# Gandalf and Durin's Bane



## Thráin II (Feb 1, 2008)

I know the thread title sounds dreadfully boring, but I cannot seem to find anything more fitting at this late hour.

I was re-reading "The Bridge of Kahzad-Dûm" chapter, and it made me ask myself a few questions that I thought I would share with the rest of you, specially as this place seems to be very quiet of late.

I was wondering especially about why Gandalf could not even guess what the foe on the other side of the door was.



> Well, well! That's over! ' said the wizard struggling to his feet. `I have done all that I could. *But I have met my match*, and have nearly been destroyed.


Surely there can only be a limited amount of beings in Middle-Earth that could "match" him, especially in spells, and a few of them could have been ruled out easily (Sauron, Saruman, the Nazgûl), so why is it that he cannot even hazard a guess, as shown in the following quote



> But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before.


and



> What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge.


Gandalf must have been very knowledgeable on the subject of Balrogs, probably more so than any of us ever will, so why could he not recognize it, or even able to guess what it may have been?

Is it perhaps because there was such a large amount of unnamed creatures in the deep places of the earth that guessing was impossible?

In fact, not until Legolas observes



> 'Ai! ai! ' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '


does Gandalf finally say the words



> 'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. `Now I understand.'


By this point, it would appear that Gandalf indeed had absolutely no clue what the being could be. What do you think it might have been, if not a Balrog?

The question can be easily reversed to ask, "Did the Balrog know who/what it was facing?".

We have no real evidence of the Balrog's thought-process, but I would submit the following two quotes to support a theory I'd been toying with:




> `I do not know,' answered Gandalf. `But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, *and even then the door can be broken by strength*.





> 'What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. *The counter-spell was terrible*. It nearly broke me.


As far as my knowledge of Balrogs extends, their greatest strength lies in physical strength/force of arms and less in spell-casting (admittedly, I may be wrong here), so why would the Balrog choose to use a counter-spell rather than using strength to open the door, which was possible according to Gandalf's own admission?

Could it be that it was because the Balrog perceived a Maia on the other side and knew that breaking his spell through a counter-spell would severely weaken him?

How much could the Balrog have known? Could it have known it was "Gandalf" on the other side, and if so did it know he was the embodiment of Olórin?

A lot of useless questions, I know, and my post could probably have been structured a lot better but perhaps someone can take the time to give it a read nonetheless


----------



## Durin's Bane (Feb 2, 2008)

Here is what Aragorn says to Gandalf in _A Journey in the Dark: 
_


> I will follow your lead now- if this last warning does not move you. It is not of the Ring, nor of us others that I am thinking now, but of you, Gandalf. And I say to you: if you pass the doors of Moria, beware!


I think both of them suspected a being of terribel power dwelled in the Mines... And here are Gandalf's words a few pages later:



> There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the word.


And Gimli's:


> And since the dwarves fled, no one dares to seek the shafts and treasures down in the deep places: they are drowned in water- or in a shadow of fear. () ... they delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled, Durin's Bane.


So they new there was something dwelling in Moria, but not what it was. Gimli only new it's name, but he didn't guess it was a Balrog.

And wether the Balrog new he was facing a Maia:


> With a quick movement Gandalf stepped before the narrow opening of the door and thrust forward his staff. There was a dazzling flash that lit the chamber and the passage outside.


First encounter with the orcs in _The Bridge of Khazad-Dum. _And:


> It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell.


So the Balrog new atleast _what_ he was facing...
And I'm quite clueless why Gandalf was clueless...


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 2, 2008)

Although the Ainur saw much of what was to happen in Arda before it was even created, they did not see all of the story nor were they aware of every detail of that which they did see.

We are in a position of knowing that the Balrog known as "Durin's Bane" fled from the fall of Thangorodrim during the 'War of Wrath' when Morgoth was over-thrown and Beleriand was destroyed. However, even if Olorin was in the battle at Thangorodrim, I doubt that he would have been aware of the Balrog escaping. So, as there had been no report of a Balrog since the War of Wrath, he probably would not have thought of it. There were many other things in Middle-earth.

Also, as Gandalf, he did not have such acute senses. A glimpse by which, as Olorin, he would have instantly recognised was not enough to identify the Balrog to Gandalf.


----------



## Thráin II (Feb 2, 2008)

Durin's Bane said:


> Here is what Aragorn says to Gandalf in _A Journey in the Dark:
> _I think both of them suspected a being of terribel power dwelled in the Mines... And here are Gandalf's words a few pages later:
> 
> And Gimli's:
> ...



Indeed, they were all aware "something" dwelt in Moria.
And the fact that Balrog perceived him and his spell, could I suppose, be interpreted simply that he felt a spell and a being, not even exactly _what_ that being was.




Gothmog said:


> Although the Ainur saw much of what was to happen in Arda before it was even created, they did not see all of the story nor were they aware of every detail of that which they did see.
> 
> We are in a position of knowing that the Balrog known as "Durin's Bane" fled from the fall of Thangorodrim during the 'War of Wrath' when Morgoth was over-thrown and Beleriand was destroyed. However, even if Olorin was in the battle at Thangorodrim, I doubt that he would have been aware of the Balrog escaping. So, as there had been no report of a Balrog since the War of Wrath, he probably would not have thought of it. There were many other things in Middle-earth.
> 
> Also, as Gandalf, he did not have such acute senses. A glimpse by which, as Olorin, he would have instantly recognised was not enough to identify the Balrog to Gandalf.




This is excellent, I hadn't quite thought of it from this perspective.

I do still wonder, though, what other creatures might have fit the same pattern as the Balrog


----------



## Starbrow (Feb 5, 2008)

The Watcher in the Water outside of Moria seems to be one such creature that was unknown. Aragorn and Gandalf don't seem to have any idea of such a creature until it attacks the company.


----------



## Starflower (Feb 7, 2008)

Also, the 'Watchers' at Minas Morgul, they seem to be strange sentient beings that are certainly not known to anyone in the Fellowship or the Alliance.


----------



## Gordis (Feb 7, 2008)

I wouldn't call the Silent Watchers of M. Morgul and Cirith Ungol "beings" per se. It seems they were stone statues inhabited by evil spirits. I suppose they might be akin to Barrow-wights, where evil spirits animated decaying corpses and bones of long-dead Dunedain.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Feb 7, 2008)

I think it likely that Gandalf simply didn't consider the possibility of a Balrog, perhaps presuming all of them dead or otherwise not-in-the-mines-of-Moria?


----------



## Alcuin (Feb 12, 2008)

Galadriel and Celeborn were aware that something awful dwelled in Moria, but they had never identified it; had they known its nature, it is likely they would have discussed this not only with Gandalf but with Elrond as well. 

I am in agreement with Gothmog, that Gandalf’s senses incarnate as an old man were not as acute as in his native form. 

The nature of the beast had not been previously determined. Recall that Dáin Ironfoot had glimpsed Durin’s Bane after the Battle of Azanulbizar, and warned Thráin that it still awaited him beyond the doors. The Dwarves, aware of “who” it was, were unaware of “what” it was, and this seems to have been true for the Wise, as well.

There seems to have been an ennui that affected most of these folk. The Ship-Kings were adventurers, and there are other travelers mentioned (notably Aragorn), but Gandalf seems to have been the only one of the Wise who consistently scouted about or ventured far from “home,” at least by the end of the Third Age. Saruman had settled down after his journeys, the Blue Wizards were lost, and Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn, and Círdan were all homebodies. Legolas does not seem to have been well-traveled before the Fellowship – he seems never to have been to Lórien, in any event – and the Dúnedain were hemmed into Gondor in the South while barely surviving in the North. The Dwarves traveled, but only, it would seem, from hold to hold or from trading post to trading post. In his Letters, Tolkien once described the Eldar of later years as “embalmers,” and Middle-earth in the late Third Age seems almost “embalmed”: full of uncurious folk minding their own affairs. Gandalf is struggling to keep them “awake,” aware of their peril, and once aware, focused on resolving the problem. 

It would also seem that of the Wise, only Gandalf had dared to enter Moria after its fall. Aragorn also had entered, nor does he seems to have recognized what lay there, either because neither he nor Gandalf had encountered the creature, or because Aragorn lacked the experience or proper description to recognize it. (The latter seems the less likely of those two possibilities: Aragorn was nothing if not an excellent observer.)

Had the Ainur realized that a Balrog had escaped Thangorodrim, I imagine they would have hunted it relentlessly. Why Legolas recognized it before Gandalf might be explained by Gandalf’s exhaustion from his confrontation and the injuries he sustained from his fall down the stairs after the roof of the Chamber of Mazarbul collapsed.

In the movies, Saruman is aware of the nature of the Balrog, but I cannot recall any reference in Tolkien’s own work that he knew one of the fallen Maia inhabited Moria: that seems to have been a bit of information of which Sauron alone was aware.


----------



## Starbrow (Feb 12, 2008)

I would guess that the reason why no one really knew what evil lived in Moria, aside from orcs, is because no one survived an encounter with the Balrog to be able to describe it.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 28, 2008)

and a few of them could have been ruled out easily (Sauron, Saruman, the Nazgûl), so why is it that he cannot even hazard a guess, as shown in the following quote

Now why would The Nazgul be easily ruled out?
They would seem to me to be the most likely choice at first glance.....
They have already been on Frodo's trail & have had 2 months to re-group after the Ford of Bruinen. They certainly could've picked up the Fellowship's trail by then.

Now, it's pretty certain that none of the Wise know that 'Durin's Bane' is a Balrog. Which of the Wise has seen him before Gandalf? What Elf prior to Legolas? How many Dwarves saw DB except for Dain & lived? Gandalf knows that 'older & fouler things than Orcs' live in the mountains (he later calls them 'nameless things'). Bilbo himself (or Gollum) gave Gandalf a report of this when down here Gollum's lake when lost in the Misty Mountains 80 years earlier. It is likey that since the Dwarves 'delved too deep' for mithril that the Wise could assume Durin's Bane is one of these 'nameless things' that are like the Watcher in the Water', just these older & fouler 'ancient evils' as Tolkien calls them that have existed for Ages in the depths of the earth.

Why anyone, Gandalf included, would perceive through a door that a Balrog was there - he certainly knows it is powerful, doesn't he? - all of which were supposed to be wiped out 6419 years earlier, is beyond me. Let us remember, when Sauron set up camp in the Second Age, that it took over 800 years for Gil-Galad to figure that out:

'Then Meneldur broke the seal & read:

Erenion Gil-Galad son of Fingon (maybe, lol) to Tar-Meneldur of the line of Earendil, greeting:

'Blah, blah, blah......
A new shadow rises in the East. It is no tyranny of evil Men, as your son believes; but a servant of Morgoth is stirring & evil things wake again. Each year it gains strength...'

This is written in S.A. 883.....
So, this is SAURON, much stronger than a Balrog (Tolkien says so in 'Myths Transforned in 'Morgoth's Ring') & it still takes almost 900 years for any Elf to notice there's Morgoth's most powerful servant on the loose & acting as a new Dark Lord, whereas Durin's Bane is hiding in Moria from the Host of the West for 6000 years.


----------



## Master of maps (Apr 26, 2008)

"As far as my knowledge of Balrogs extends, their greatest strength lies in physical strength/force of arms and less in spell-casting (admittedly, I may be wrong here)"

Indeed you are wrong.
Balrogs are maiar turned evil by morgoth, and if any real change occurred when it comes to thier power, it probibly would have been increased instead of decreased when they became balrogs, because morgoth poured his power into his minions, and thus he became weaker and weaker as his army's grew. But this would mean that the balrog would be just as skilled as gandalf is when it came to spells, as gandalf is also a maiar.

And when you said that saruman could easily have been ruled out, he wasnt as easily ruled out as you may have thought. in the historys of middle earth, the treason of isengard section of this forum, there is a thread that suggests that maybe the balrog could have been saruman.

Though i dont agree with this theory, it nevertheless points out that he wasnt ruled out that easily.


----------



## Firawyn (Apr 26, 2008)

> Also, as Gandalf, he did not have such acute senses.



Yeah, his senses were lacking. 

"Oh! Bilbo has the ring of power!" *smacks forehead*


----------



## Gothmog (Apr 26, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> Yeah, his senses were lacking.
> 
> "Oh! Bilbo has the ring of power!" *smacks forehead*



Proof of my point. Had 'Gandalf's' senses been as acute as they would be for 'Olorin' would the One Ring been unrecognised for so long?


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 11, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> Had 'Gandalf's' senses been as acute as they would be for 'Olorin' would the One Ring been unrecognised for so long?


Think about that for a moment. When Sauron made the One Ring, he clearly put some kind of “protection” mechanism into it: Isildur found it “precious,” Gollum called it (and eventually himself) “My Precious,” Bilbo called it “My Precious,” and Frodo became pretty possessive of it (in fact, it finally possessed him in the Sammath Naur). That might have been incidental to its construction; but I think that it was a safety mechanism, a fall-back insinuated into its manufacture so that, should Sauron be separated from his precious Ring, it would tend to work its way back to him, and in the meantime, it would be guarded by its keeper. Perhaps the Ring also had a means of concealment: it might not “want” to be found unless Sauron was “calling” to it, searching for it, as was the case when poor Déagol fished it out of the shallows of the Gladden. I don’t think the One Ring “wanted” to be recognized by any others except Sauron, and was “hiding” itself at the same time that it was working to return itself to Sauron. (Personally, I think the One Ring had something akin to a sophisticated “program” in it, rather than a distinct personality: in any case, whatever was in it had come from Sauron, and if it had a personality, it must have been Sauron’s own.)

As far as the Balrog goes, however, it did not want to be found! It had wormed its way underneath Khazad-dûm in order to hide from the Army of the Valar in the War of Wrath, and after it killed or drove out the Dwarves, it stayed inside the underground city-state and continued to hide: Celeborn suspected its nature but did not know; and Gandalf, while he and Elrond and the rest of the Wise might have guessed at what “Durin’s Bane” might be, clearly did not know its true nature until he met it in the Second Hall, even after encountering it on the other side of the door to the Chamber of Mazarbul. 

Galadriel said that a grey mist surrounded Gandalf, and she was unable to see him or his movements. This was probably a deliberate device of Gandalf’s: Galadriel, his friend and ally, could not see him: neither could his enemies, particularly Sauron. Saruman was able to conceal his nefarious mechanizations from the rest of the Council. Sauron hid himself for millennia, so that none of the Wise was able to determine for certain who he was until Gandalf entered Dol Guldur near the end of the Third Age (where he found Thráin II in some state of dementia). 

My point is that Maia seem to have been able to conceal themselves from one another, at least at a distance. Exactly what the Balrog perceived through the door to the Chamber of Mazarbul is not clear, but it and Gandalf “perceived” one another: each was aware that there was a “power” holding onto the other side of the handle he grasped, though Gandalf clearly failed to grasp that the other hand belonged to a fallen Maia: perhaps that was because his judgment was clouded by fear and haste; or perhaps he was simply under the misapprehension that all the Balrogs had been killed or captured during the War of Wrath, and was just not able to piece together at that moment that this is what held the other side of the door. 

Which brings up another, similar question. Saruman and Sauron were both aware that a Balrog dwelled in Moria. (Saruman withheld that bit of intelligence from the rest of the White Council, of which he was nominally head, as he did much other information that came into his possession. Exactly what his motive was in this instance might be worthy of discussion.) It is quite possible that, separately, one or the other had visited Moria and perhaps even met the Balrog and conversed with it. In any case, the Balrog clearly knew that there were other Maia roaming about Middle-earth, and it knew something about the Wizards and what they were.

So, when the Balrog perceived Gandalf, even though Gandalf didn’t immediately realize that the thing on the other side of the door was a Balrog – did the Balrog immediately realize the thing on the other side opposing it was a Wizard like Saruman, and hence another Maia?


----------



## Illuin (Sep 11, 2008)

Well, you have to hand it to some of those Maia; they indeed lend a new meaning to the word "patience". Playing "hide and seek" for; what is it; 5,421 years or so? That is commendable. I would have given up in fifteen minutes .


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 13, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> Saruman and Sauron were both aware that a Balrog dwelled in Moria.



They were?? It's been a long time since I read the books so I might have forgotten some tidbit about Sauron, but Saruman knowing about the Balrog?



> In any case, the Balrog clearly knew that there were other Maia roaming about Middle-earth,



Clearly knew? 



> and it knew something about the Wizards and what they were.



It did?


----------



## Illuin (Sep 13, 2008)

> by Alcuin
> _Saruman and Sauron were both aware that a Balrog dwelled in Moria. _
> _In any case, the Balrog clearly knew that there were other Maia roaming about Middle-earth, and it knew something about the Wizards and what they were._


 

I'm with Ithy on this one. I know the Silvan Elves of Lothlorien fled the Balrog; but they did not recognize it as a Balrog; they just described it as a “Nameless Terror”. Since both Sauron and Saruman had messengers in Moria; it’s possible these scouts caught a glimpse of the Balrog and reported it. Even if the messengers didn’t know what it was; if they provided a description, it’s likely Saruman and Sauron would have guessed it was a Balrog.

But this is just speculation. As far as this being definite:

Documentation please?


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 13, 2008)

Illuin said:


> I'm with Ithy on this one. ...
> 
> But this is just speculation. As far as this being definite:
> 
> Documentation please?


<sigh>

Ok, it’s not “clear,” but it’s pretty heavily implied.

The orcs in Moria were placed there by Sauron. The Balrog controlled them within the ruins, no doubt.

The orcs that invaded Lórien – the ones following the Company of the Ring – were lead by Uruks from Isengard. Those Uruks belonged to Saruman. In fact, that’s why Saruman started first in pursuit of the Company, with Sauron in pursuit a day or two later. (I.e., it’s why Merry & Pippin were being hauled off to Isengard instead of Mordor. Didn’t we discuss this in a thread recently? The material on this is in _Reader’s Companion_, because I cited it in the thread.)

I’ll have to withdraw the statements – not because I don’t believe them, but because I simply do not have time right now to unearth all the citations required to mount any kind of sensible defense other than, “Well, I know I read it somewhere.”

So I’ll back down. (But as soon as I have time … which may be never, the way things are going in the salt mines of Núrnen…) 

But … I won’t forget. And you two don’t get off the hook because I don’t have time to do all the documentation this weekend!


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 14, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> Didn’t we discuss this in a thread recently? The material on this is in _Reader’s Companion_, because I cited it in the thread.)





> So I’ll back down. (But as soon as I have time … which may be never, the way things are going in the salt mines of Núrnen…)
> 
> But … I won’t forget. And you two don’t get off the hook because I don’t have time to do all the documentation this weekend!


Don't forget, if you cite material from the Reader's Companion to back your case, Include information on the original Tolkien sources that were used By the Author.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 14, 2008)

Woah, hold yer horses, Alcuin, this is not a court. 

I was interested in the reasoning behind those statements, because they seemed to me to be heavy on speculation. Did I tell you yet I really enjoy reading your posts?


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 14, 2008)

Ithrynluin said:


> Woah, hold yer horses, Alcuin, this is not a court.
> 
> I was interested in the reasoning behind those statements, because they seemed to me to be heavy on speculation. Did I tell you yet I really enjoy reading your posts?


Well, thank you, *Ithy*! TTF isn’t a court, but *Illuin* makes a fair request, and one I can’t provide right now. I don’t have time to dig out all the citations, link them together into a strong argument, and defend them. But I think it’s an important enough subject to return to it later: when I read the material for the first time after _Reader’s Companion_ was released, I was surprised. I think there is also some material regarding this in _HoME_, but that would require more time for research, too. So until I can do that, I’ll have to withdraw the statement and sit with a little egg on my face. 

By the way, I don’t recall that there is a single statement that says, “Sauron knew about the Balrog, and so did Saruman,” so arguing that they did know about it requires some work. 



Gothmog said:


> Don't forget, if you cite material from the Reader's Companion to back your case, Include information on the original Tolkien sources that were used By the Author.


Is that a “rule”? I don’t quite understand: if we cite from _Reader’s Companion_, we must also cite all the references from the _LotR_ text as well? That seems to be a peculiar burden for using _Reader’s Companion_.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 14, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> Is that a “rule”? I don’t quite understand: if we cite from _Reader’s Companion_, we must also cite all the references from the _LotR_ text as well? That seems to be a peculiar burden for using _Reader’s Companion_.



The problem with using a secondary source is that you are relying on the interpretation of someone other than Tolkien. On checking the original source others might come to a different opinion.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 14, 2008)

Gothmog said:


> The problem with using a secondary source is that you are relying on the interpretation of someone other than Tolkien. On checking the original source others might come to a different opinion.


I agree, that would be of little use. In this case, however, Hammond and Scull have published Tolkien’s notes and timelines: the movements of the Nazgûl as they hunt Frodo from The Shire to the Fords of Bruinen, for instance; or the movements of Gollum as he follows Frodo from Moria to the Dead Marshes. Those, I think, are outside the realm of “opinion” and fall into the category of Tolkien’s working material. The references in such cases are obvious, “in my opinion.” 

_Reader’s Companion_ is only useful to the degree that it provides us a source for these working materials, which are both extensive and housed at two separate sites. (Most of them, I think, are in the library at Marquette, but not all.) Tolkien worked out phases of the moon; the weather; and most importantly to discussions of _LotR_, the movements and motivations of the secondary characters whose narrative we do not read in _LotR_. In that sense, _Companion_ is a fundamentally different work from, say, Foster’s _Guide to Middle-earth_, which is a mixed compendium of reference and opinion.


----------



## Illuin (Sep 14, 2008)

_



 
by Alcuin
Well, thank you, *Ithy*! TTF isn’t a court, but *Illuin* makes a fair request, and one I can’t provide right now. 


Click to expand...

_ 
Sorry I created such a stir. Me and my big mouth again 

. Actually, I’m just looking to engage in good conversation whenever the opportunity arises. I agree with you that the RC is a useful; genuine work (and fun as well); it’s just that I don’t remember reading that about our little subject; and skimming through, I can’t seem to find it now. Oh well, no biggie; just having some fun. By the way; I still can’t make out your avatar. What is that thing?


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 14, 2008)

Illuin said:


> Sorry I created such a stir.


Don’t apologize! It’s a legitimate question, and a good request: I just don’t have time to chase down the citations, which would take several hours, and then write up all the arguments, which would take more hours, and then defend the position for a week or two while it was thoroughly vetted and debated. But I’d still like to revisit the subject later. 

If anyone else wants to go looking, the citation about Saruman’s orcs leading the Moria orcs into Lórien to follow the Company of the Ring are in the _RC_ material on Gollum’s movements, I think; there is either a strong implication or a direct statement in that material that Saruman knew about the Balrog beforehand, and learned of its demise from the orcs. That Sauron did not suspect Saruman of treachery until after Saruman concealed from him for several days that the Company had departed Lórien is also in Tolkien’s working papers cited in _RC_. That the orcs in Moria had been placed there by Sauron, who was thus aware of the presence and nature of the Balrog, is buried in _HoME_. 

(Added: I think that the _HoME_ material also suggests that Sauron was content with the Balrog’s being in Moria because it effectively eliminated its use to his enemies; that the Balrog was not subservient to Sauron; and that “Sauron’s” orcs in Moria were effectively the Balrog’s; but these issues I may have confused with boards in which I have cited material in the furtherance of arguments for or against those statements: so while you may find those as three further declarations by Tolkien in the _HoME_ material, then again, you may not. My memory on these three issues, what is in the books, and what was on the boards, is no longer clear.)



Illuin said:


> By the way; I still can’t make out your avatar. What is that thing?


That’s the legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh!


----------



## Illuin (Sep 14, 2008)

Now I’m embarrassed; the Python fan that I am. Man I’m getting old (especially feel that way today 

). Can’t believe I forgot that. Last time I saw The Holy Grail I was living in Naples Florida in 86-88’. Seems like yesterday. 



> by Alcuin
> _I think; there is either a strong implication or a direct statement in that material that Saruman knew about the Balrog beforehand, and learned of its demise from the orcs._


 
There is some “implied” (though somewhat of a stretch) statements in “_The Hunt for the Ring_” in *UT* as well. Well, I’ll agree with you at least with the “implication” theory. If I were to make an educated guess; I “might assume” that they both were aware “before“ DB's demise; but after DB's demise; if someone were to bet me a nice chunk of change; I would bet our two villains were certainly aware. There is just no concrete documentation.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 14, 2008)

Alcuin said:


> I agree, that would be of little use. In this case, however, Hammond and Scull have published Tolkien’s notes and timelines: the movements of the Nazgûl as they hunt Frodo from The Shire to the Fords of Bruinen, for instance; or the movements of Gollum as he follows Frodo from Moria to the Dead Marshes. Those, I think, are outside the realm of “opinion” and fall into the category of Tolkien’s working material. The references in such cases are obvious, “in my opinion.”
> 
> _Reader’s Companion_ is only useful to the degree that it provides us a source for these working materials, which are both extensive and housed at two separate sites. (Most of them, I think, are in the library at Marquette, but not all.) Tolkien worked out phases of the moon; the weather; and most importantly to discussions of _LotR_, the movements and motivations of the secondary characters whose narrative we do not read in _LotR_. In that sense, _Companion_ is a fundamentally different work from, say, Foster’s _Guide to Middle-earth_, which is a mixed compendium of reference and opinion.



And in using a secondary source without any information as to the original source material you are assuming that everybody is conversant with the book you are citing and therefore knows what sources the authors used. Certainly in the case where something is only implied (even if very strongly) noting in general what the original sources are can help those less conversant with the book and author (myself included) to judge the cited information.


----------



## Alcuin (Sep 14, 2008)

Illuin said:


> There is some “implied” (though somewhat of a stretch) statements in “_The Hunt for the Ring_” in *UT* as well. Well, I’ll agree with you at least with the “implication” theory. If I were to make an educated guess; I “might assume” that they both were aware “before“ DB's demise; but after DB's demise; if someone were to bet me a nice chunk of change; I would bet our two villains were certainly aware. There is just no concrete documentation.


Exactly. Properly framed, though, and with thorough documentation (for which you asked), the argument becomes much stronger; and combined with the working material from _RC_ that Tolkien used to trace the movements of Gollum, the Nazgûl that Legolas shot down along the Anduin, the extensive material on the movements of the orcs, and the material on the back-and-forth between Sauron and Saruman (the background of Sauron’s initial, mistaken query of Pippin, “Why have you neglected to report for so long?” for which extensive reference can also be found in _HoME_; but as best as I can recollect only the timelines in _RC_), the argument becomes much stronger.

A “strong argument” cannot become a positive assertion, which is what a direct quote from Tolkien would provide. But I think we can eventually get to the “strong argument” or even “very strong argument” positions.

Here’s another thing to consider: the Balrog is a kind of bad-guy counterweight to Bombadil. 

Neither one leaves the confines of his narrow domain.
Each substantially alters the course of actions within his domain.
The “other side,” while (possibly) aware that something odd is present, is unaware of its true nature and power.
Neither Bombadil nor the Balrog is “allied with” or under the control of anyone else: each pursues his own ends.
Despite that, each consistently pursues a course of action that definitely favors one side or the other.
The Hobbits encounter Bombadil after Gandalf has been delayed by Saruman. The Company encounters the Balrog after either Sauron or Saruman blocks the passage through the Redhorn Gate.
I don’t think any of that was deliberate on Tolkien’s part. It’s just an observation I can offer in lieu of serious research right now. 

In fact, assuming that Bombadil is a Maia (at least within the confines of the story; admittedly, this is a controversial position), there are three “good” Maiar and three “bad” Maiar in the story. The three good Maiar would be Gandalf, Radagast, and Bombadil; and the three bad Maiar would be Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrog.




Illuin said:


> Now I’m embarrassed; the Python fan that I am. Man I’m getting old (especially feel that way today
> 
> ). Can’t believe I forgot that. Last time I saw The Holy Grail I was living in Naples Florida in 86-88’. Seems like yesterday.


I know the feeling: I’m feeling it right now. Does “

” mean that today is your birthday?-|-​_[noparse][[/noparse]Added afterwards due to cross-posting by *Gothmog* and me…[noparse]][/noparse]_
 


Gothmog said:


> And in using a secondary source without any information as to the original source material you are assuming that everybody is conversant with the book you are citing and therefore knows what sources the authors used. Certainly in the case where something is only implied (even if very strongly) noting in general what the original sources are can help those less conversant with the book and author (myself included) to judge the cited information.


Fair enough, but only to a degree. You do not require this of material cited from 12 volumes of _HoME_, _UT_, _Ósanwe-kenta_ (which was edited and annotated by Carl Hostetter from Tolkien’s notes, just as _RC_ is edited and annotated by Hammond and Scull), or any of the other books that I can think of. 

If you find a citation from _RC_ that is unclear, why don’t you ask for further reference, just as you would from any other non-_LotR_, non-_Hobbit_, non-_Silmarillion_ source?

_[noparse][and even later…][/noparse]_

There is a great deal of material in _Companion_ that is opinion, I agree; it is generally offset or marked in some way. My primary interest in the book is in its references to Tolkien’s otherwise unpublished notes for construction of the storyline: movements, motivations, and so forth. I am less interested in Tom Shippey’s oft-cited opinions.


----------



## Illuin (Sep 14, 2008)

> by Alcuin
> _In fact, assuming that Bombadil is a Maia (at least within the confines of the story; admittedly, this is a controversial position), there are three “good” Maiar and three “bad” Maiar in the story. The three good Maiar would be Gandalf, Radagast, and Bombadil; and the three bad Maiar would be Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrog._


 
I guess this is an ideal example of why the Maiar were the “lesser” of the Ainur; considering there was only one “bad” Vala and fourteen “good” Valar.

Of course I have my own fun little unsubstantiated theory of Bombadil, but your theories are fun too .

_



I know the feeling: I’m feeling it right now. Does 

 mean that today is your birthday?

Click to expand...

_ 
Unfortunately, it does. But at least I'm grateful that I’ve miraculously made it through another year in the dungeons of Great Eye, um; I mean the Big Apple.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Sep 14, 2008)

Happy Birthday, Illuin! Shake off those frown's and save em for a confrontation, today you should be treating yourself 

And as for _RC_, I think I have to buy it


----------



## Illuin (Sep 14, 2008)

> by Prince of Cats
> _Happy Birthday, Illuin! Shake off those frown's and save em for a confrontation, today you should be treating yourself _
> 
> _And as for RC, I think I have to buy it_


 


Thank you Prince! I jest; age is good in some ways (but bad in most). As far as the RC; if you have read much of Tolkien’s works and know them well; it’s not worth it (it’s second nature; you will be 10 steps ahead of it; and at times disagree with it). But if you are a bit new to Tolkien and maybe a bit unfamiliar with his “other works” like HoME and Unfinished Tales; it’s like CliffsNotes and a quick learn. The key is really knowing _The Silmarillion_ (especially); and _Unfinished Tales_. If you are familiar with those; there is no need to spend the money. The last three volumes of HoME (X-XII...10-12) are recommended as well (though the other volumes; well, if you have read _Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion_, _The Hobbit_, and _Unfinished Tales_; are interesting; but redundant). I personally did not learn anything new from the RC (but it is still fun; and a quick reference tool). You will likely say; “Ok, I’ve read this already; and rejected versions are not necessary" (similar to HoME; other than volumes X-XII). Anyway, thanks for the B-Day pep talk. I needed that .


----------

