolkien feel the need to change the word Balrog to demon in this text?

I realize that the evidence is limited here (only two other uses of the word demon in this text), but since "demon" is used in the other instances, one opinion (not mine) for the word switch (an opinion I read on the web some time ago) was that _maybe_ Tolkien was thinking of making Glorfindel's final foe a great demon _of some kind_, some kind other than a _Balrog_ or "mighty demon" that is.

In other words, this person was wondering if Tolkien -- if truly going to reduce Balrog numbers so drastically that is (as at least one note and revision suggest) -- was going to replace Glorfindel's defeat of a Balrog with Glorfindel's defeat of some other kind of notable demon (which still caused Glorfindel's death however), perhaps a great Maia-orc captain for instance, who had survived long enough to fight against Gondolin, or something similar.

For myself, I find it unlikely that JRRT would alter such a long held idea (Glorfindel and the _Balrog_), even in this way, but that said, the change in words does seem odd to me. I would have to speculate that Tolkien perhaps simply liked the sound of the word demon in this particular sentence, better than Balrog.

Or something


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Jun 27, 2016)

I need to go back and re-read _HoM-e_, as I do not clearly remember enough about this specific subject to be able to give very definitive answers on the subject myself with direct reference to the sources.

BUT...

One thing that can help in resolving these issues is to try to think in terms of the Metaphysics and Ontology of Middle-earth itself:

What was "stuff" made out of (whether the Body/Hröa or Soul/Spirit/Fëa - these things have to be made of _SOME_-Thing, otherwise they are _NO_-Thing)?

How did this "stuff" interact?

As strange as it may seem, being able to think in these terms allows a rather large number of unanswered questions to be resolved in a way that conforms to the rest of Tolkien's laid-out conceptions of Middle-earth.

It allows for thinking about the distinction between the typical Maiar who fell into Morgoth's corruption, and those of great power, such as Sauron, Thuringwethil, or the Boldoeg in such a way as to gain better clarity on what Tolkien might have been thinking on the same subject.

And while this is a _VERY_ Subjective thing, being able to understand Tolkien's own Theology, and Religious beliefs (as well as his internal conflicts over the Pagan Subjects, and often Heretical Philosophies contained within these Pagan Subjects) helps to gain clarity and see that there are Unifying Petaphysics and Ontologies within Middle-earth.

This does require having the ability to set aside your own beliefs and adopt those of another, which is an exceptionally difficult thing, even to those who are practiced in such things.

As to the specific subject of the number of Balrogs... I believe that number to have dwindled from a substantially large number in the beginning, prior to the First Age; to only a few (7 - a couple of dozen) at the advent of, or during the First Age; to _maybe_ 3 after the First Age (it does seem certain that whether another Balrog other than Durin's Bane escaped the War of Wrath, other "Demons" of a lesser-kind _DID_ escape).

It is a pity that Tolkien did not really begin thinking explicitly in terms of a Unifying Metaphysics until the 1960s (i.e. taking into consideration the consequences of his Cosmology and Cosmogony on later events and beings within the world).

Also... On a side-note: 

Read _The Adventures of Tom B0mbadil_ and _Tales from the Perilous Realms_ regarding Bombadil and Goldberry. Neither are Maia (as is likely that neither was Ungoliantë, although a much better case can be made that she was/is a Maia than for Bombadil and Goldberry). Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are spirits of Nature. They are Properties of Arda itself taken on form, and given a will due to the above "Metaphysics and Ontology" I mentioned.

Tom Shippey mentions this in _The Road to Middle-earth._ Goldberry is a water spirit, similar to a Nixie or Fossegrim. She is the "River Daughter."

And while there is a tendency to draw parallels to Maiar like Ossë, Goldberry differs in that she is not an alien to Arda, but a product from within it. She is a product of the Ainulindalë, and isn't a "Child of Ilúvatar." She is an aspect of Arda that has a Will of her own, which was manifest due to Bombadil's Love of her.

Likewise is Tom Bombadil, who is the Spirit of Arda who seeks to know itself (Similar to Enlil, who later became Adam in the Abrahamic Myths). Notice that Tom Bombadil seems to "know the identity" of things that goes beyond a name. The Ponies he gives a name answer to that name as if it is their actual identity (and it is). Notice how he warns of giving out names so easily. Similarly, "Old Man Willow" and the Barrow-Wights both behave exactly as he "Names" them (describes). He is literally someone who "Tells it like it is" (gives a true description of other things within Arda, and is capable of affecting them by Naming a power Counter to them).

He is an ancient being who is an embodiment of Arda, who arose from within it, rather than coming from outside of it. Although he seems an Alien considering he is outside of the knowledge of the rest of the Peoples of Middle-earth, including many of the Ainur themselves. Tolkien would not have hesitated to name him an Ainur if he were an Ainur, given Gandalf's curiosity in Tom Bombadil. His Will arises from a simple wonder of existence and a desire to know "What is." This means that he isn't subject to the power of one of the Ainur (He would have been affected by the _One Ring_ if he were a Maia), or any of their products. And it is very likely, given his nature, that unless he "Names" himself to be subject to a power, he remains unaffected by it.

Anyway.... Enough of the Bombadil rant....

I'll go re-read _HoM-e_ over the coming weeks and return to this topic.

MB


----------

