Balrogs, bloody Balrogs
William
Yesterday Michael posted extensive citations from MORGOTH'S RING,
deriving from the intermediate Ainulindale texts labelled C and C*, in
an effort to demonstrate that Balrogs-as-Maiar existed before the
completion of the Lord of the Rings.
I've therefore taken the rare step of bringing a book to the office in
order to fight cites with cites.
DATING: The chapter "The Bridge of Kahazad-dum" was written and brought
to virtually its final form in about 1939. The only difference from the
published text in any way material to this discussion is the absence of
the notorious second "wings" phrase; in all other aspects the story of
the fight was fixed from that date.
Ainulindale C* was a revision based on the pre-LR B-text of the
same. It was in existence not later than October 1948 (The LR had been
completed in the summer of that year). An underlying draft of C* was
made using paper connected with "The Notion Club Papers" and therefore
might be as early as 1946 (at which time the LR extended as far as
Gandalf's ride with Pippin to the Pelennor gates).
Ainulindale C was a revision made directly on the B-manuscript; it
was made after October 1948 and therefore after C*.
AAm, the "Annals of Aman", followed the last text of Ainulindale,
"D". It belongs to the great period of work Tolkien undertook on the
Elder Days during 1951-52.
AAm* is a typescript of the first part of AAm which diverges in some
important ways. Christpher Tolkien believes that it was made after AAm
was finished, but not very long after.
LKew1* ("Later Kwenta") refers specifically to an amaneuensis
(secretary's) typescript, and for our purposes generally to a whole
complex of writings, dating to 1951-2 and comprising a wholesale
expansion and revision of the "Kwenta Silmarillion" (1937).
LR was published between 1954 and 56.
LKew2 is a further revision of LKew1, made in 1958.
Valakwenta is a further revision of the first portion of LKew2,
comprising the material which had previously formed Chapter 1 "Of the
Valar." 1958 or later.
THE CITES:
Michael relies on Ainulindale C to support the proposition that
Balrogs-were-Maiar at least as early as 1948. His basis: § 24 "For
[Melkor] was alone, without friend or companion, and he had as yet but
small following; since of those that had attuned their music to his in
the beginning not all had been willing to go down with him into the
World, and few that had come would endure his servitude." And §32: "and
[Melkor] delved great caverns underground, and gathered there many
lesser powers that seeing his greatness and growing strength were now
willing to serve him; and the name of that strong and evil place was
Utumno." To Michael, this "small following" of "lesser powers" are
clearly Ainur (I agree) and also clearly includes the Balrogs (I
disagree).
It should be noted that the passage cited from § 24 was removed from
Ainulindale D.
Should we conclude that, when Tolkien was writing Ainulindale, he had
decided that Balrogs were Ainur, and therefore what he would later call
"Maiar?" There are very good reasons not to. Chief of these reasons are
found in the Annals of Aman, which postdate the LR and Ainulindale by
some appreciable time.
AAm §4: "With thse great powers [Valar] came many other spirits of like
kind but less might ... thse are the Maiar, the Beautiful, the folk of
the Valar. And with them are numbered also the Valarindi, the offspring
of the Valar, yet of the race of the Ainur who were before the World."
Here the Maiar appear for the first time; at the same time, Tolkien is
clinging to the old notion that the Valar had children.
AAm §17: "Now Melkor knew of all that was done; for even then he had
secret spies and friends among the Maiar whom he had converted to his
cause, and of these the chief, as after became known, was Sauron, a
great craftsman of the household of Aule. And afar off in dark places
Melkor ... gathered to himself spirits out of the voids of Ea that he
had perverted to his service." Here Sauron's origin is explained, again
TMK for the first time; one might conclude from this paragraph that the
Balrogs were among the other Maiar or "spirits" here mentioned: but this
is not so.
AAm §30 (Year 1 of the Trees): "And in Utumno [Melkor] wrought the race
of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs. But these came not
yet from the gates of Utumno, because of the watchfulness of Orome."
This shows definitively that as late as 1951, well after the LR was
completed, and even after the Maiar had been conceived, Tolkien
considered Balrogs to have been creations of Morgoth, _not_ Ainur of any
sort.
LKew §4 "Fionwe [later Eonwe] and Ilmare are their [Manwe's and Varda's]
son and daughter." As typed: later struck out.
LKew § 10b (added in ink to the typescript after its completion;
probably in preparation for LKew2, ca. 1958): With the Valar were other
spirits whose being also began before the world: these are the Maiar, of
the same order as the Great but of less might and majesty. Among them
Eonwe the herald of Manwe, and Ilmare handmaid of Varda were the chief
... And wise was Olorin, counsellor of Irmo: ... But not all of the
maiar were faithful to the Valar, for some were from the beginning drawn
to the power of Melkor, and others he corrupted later to his service.
Sauron was the name by which the chief of these was called, but he was
not alone." Here the Valarindi are finally abandoned, and Gandalf's
origin given for the first time. No mention of Balrogs, just as in AAm.
LKew1 §18: "...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 cloaked in darkness, and terror went
before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named by the
Noldor in later days." Here again: Balrogs are not yet Maiar, but
creatures made by Morgoth.
AAm* §30 A divergence from the AAm text cited above: "And in Utumno
[Melkor] multiplied the race of the evil spirits that followed him, the
Umaiar, of whom the chief were those demons whom the Elves afterwards
named the Balrogath." Finally the Balrogs cease to be made by Melkor;
they are counted as "Umaiar" anti-Maiar. Yet at the same time they can
still be multiplied.
LKew2 §18 (emendation in ink: the typescript follows LKew1): "These were
the (ealar) 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 ..." A footnote defines
"ealar" as "'spirit' (not incarnate, which was fea, S. fae). eala
'being'." I suppose another discussion can go into whether ealar are
Maiar or not.
Valakwenta, "Of the Enemies." This corresponds to the latter portion of
§10b in LKew1 and (verbatim) LKew2; it is almost all new. This is the
passage which appears in THE SILMARILLION, p. 331: "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." At
last, the explicit statement.
CONCLUSION: There you have it. Balrogs were emphatically not Maiar until
after the completion of the Lord of the Rings; it is arguable whether
they became so until after its publication. The image of the fight on
the Bridge of Moria was fixed from 1939 onwards and not thereafter
altered. Although Tolkien, twenty years later, made the Roggies Maiar,
there is no indication that the panoply of characteristics he had given
that race was ever back-written to cover Durin's Balrog. Which means
that as written, the Balrog of Moria could not change shape, could not
fly, and did not have wings; the fact that some of these powers might be
attributable to a race of beings into whom Balrogs were belatedly
intruded represents an inconsistency. A mistake, if you will. At any
rate an element of incoherence which renders nugatory any attempt to
draw valid conclusions from syllogising.
*My damn "Kew" key is broken
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
Michael Martinez
In article <35115BF6...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>Yesterday Michael posted extensive citations from MORGOTH'S RING,
>deriving from the intermediate Ainulindale texts labelled C and C*, in
>an effort to demonstrate that Balrogs-as-Maiar existed before the
>completion of the Lord of the Rings.
>
>I've therefore taken the rare step of bringing a book to the office in
>order to fight cites with cites.
O, goody. :)
>DATING: The chapter "The Bridge of Kahazad-dum" was written and brought
>to virtually its final form in about 1939. The only difference from the
>published text in any way material to this discussion is the absence of
>the notorious second "wings" phrase; in all other aspects the story of
>the fight was fixed from that date.
Nope. I've already cited part of the history of this chapter from THE TREASON
OF ISENGARD. Including the section where Christopher pointed out that the
chapter underwent a great deal of revision (and even pointed to several of the
additions Tolkien made for the final, published version found in FELLOWSHIP).
However, I'll get back to this point towards the bottom.
> LR was published between 1954 and 56.
> LKew2 is a further revision of LKew1, made in 1958.
> Valakwenta is a further revision of the first portion of LKew2,
>comprising the material which had previously formed Chapter 1 "Of the
>Valar." 1958 or later.
>
>THE CITES:
>
>Michael relies on Ainulindale C to support the proposition that
>Balrogs-were-Maiar at least as early as 1948.
Nope. Predicating your argument on a false assumption invalidates the whole
argument, you know. What I wrote with respect to the sections you refer to
was:
The change in concept for Maiar is evident in the text of C (only a few
select passages from C* are published):
Should we conclude that you accurately represented what I said? No. I accuse
you of nothing other than posting an erroneous attribution.
What I was debunking was David Salo's assertions:
> Just dismiss any ideas you have about Maiar. They are irrelevant to any
>discussion of the Balrogs. At the time that Tolkien was writing The Lord
>of the Rings, the Balrogs were not 'Maiar'; Maiar did not yet exist! And
>they were certainly not Ainur. The Balrogs were at this time the "demon
>brood of Morgoth", "the first-made of his creatures" -- creations of
>Morgoth. To drag in any ideas, much later conceived, about the power and
>nature of the Ainur in their splendor, and to apply them to the Balrog
>described in The Lord of the Rings is intentional anachronism.
>AAm §17: "Now Melkor knew of all that was done; for even then he had
>secret spies and friends among the Maiar whom he had converted to his
>cause, and of these the chief, as after became known, was Sauron, a
>great craftsman of the household of Aule. And afar off in dark places
>Melkor ... gathered to himself spirits out of the voids of Ea that he
>had perverted to his service." Here Sauron's origin is explained, again
>TMK for the first time; one might conclude from this paragraph that the
>Balrogs were among the other Maiar or "spirits" here mentioned: but this
>is not so.
Well, the incorrect business about "Michael using this to
argue that Balrogs-are-Maiar aside", I note that in section 4 Tolkien wrote:
"$4 With these great powers came many other spirits of like kind
but less might and authority; these are the Maiar, the Beautiful,
the folk of the Valar. And with them are numbered also the
Valarindi, the offspring of the Valar, their children begotten
in Arda, yet of the race of the Ainur who were before the
world; they are many and fair."
So, we clearly have Maiar identified as "folk of the Valar", which all but the
most obstinate would agree, I believe, is the same as "the people of the
Valar." So my reference to Melian in Appendix A does show that the Maiar
existed in the frame of reference for THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
I included the part about the children of the Valar in case anyone decides
that's somehow relevant. I note you cited stuff about them but I've snipped
it as tangential to what I was speaking about.
>AAm §30 (Year 1 of the Trees): "And in Utumno [Melkor] wrought the race
>of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs. But these came not
>yet from the gates of Utumno, because of the watchfulness of Orome."
>This shows definitively that as late as 1951, well after the LR was
>completed, and even after the Maiar had been conceived, Tolkien
>considered Balrogs to have been creations of Morgoth, _not_ Ainur of any
>sort.
[snip of stuff about Valarindi]
[and snip of section in Annals of Aman about Balrogs being Umaiar]
[and snip of the section of Valaqenta about Balrogs and Maiar and all that]
>CONCLUSION: There you have it. Balrogs were emphatically not Maiar until
>after the completion of the Lord of the Rings; it is arguable whether
>they became so until after its publication. The image of the fight on
>the Bridge of Moria was fixed from 1939 onwards and not thereafter
>altered.
Repeating erroneous statements doesn't work well either.
>Although Tolkien, twenty years later, made the Roggies Maiar,
>there is no indication that the panoply of characteristics he had given
>that race was ever back-written to cover Durin's Balrog. Which means
>that as written, the Balrog of Moria could not change shape, could not
>fly, and did not have wings; the fact that some of these powers might be
>attributable to a race of beings into whom Balrogs were belatedly
>intruded represents an inconsistency. A mistake, if you will. At any
>rate an element of incoherence which renders nugatory any attempt to
>draw valid conclusions from syllogising.
>
>
>*My damn "Kew" key is broken
Let's repeat the points I made (without the citations -- they are on Dejanews
for reference) so that my points are CORRECTLY stated. I do detest these
inaccurate attempts to restate for me what I say, btw, because they are so
consistently wrong.
CJRT goes on to show conclusively that Tolkien had shown both texts (C*
and B, the former being labelled the "Round World Version" and the latter
the "Old Flat World Version") to Katherine Farrer by October 1948, when
she wrote to him telling him she preferred the "Old Flat Earth Version"
(text B).
The concept of the Ainur (spirits who dwelt with Iluvatar in the Timeless
Halls and from whom came the Valar) dates from the 1930s and thus predates
THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
The change in concept for Maiar is evident in the text of C (only a few
select passages from C* are published):
Here already the concept of the "people of the Valar" as opposed to the
"children of the Valar" or the "children of the gods" is already evident.
The lengthy section concerning how the Valar could assumes shapes of their
desire is also present in "Ainulidanle", even going back to text B (which
predates THE LORD OF THE RINGS). So the *power* of the Ainur to assume
whatever forms they desired is a quite old concept in Tolkien.
It is quite evident, from the discussion in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD
concerning the development of the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" that
Tolkien's image of the Balrog evolved considerably, and he was even
introducing final touches in the final version of THE LORD OF THE RINGS
(adding the second "wings" reference, for instance, and the final
placement of Boromir's horn-call).
The evolution of the nature of the Balrogs is also long and complex, and
begins well before the writing of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But if Tolkien
was influenced by the end-matter of "Quenta Silmarillion" to introduce the
Balrog to Moria, and subsequently altered "Ainulindale" to give Melkor
companions who were coexistent with him rather than things of his making
PRIOR to the publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, it is inappropriate to
suggest that ascribing to Balrogs these characteristics (i.e., that they
were Ainur capable of taking desired shape) are "intentional anachronism".
They are not such, and some of us do know better than to believe so.
Now, you've constructed a fine straw man argument and have done an excellent
job at knocking it down. I freely admit that.
However, since the battle of the bridge was NOT fixed in 1939 (and in fact
wasn't even written until August of 1940 at the earliest, since it was first
written on the "August 1940" examination paper as the second paragraph in the
chapter "The Mines of Moria (2): The Bridge" makes clear), and since I was
speaking about the Maiar-did-not-exist and Maiar-were-not-Ainur statements,
and the assertion that ideas about the power and nature of Ainur were
"intentional anacronism", if you want to argue with me, at least refer to what
I wrote and not some imagined argument.
Also, it would be helpful if you would keep the chronology of what was written
when straight. You did a good job with all those other texts, but insisting
that "the chapter 'The Bridge of Kahazad-dum' was written and brought
to virtually its final form in about 1939" is simply inexcusable.
It didn't even exist in primal form until late 1940. The *sketch* of the
encounter existed in 1939 -- and consisted of two paragraphs:
"They are pursued by goblins and a B[lack] R[ider] [*written above*:
a Balrog] after escaping from Balin's Tomb -- they come to a bridge
of slender stone over a gulf.
"Gandalf turns back and holds off [? enemy], they cross the bridge but
the B[lack] R[ider] leaps forward and wrestles with Gandalf. The
bridge cracks under them and the last they see is Gandalf falling
into the pit with the B[lack] R[ider]. There is a flash of fire and
blue light up from abyss."
And that is that.
In the chapter concerning how "Bridge" was written, Christopher traces the
first draft up to the point where Aragorn finds out Frodo isn't dead. Then he
[Christopher] writes:
"From this point ('They now went on again', FR p. 342) the original
text is very largely lost for some distance, because my father overwrote
it (and largely erased it first) as part of a revised version, but
something can be read at the end of this section:...."
Eventually, we get back to the original text, and Tolkien introduces Balrogs
(changing them immediately to a Balrog). There was, as I pointed out
previously, CONSIDERABLE evolution in the text of this chapter. It was
nowhere near its final form in the first version as many details were changed
(such as the troll which tumbled into the abyss with Gandalf and the Balrog,
and the way Tolkien moved around the section of Boromir's horn blast, and
Legolas being wounded, Legolas and Gimli being set up for a capture that never
occurred, etc.).
If you want to argue that the Balrog cannot possibly be confused with a fallen
Ainu (even though Tolkien obviously had a chance to add additional verbiage,
and change things in the second edition, as well as in later editorial
markings finally published in what I've referred to as the Douglas Anderson
edition of the 1980s, tough Wayne Hammond has corrected my usage on at least
two occasions concerning that usage) -- well, start up the music.
Let's see where that leads us. You may succeed in getting a draw on this one.
Who knows, you might topple the Arrogant One at last.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web
\\// Mic...@xenite.org
//\\ Martinez <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
[snip]
> >DATING: The chapter "The Bridge of Kahazad-dum" was written and
> brought
> >to virtually its final form in about 1939. The only difference from
> the
> >published text in any way material to this discussion is the absence
> of
> >the notorious second "wings" phrase; in all other aspects the story
> of
> >the fight was fixed from that date.
>
> Nope. I've already cited part of the history of this chapter from THE
> TREASON
> OF ISENGARD. Including the section where Christopher pointed out that
> the
> chapter underwent a great deal of revision (and even pointed to
> several of the
> additions Tolkien made for the final, published version found in
> FELLOWSHIP).
I misspoke. The Bridge was indeed where Tolkien picked up the story
again after a long pause, in late 1940, not 1939. This does not alter
the fact that this was several years before 1951. Now, either I'm going
to have to bring another book to the office, or you can post it
yourself, but we're going to need to go over the text of the material as
gicen in Vol. VII. I maintain that by the time Tolkien finished with it
in late 1940, the nature of the scene was fixed, and the changes made in
1953-4 in anticipation of publication were minor (the second "wings"
passage - Boromir's horn is not material to Balrogs). The drafts of
"The White Rider" are also needed.
Yes, Maiar were first introduced in or about 1951, either in AAm or
LKew1 (whichever came first). But both texts _postdate_ the Lord of the
Rings narrative. Appendix A, BTW, was later.
>
>
> I included the part about the children of the Valar in case anyone
> decides
> that's somehow relevant. I note you cited stuff about them but I've
> snipped
> it as tangential to what I was speaking about.
>
> >AAm §30 (Year 1 of the Trees): "And in Utumno [Melkor] wrought the
> race
> >of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs. But these came not
>
> >yet from the gates of Utumno, because of the watchfulness of Orome."
> >This shows definitively that as late as 1951, well after the LR was
> >completed, and even after the Maiar had been conceived, Tolkien
> >considered Balrogs to have been creations of Morgoth, _not_ Ainur of
> any
> >sort.
This is the key passage: that at the time of the formation of the
"Maiar" concept, Balrogs were not numbered among them. That change came
later, possibly as late as 1958.
> >CONCLUSION: There you have it. Balrogs were emphatically not Maiar
> until
> >after the completion of the Lord of the Rings; it is arguable whether
>
> >they became so until after its publication. The image of the fight
> on
> >the Bridge of Moria was fixed from 1939 onwards and not thereafter
> >altered.
>
> Repeating erroneous statements doesn't work well either.
OK, OK, 1940. The rest of the assertion stands.
But, again, Balrogs were not included among the Ainur at this time.
>
>
> It is quite evident, from the discussion in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD
> concerning the development of the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dum"
> that
> Tolkien's image of the Balrog evolved considerably, and he was even
> introducing final touches in the final version of THE LORD OF THE
> RINGS
> (adding the second "wings" reference, for instance, and the final
> placement of Boromir's horn-call).
To repeat: these "final touches" in no way alter the base conception of
the scene.
>
>
> The evolution of the nature of the Balrogs is also long and complex,
> and
> begins well before the writing of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But if
> Tolkien
> was influenced by the end-matter of "Quenta Silmarillion" to
> introduce the
> Balrog to Moria, and subsequently altered "Ainulindale" to give
> Melkor
> companions who were coexistent with him rather than things of his
> making
> PRIOR to the publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, it is
> inappropriate to
> suggest that ascribing to Balrogs these characteristics (i.e., that
> they
> were Ainur capable of taking desired shape) are "intentional
> anachronism".
It is too facile to use the publication date as an end point.* It
assumes that Tolkien carefully worked out and revised every detail-
something which in fact Tolkien never mustered the discipline to do at
any time. One can speculate that in 1953 or 54 he suddenly realized
"Oh, since Balrogs are Maiar (not clear that they were in '54, but...),
then the Balrog of Moria must be able to alter its shape" etc. etc.
This is less than probable, and its improbability is bolstered by the
fact that Tolkien did not make any _significant_ alterations to "The
Bridge" at this time.
*Without published authority, I suspect that the final form of the LR
narrative was achieved in 1949, when T. made the final typescript-
leaving aside certain very late name-changes like Trotter>Strider and
Hamilcar>Fredegar
>
[snip]
> If you want to argue that the Balrog cannot possibly be confused with
> a fallen
> Ainu (even though Tolkien obviously had a chance to add additional
> verbiage,
> and change things in the second edition, as well as in later editorial
>
> markings finally published in what I've referred to as the Douglas
> Anderson
> edition of the 1980s, tough Wayne Hammond has corrected my usage on at
> least
> two occasions concerning that usage) -- well, start up the music.
That's not what I want to argue. I submit that when "The Bridge" was
written, the Balrog was not conceived as a fallen Ainu- and Tolkien
never reconciled that conception with his later assignement of Balrogs
to the category "Maiar"
>
>
> Let's see where that leads us. You may succeed in getting a draw on
> this one.
> Who knows, you might topple the Arrogant One at last.
Never happen.
Michael Martinez
In article <35127C98...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>I misspoke. The Bridge was indeed where Tolkien picked up the story
>again after a long pause, in late 1940, not 1939. This does not alter
>the fact that this was several years before 1951. Now, either I'm going
>to have to bring another book to the office, or you can post it
>yourself, but we're going to need to go over the text of the material as
>gicen in Vol. VII. I maintain that by the time Tolkien finished with it
>in late 1940, the nature of the scene was fixed, and the changes made in
>1953-4 in anticipation of publication were minor (the second "wings"
>passage - Boromir's horn is not material to Balrogs). The drafts of
>"The White Rider" are also needed.
I've already cited a lengthy section of the early version of the chapter which
is substantively different from what is published in the book.
[big snip]
>> So, we clearly have Maiar identified as "folk of the Valar", which all
>> but the most obstinate would agree, I believe, is the same as "the
>> people of the Valar." So my reference to Melian in Appendix A does
>> show that the Maiar existed in the frame of reference for THE LORD OF
>> THE RINGS.
>
>Yes, Maiar were first introduced in or about 1951, either in AAm or
>LKew1 (whichever came first). But both texts _postdate_ the Lord of the
>Rings narrative. Appendix A, BTW, was later.
Work on THE LORD OF THE RINGS continued up to publication. These texts are
concurrent with the book. They do not POSTDATE it.
In fact, since Tolkien made substantial alterations to some portions of LOTR's
appendices for the second edition, he had plenty of opportunity to revise any
material touching on the Valar and their people -- but apparently elected not
to do so.
>> >yet from the gates of Utumno, because of the watchfulness of Orome."
>> >This shows definitively that as late as 1951, well after the LR was
>> >completed, and even after the Maiar had been conceived, Tolkien
>> >considered Balrogs to have been creations of Morgoth, _not_ Ainur of
>> >any sort.
>
>This is the key passage: that at the time of the formation of the
>"Maiar" concept, Balrogs were not numbered among them. That change came
>later, possibly as late as 1958.
This is completely irrelevant. The conception of the Balrogs evolved
considerably, and you are treating them as if they were static in 19-whatever,
which is not a supportable position.
>> Repeating erroneous statements doesn't work well either.
>
>OK, OK, 1940. The rest of the assertion stands.
No, it doesn't. You are implying that the earliest "Balrogs are Maiar" in the
external texts somehow requires that a similar identification within the text
of THE LORD OF THE RINGS be invalidated. If Tolkien felt the description of
the Balrog were dependent on its nature as a Maia, he would have revised the
text. If he felt its powers were dependent on its nature as a Maia, he would
have revised the text.
All revisions on that passage, so far as I know, stopped with the first
publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
So, if you're trying to prove that Balrogs didn't have wings, you haven't.
If you're trying to prove that Balrogs couldn't fly, you haven't.
If you're trying to prove that the Balrog in Moria couldn't change its size,
you haven't.
If you're trying to prove that David Salo was correct in asserting that the
Ainur and their nature were not established until after LOTR was published,
you haven't.
If you're trying to prove the Balrog should not be considered a fallen Maia,
you haven't done that either.
>> Let's repeat the points I made (without the citations -- they are on
>> Dejanews for reference) so that my points are CORRECTLY stated. I do
>> detest these inaccurate attempts to restate for me what I say, btw,
>> because they are so consistently wrong.
[snip]
>But, again, Balrogs were not included among the Ainur at this time.
So? Was the Balrog a Maia or not? If you were to teach a class on Tolkien's
cosmology, how would you define Balrogs?
Did I not show the conception of the Balrogs changed considerably through the
period of LOTR's development? I believe so, since the citations offered show
the Balrogs, Ainur, and Maiar were all moving toward each other. That the
identification was realized in a rewrite of a text late in the period and
formalized even later doesn't make the evolution any less real. It's only the
latest phase of the evolution that you're so concerned with.
>> It is quite evident, from the discussion in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD
>> concerning the development of the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dum"
>> that Tolkien's image of the Balrog evolved considerably, and he was even
>> introducing final touches in the final version of THE LORD OF THE
>> RINGS (adding the second "wings" reference, for instance, and the final
>> placement of Boromir's horn-call).
>
>To repeat: these "final touches" in no way alter the base conception of
>the scene.
They do indeed, and substantively so.
>> The evolution of the nature of the Balrogs is also long and complex,
>> and begins well before the writing of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But if
>> Tolkien was influenced by the end-matter of "Quenta Silmarillion" to
>> introduce the Balrog to Moria, and subsequently altered "Ainulindale" to give
>> Melkor companions who were coexistent with him rather than things of his
>> making PRIOR to the publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, it is
>> inappropriate to suggest that ascribing to Balrogs these characteristics
>> (i.e., that they were Ainur capable of taking desired shape) are
>> "intentional anachronism".
>
>It is too facile to use the publication date as an end point.* It
>assumes that Tolkien carefully worked out and revised every detail-
>something which in fact Tolkien never mustered the discipline to do at
>any time. One can speculate that in 1953 or 54 he suddenly realized
>"Oh, since Balrogs are Maiar (not clear that they were in '54, but...),
>then the Balrog of Moria must be able to alter its shape" etc. etc.
Such a speculation would be ignoring a majority of the facts, however.
>This is less than probable, and its improbability is bolstered by the
>fact that Tolkien did not make any _significant_ alterations to "The
>Bridge" at this time.
Or later.
>*Without published authority, I suspect that the final form of the LR
>narrative was achieved in 1949, when T. made the final typescript-
>leaving aside certain very late name-changes like Trotter>Strider and
>Hamilcar>Fredegar
Tolkien was rewriting sections of the text on the galleys. The final form of
LOTR was not achieved until much later.
>> If you want to argue that the Balrog cannot possibly be confused with
>> a fallen Ainu (even though Tolkien obviously had a chance to add additional
>> verbiage, and change things in the second edition, as well as in later editorial
>>
>> markings finally published in what I've referred to as the Douglas
>> Anderson edition of the 1980s, tough Wayne Hammond has corrected my usage on at
>> least two occasions concerning that usage) -- well, start up the music.
>
>That's not what I want to argue. I submit that when "The Bridge" was
>written, the Balrog was not conceived as a fallen Ainu- and Tolkien
>never reconciled that conception with his later assignement of Balrogs
>to the category "Maiar"
What reconciliation would be necessary? You've jumped into the debate over
whether the Balrog could fly (or had wings) with a complete tangent.
>> Let's see where that leads us. You may succeed in getting a draw on
>> this one. Who knows, you might topple the Arrogant One at last.
>
>Never happen.
Have faith in yourself.
Are Balrogs Maiar or not? If not, what are they? If so, why is the passage
in Moria somehow suspect? Did not Tolkien have plenty of opportunity to
revise it as he revised other passages? He made substantial changes to THE
HOBBIT to reconcile it with later changes in the cosmology. Surely one little
Balrog would not intimidate him.
William
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <35127C98...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net
> wrote:
> >I misspoke. The Bridge was indeed where Tolkien picked up the story
> >again after a long pause, in late 1940, not 1939. This does not
> alter
> >the fact that this was several years before 1951. Now, either I'm
> going
> >to have to bring another book to the office, or you can post it
> >yourself, but we're going to need to go over the text of the material
> as
> >gicen in Vol. VII. I maintain that by the time Tolkien finished with
> it
> >in late 1940, the nature of the scene was fixed, and the changes made
> in
> >1953-4 in anticipation of publication were minor (the second "wings"
> >passage - Boromir's horn is not material to Balrogs). The drafts of
> >"The White Rider" are also needed.
>
> I've already cited a lengthy section of the early version of the
> chapter which
> is substantively different from what is published in the book.
Yes- the early draft. T. continued to work with it (before moving on to
Lorien). The essential story was fixed in late 1940.
You seem to claim that late revisions just prior to publication altered
the scene significantly. They did not. Except for the now-infamous
"second wings" mention, the duel at the Bridge was unchanged after
Balrogs became Maiar.
>
>
> [big snip]
>
> >> So, we clearly have Maiar identified as "folk of the Valar", which
> all
> >> but the most obstinate would agree, I believe, is the same as "the
> >> people of the Valar." So my reference to Melian in Appendix A does
>
> >> show that the Maiar existed in the frame of reference for THE LORD
> OF
> >> THE RINGS.
> >
> >Yes, Maiar were first introduced in or about 1951, either in AAm or
> >LKew1 (whichever came first). But both texts _postdate_ the Lord of
> the
> >Rings narrative. Appendix A, BTW, was later.
>
> Work on THE LORD OF THE RINGS continued up to publication. These
> texts are
> concurrent with the book. They do not POSTDATE it.
This seems to be the defense line you're taking now- that the Lord of
the Rings was in constant ferment up to the moment it was shipped to
bookstores. But this is not so: while it is true that Tolkien was
making late corrections to details even on the galleys, the essential
text of the chapter we're concerned with was not changed in any material
way at such a late date. In the absence of express statements by CT
that a particular change was made on the proofs, or on the final
typescript, we have no basis to assume that any element of the
published text was not as it was set down in that final typescript,
which dates in all probability to 1949.
>
>
> In fact, since Tolkien made substantial alterations to some portions
> of LOTR's
> appendices for the second edition, he had plenty of opportunity to
> revise any
> material touching on the Valar and their people -- but apparently
> elected not
> to do so.
Or forgot to do so. Or didn't notice there was a problem. Manwe may be
all-seeing, but Tolkien wasn't. The Second Edition also tells us that
all the Eldar had dark hair, and that Finwe's third son was named
Finrod. The Truth? Or just an oversight?
>
>
> >> >yet from the gates of Utumno, because of the watchfulness of
> Orome."
> >> >This shows definitively that as late as 1951, well after the LR
> was
> >> >completed, and even after the Maiar had been conceived, Tolkien
> >> >considered Balrogs to have been creations of Morgoth, _not_ Ainur
> of
> >> >any sort.
> >
> >This is the key passage: that at the time of the formation of the
> >"Maiar" concept, Balrogs were not numbered among them. That change
> came
> >later, possibly as late as 1958.
>
> This is completely irrelevant. The conception of the Balrogs evolved
> considerably, and you are treating them as if they were static in
> 19-whatever,
> which is not a supportable position.
Not at all. The concept of _the Balrog of Moria_ remained static as of
1940, which is a supportable position. It is entirely relevant to
observe that at no time prior to the completion (or publication) of the
LR did Tolkien number Balrogs among the Maiar, nor at any time did he
ascribe Maiarin attributes to the Balrog of Moria.
>
>
> >> Repeating erroneous statements doesn't work well either.
> >
> >OK, OK, 1940. The rest of the assertion stands.
>
> No, it doesn't. You are implying that the earliest "Balrogs are
> Maiar" in the
> external texts somehow requires that a similar identification within
> the text
> of THE LORD OF THE RINGS be invalidated. If Tolkien felt the
> description of
> the Balrog were dependent on its nature as a Maia, he would have
> revised the
> text. If he felt its powers were dependent on its nature as a Maia,
> he would
> have revised the text.
What "similar identification within the text of THE LORD OF THE
RINGS"?? Please, point the passage out to me. There is nothing in the
Lord of the Rings (any edition) which explains what Balrogs are or what
their origin was. Your entire position rests on the assertion that
Balrogs possessed Maiarin powers, an assertion which can only derive
from what you call the "external texts, ," since nothing whatsoever is
said of the attributes of the Maiar in the Lord of the Rings.
If Tolkien had _noticed_ that the description or powers of the Balrog
were dependent on its nature as a Maia, he _might_ have revised the
texts.. If Tolkien had not realized that there was a problem, he _would
not_ have revised the texts. His failure to revise the texts is
probative of nothing.
>
>
> All revisions on that passage, so far as I know, stopped with the
> first
> publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
>
> So, if you're trying to prove that Balrogs didn't have wings, you
> haven't.
>
> If you're trying to prove that Balrogs couldn't fly, you haven't.
>
> If you're trying to prove that the Balrog in Moria couldn't change its
> size,
> you haven't.
Hang on a minute:
Besides the semantic debate about "shadows" and "wings", there is
absolutely nothing in Book II Chapter 5 which supports or suggests any
of these things. _Your_ asssertion of the truth of all three
propositions is founded (explicitly) on the syllogism "All Balrogs are
Maiar/All Maiar can assume bodily forms at will/ Therefore all Balrogs
can assume these forms at will." If it is the case that the Balrog of
Moria was not conceived as a Maia at the time of the final writing of
the passage, then your position is undercut, and you'll have to look
for support from a different source. If you're going to propose
conclusions which are not stated expicitly, the burden of proof is
yours.
>
>
> If you're trying to prove that David Salo was correct in asserting
> that the
> Ainur and their nature were not established until after LOTR was
> published,
> you haven't.
Davis didn't say published. He said written. And that proof is right
there in the texts cited.
Have you ever played Civilization II? In that game, if you possess
"Leonardo's Workshop", then whenever a new technology allows building a
more advanced form of military unit, all your old ones are automatically
updated to the newer kind. If you don't have it, you have to scrap 'em
all and build new ones.
Now, Tolkien didn't have Leonardo's Workshop. Any alteration to his
vast structure sent tremors throughout his universe. He picked up a lot
of them. He missed a lot of them. Middle-earth never achieved the
perfect consistency that Tolkien wanted and tried to accomplish. When
he decided that Balrogs were Maiar, no Workshop automatically upgraded
the Balrog of Moria to fit. When Tolkien wrote the duel on the Bridge,
Gandalf was fighting a creature whose attributes were consistent with a
demon wrought by Morgoth in Utumno. He never afterwards changed it.
Rationalizations like "the room wasn't big enough for it to fly" are
just that: rationalizations. They are attempts to synthesize
consistency in a work which is not, in fact, consistent.
So I would tell my students that there is no One True Answer for much of
Middle-earth. When you research and cite and deduce to the limits of the
available materials, often you are left with an unreconcilable
inconsistency. Middle-earth was indeed an evolving conception.
Therefore you should perceive that often it is not possible to assert
validly that A is true, or that B is true, or to posit that A and B are
really the same. Either there is insufficient data to make the
proposition, or sometimes A if and only if not-B, but A and B
nonetheless are both manifestly true. Treebeard is the oldest living
thing. Bombadil is the oldest living thing. Go figure.
>
>
> >> It is quite evident, from the discussion in THE TREASON OF
> ISENGARD
> >> concerning the development of the chapter "The Bridge of
> Khazad-dum"
> >> that Tolkien's image of the Balrog evolved considerably, and he
> was even
> >> introducing final touches in the final version of THE LORD OF THE
>
> >> RINGS (adding the second "wings" reference, for instance, and the
> final
> >> placement of Boromir's horn-call).
> >
> >To repeat: these "final touches" in no way alter the base conception
> of
> >the scene.
>
> They do indeed, and substantively so.
Cites, please.
>
>
> >> The evolution of the nature of the Balrogs is also long and
> complex,
> >> and begins well before the writing of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. But
> if
> >> Tolkien was influenced by the end-matter of "Quenta Silmarillion"
> to
> >> introduce the Balrog to Moria, and subsequently altered
> "Ainulindale" to give
> >> Melkor companions who were coexistent with him rather than things
> of his
> >> making PRIOR to the publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, it is
> >> inappropriate to suggest that ascribing to Balrogs these
> characteristics
> >> (i.e., that they were Ainur capable of taking desired shape) are
> >> "intentional anachronism".
> >
> >It is too facile to use the publication date as an end point.* It
> >assumes that Tolkien carefully worked out and revised every detail-
> >something which in fact Tolkien never mustered the discipline to do
> at
> >any time. One can speculate that in 1953 or 54 he suddenly realized
> >"Oh, since Balrogs are Maiar (not clear that they were in '54,
> but...),
> >then the Balrog of Moria must be able to alter its shape" etc. etc.
>
> Such a speculation would be ignoring a majority of the facts, however.
What "majority of facts"? You're getting almost as bad at conclusory
statements as I am. : )
>
>
> >This is less than probable, and its improbability is bolstered by the
>
> >fact that Tolkien did not make any _significant_ alterations to "The
> >Bridge" at this time.
>
> Or later.
>
> >*Without published authority, I suspect that the final form of the LR
>
> >narrative was achieved in 1949, when T. made the final typescript-
> >leaving aside certain very late name-changes like Trotter>Strider and
>
> >Hamilcar>Fredegar
>
> Tolkien was rewriting sections of the text on the galleys. The final
> form of
> LOTR was not achieved until much later.
"rewriting sections of the text?" Which sections (relevant to this
discussion)?
>
>
> >> If you want to argue that the Balrog cannot possibly be confused
> with
> >> a fallen Ainu (even though Tolkien obviously had a chance to add
> additional
> >> verbiage, and change things in the second edition, as well as in
> later editorial
> >>
> >> markings finally published in what I've referred to as the Douglas
> >> Anderson edition of the 1980s, tough Wayne Hammond has corrected my
> usage on at
> >> least two occasions concerning that usage) -- well, start up the
> music.
> >
> >That's not what I want to argue. I submit that when "The Bridge" was
>
> >written, the Balrog was not conceived as a fallen Ainu- and Tolkien
> >never reconciled that conception with his later assignement of
> Balrogs
> >to the category "Maiar"
>
> What reconciliation would be necessary? You've jumped into the
> debate over
> whether the Balrog could fly (or had wings) with a complete tangent.
It's not a complete tangent. As above, _your_ assertion that Rogs could
fly depends on the proposition that they were Maiar.
>
>
> >> Let's see where that leads us. You may succeed in getting a draw
> on
> >> this one. Who knows, you might topple the Arrogant One at last.
> >
> >Never happen.
>
> Have faith in yourself.
>
> Are Balrogs Maiar or not? If not, what are they? If so, why is the
> passage
> in Moria somehow suspect? Did not Tolkien have plenty of opportunity
> to
> revise it as he revised other passages? He made substantial changes
> to THE
> HOBBIT to reconcile it with later changes in the cosmology. Surely
> one little
> Balrog would not intimidate him.
No, but it could slip his mind.
Michael Martinez
In article <35129E5A...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> I've already cited a lengthy section of the early version of the
>> chapter which is substantively different from what is published
>> in the book.
>
>Yes- the early draft. T. continued to work with it (before moving on to
>Lorien). The essential story was fixed in late 1940.
Did you walk through that snowstorm to school in your barefeet as well? Your
point continues to shift here.
"It will be seen that for much of its length this chapter was fully
formed from its first emergence; while scarcely a sentence remained
unchanged into FR, and while many details of speech and event would
be altered, there really was not very far to go. But in certain
passages the earliest draft underwent substantial development in
the narrative.
"The first of these is the account of Gandalf's blocking of the
east door out of the Chamber of Mazarbul (FR pp. 340-1), where
there was as yet no suggestion that some greater power than any
orc or troll had entered the chamber, and where the blasting of
the door and felling of the roof was not caused by the competing
spells of great power, but was a deliberate act on Gandalf's
part to preserve the Company from pursuit down the stair.
"...
"The second passage in which the original draft would undergo
major development is the narrative of the final attack on the
fugitives and the battle on the Bridge of Khazad-dum (FR pp. 343-5).
That there was a bridge in Moria, that Gandalf would hold it
alone against a single adversary of great power, and that both
would fall into an abyss when the bridge broke beneath them,
had been foreseen in the original sketch (VI.462); but the final
form of the famous scene was not achieved at a stroke....
"It is clear that my father turned at once to the making of a fair
copy of the original draft text -- that he did so at once, before
continuing the story, is seen from the fact that Sam's wound in
the affray in the Chamber of Mazarbul only appears in the new
version but is present at the beginning of 'Lothlorien'.
"...
"The development of the chapter from [the flight down the stairs]
took much unravelling, but it seems clear that my fater decided
at this juncture that further drafting was required before the
fair copy on which he was engaged could be continued. He therefore
wrote now a new rough draft carrying the story from the flight
of the Comany from the Chamber of Mazarbul to their final escape
out of Moria; and having done this, he returned to the fair copy
and went on with it again, following the draft quite closely. I
believe that all this was continuous work, that it can be shown
that the story of the chapter 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum' was
brought almost to its final form before the story of Lothlorien
was begun...."
(From THE TREASON OF ISENGARD, Houghton Mifflin Ed., pp. 199-202)
Christopher does not date the writing of this story to 1940. At the very
latest it might be dateable to 1942, and yet changes were made to the story
even after that time. However, since JRRT himself mentions that he brought
the story to Lothlorien in late 1941, it's most likely that the story of the
Balrog also belongs to 1941. Tolkien used the "August 1940" examination paper
to work on elements of the book from "The Council of Elrond" onward.
>You seem to claim that late revisions just prior to publication altered
>the scene significantly. They did not. Except for the now-infamous
>"second wings" mention, the duel at the Bridge was unchanged after
>Balrogs became Maiar.
No, AS I HAVE CITED BEFORE, other late changes occurred as well. There were
two changes to that one paragraph alone (the addition of the "great height"
and the addition of the "wings were stretched from wall to wall") which
substantially altered the imagery. Some of the changes also include removal
of text, such as that mentioned in note 16:
"In a pencilled addition in C to the scene of the Balrog's fall from
the Bridge my father changed 'the stone upon which it stood' (the
text of FR) to 'the stone upon which *the vast form* stood.'"
He obviously decided this particular change was unnecessary at some point
afterward.
>> Work on THE LORD OF THE RINGS continued up to publication. These
>> texts are concurrent with the book. They do not POSTDATE it.
>
>This seems to be the defense line you're taking now- that the Lord of
>the Rings was in constant ferment up to the moment it was shipped to
>bookstores. But this is not so: while it is true that Tolkien was
>making late corrections to details even on the galleys, the essential
>text of the chapter we're concerned with was not changed in any material
>way at such a late date.
How long are you going to continue this line of argument? I have repeatedly
shown that you are in error on numerous points. I have the advantage of
having the books right next to me. I have no reason to be deceptive about
this matter.
>> In fact, since Tolkien made substantial alterations to some portions
>> of LOTR's appendices for the second edition, he had plenty of
>> opportunity to revise any material touching on the Valar and their
>> people -- but apparently elected not to do so.
>
>Or forgot to do so. Or didn't notice there was a problem. Manwe may be
>all-seeing, but Tolkien wasn't. The Second Edition also tells us that
>all the Eldar had dark hair, and that Finwe's third son was named
>Finrod. The Truth? Or just an oversight?
Show us that the lack of changes in a chapter which received so much attention
from JRRT in the first place reasonably indicates some oversight? The
business with Gildor Inglorion is a clear anomaly. The business with the
Balrog appears to represent wishful thinking on your part.
>> This is completely irrelevant. The conception of the Balrogs evolved
>> considerably, and you are treating them as if they were static in
>> 19-whatever, which is not a supportable position.
>
>Not at all. The concept of _the Balrog of Moria_ remained static as of
>1940, which is a supportable position.
<sigh> See above. No further comment.
[snip]
>> No, it doesn't. You are implying that the earliest "Balrogs are
>> Maiar" in the external texts somehow requires that a similar
>> identification within the text of THE LORD OF THE RINGS be invalidated.
>> If Tolkien felt the description of the Balrog were dependent on its
>> nature as a Maia, he would have revised the text. If he felt its powers
>> were dependent on its nature as a Maia, he would have revised the text.
>
>What "similar identification within the text of THE LORD OF THE
>RINGS"?? Please, point the passage out to me. There is nothing in the
>Lord of the Rings (any edition) which explains what Balrogs are or what
>their origin was. Your entire position rests on the assertion that
>Balrogs possessed Maiarin powers, an assertion which can only derive
>from what you call the "external texts, ," since nothing whatsoever is
>said of the attributes of the Maiar in the Lord of the Rings.
Would you PLEASE stop restating what I say for me? You have never, ever, that
I can recall, done it correctly.
You haven't clearly recognized what I'm talking about, let alone when the
chapter was written, or when Tolkien stopped working on it.
"similar identification within the text..." is poorly worded but doesn't
suppoort your view that I'm predicating anything on the assertion that Balrogs
possessed Maiar-like powers. I have asserted that Balrogs were Maiar, and
that Tolkien made no apparent changes to the story of the Balrog of Moria
after he had written the earliest texts you've been able to find which state
clearly that Balrogs are Maiar.
>If Tolkien had _noticed_ that the description or powers of the Balrog
>were dependent on its nature as a Maia, he _might_ have revised the
>texts.. If Tolkien had not realized that there was a problem, he _would
>not_ have revised the texts. His failure to revise the texts is
>probative of nothing.
Given how much he changed the Balrogs up through the writing of the chapter
"The Bridge of Khazad-dum" (including additions and deletions made apparently
well after 1941), I would say that Tolkien invested a lot of time before,
during, and after the writing of this chapter thinking about what Balrogs were
and what they should be capable of.
If anything, the Balrog text appears to have influenced later conceptions of
the Maiar.
You are implying there is a problem but that conveniently fits with your point
of view. You have yet to demonstrate that any problem exists.
>> All revisions on that passage, so far as I know, stopped with the
>> first publication of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.
>>
>> So, if you're trying to prove that Balrogs didn't have wings, you
>> haven't.
>>
>> If you're trying to prove that Balrogs couldn't fly, you haven't.
>>
>> If you're trying to prove that the Balrog in Moria couldn't change its
>> size, you haven't.
>
>Hang on a minute:
>
>Besides the semantic debate about "shadows" and "wings", there is
>absolutely nothing in Book II Chapter 5 which supports or suggests any
>of these things.
[big snip]
Excuse me, but I'm not referring to semantic debates. I'm referring to the
text. The texts say Balrogs have wings. The texts don't say, "it appears
that Balrogs have wings to some observers". There is at least one text that
has Balrogs flying. There are no texts which say, "Balrogs were unable to
fly".
The semantic arguments are attempts to manipulate the literal meanings of the
texts to support interpretations which contradict the texts. i.e., using
Assumption A to support Assumption B gets you nowhere. You win no brownie
points for that tactic.
Show us where the texts say Balrogs don't have wings. Show where the texts
say Balrogs don't fly. Show where the texts say the Balrog of Moria was not a
Maia.
>> If you're trying to prove that David Salo was correct in asserting
>> that the Ainur and their nature were not established until after
>> LOTR was published, you haven't.
>
>Davis didn't say published. He said written. And that proof is right
>there in the texts cited.
Apparently it's necessary to recite what "David" wrote again:
> Just dismiss any ideas you have about Maiar. They are irrelevant to any
>discussion of the Balrogs. At the time that Tolkien was writing The Lord
>of the Rings, the Balrogs were not 'Maiar'; Maiar did not yet exist! And
>they were certainly not Ainur. The Balrogs were at this time the "demon
>brood of Morgoth", "the first-made of his creatures" -- creations of
>Morgoth. To drag in any ideas, much later conceived, about the power and
>nature of the Ainur in their splendor, and to apply them to the Balrog
>described in The Lord of the Rings is intentional anachronism.
What does "much later conceived" here mean? Only David Salo can say for sure,
and I will not accept your interpretations because, frankly, given your track
record of restating what I say so inaccurately, I don't believe even he would
feel compelled to support your restatement. At the very least, since you are
arguing the story of the confrontation on the bridge was complete before it
was probably even written, I would say that "after it was written" versus
"after it was published" is a trivial distinction.
[another snip -- why am I the only person snipping stuff in this discussion?]
>> >But, again, Balrogs were not included among the Ainur at this time.
>>
>> So? Was the Balrog a Maia or not? If you were to teach a class on
>> Tolkien's cosmology, how would you define Balrogs?
I WOULD appreciate answers to these questions, no matter how lengthy
(although a simple "yes" or "no" to the first question would, I think, tell
us much about where you actually stand on this issue).
>> Did I not show the conception of the Balrogs changed considerably
>> through the period of LOTR's development? I believe so, since the
>> citations offered show the Balrogs, Ainur, and Maiar were all moving
>> toward each other. That the identification was realized in a rewrite
>> of a text late in the period and formalized even later doesn't make
>> the evolution any less real. It's only the latest phase of the
>> evolution that you're so concerned with.
>
>Have you ever played Civilization II? In that game, if you possess
>"Leonardo's Workshop", then whenever a new technology allows building a
>more advanced form of military unit, all your old ones are automatically
>updated to the newer kind. If you don't have it, you have to scrap 'em
>all and build new ones.
>
>Now, Tolkien didn't have Leonardo's Workshop.
And I doubt he ever played Civilization II, either.
>Any alteration to his vast structure sent tremors throughout his universe.
Really? How many alterations to the vast structure need I mention before
you'll concede this is a hyperbolistic statement?
>He picked up a lot of them. He missed a lot of them. Middle-earth never
>achieved the perfect consistency that Tolkien wanted and tried to accomplish.
>When he decided that Balrogs were Maiar, no Workshop automatically upgraded
>the Balrog of Moria to fit. When Tolkien wrote the duel on the Bridge,
>Gandalf was fighting a creature whose attributes were consistent with a
>demon wrought by Morgoth in Utumno. He never afterwards changed it.
In what way should the winged Balrog, surrounded by a darkness, changing its
size, and using spells, have been changed to make it *more like a Maia*? That
would be an interesting way for you to show the Balrog as described in LOTR
doesn't meet the requirements for being a Maia.
Or, in what way does the Balrog not serve as a precursor for fallen Maiar?
BTW -- I have not yet gone into the further development of the Balrog's
history from later chapters. If necessary, I can do so.
>Rationalizations like "the room wasn't big enough for it to fly" are
>just that: rationalizations. They are attempts to synthesize
>consistency in a work which is not, in fact, consistent.
Really, so you feel that if a Balrog's wings stretch from wall to wall, it
possible has room in which to fly. Is that an accurate statement?
In what way are your arguments not superficially plausible? Have you relied
solely on the texts? I don't believe so. Have you tried to avoid
contradiction of the texts? I don't believe so. Have you tried to show how a
literal reading of the texts fails to convey a complete picture, or in some
way conflicts with Tolkien's intentions?
Suggesting that I'm offering rationalizations (when in fact I'm merely
pointing out the flaws in other peoples' rationalizations) is a cheap trick
that fails to convince me you have supported your points with valid citations
and arguments.
The work is not inconsistent in this passage. It's extremely consistent,
because the consistency was imposed by the author through emendations and
corrections. He gave it great and careful thought and returned to the nature
of Balrogs on numerous occasions (including at least two occasions while
writing the rest of THE LORD OF THE RINGS).
The only inconsistencies we have seen so far are those between the outrageous
assumptions contrived to manipulate the story and the literal citatons, as
well as the rather loose references to when various portions of the texts were
composed and Christopher's own conclusions about when they were composed.
>So I would tell my students that there is no One True Answer for much of
>Middle-earth. When you research and cite and deduce to the limits of the
>available materials, often you are left with an unreconcilable
>inconsistency.
And when you assume, and assume, and mis-cite, and mis-infer, you will
undoubtedly find MANY unreconcilable inconsistencies, too.
>> >To repeat: these "final touches" in no way alter the base conception
>> >of the scene.
>>
>> They do indeed, and substantively so.
>
>Cites, please.
Just for the record, did you miss the earlier part of this discussion, or are
you unable to refer to Dejanews?
>> >It is too facile to use the publication date as an end point.* It
>> >assumes that Tolkien carefully worked out and revised every detail-
>> >something which in fact Tolkien never mustered the discipline to do
>> >at any time. One can speculate that in 1953 or 54 he suddenly realized
>> >"Oh, since Balrogs are Maiar (not clear that they were in '54,
>> >but...), then the Balrog of Moria must be able to alter its shape" etc.
>> etc.
>>
>> Such a speculation would be ignoring a majority of the facts, however.
>
>What "majority of facts"? You're getting almost as bad at conclusory
>statements as I am. : )
I have only offered the first part of the argument, if more proof is
necessary. There are further considerations, since Tolkien referred to the
Balrog in later portions of the book and changed his conception of it on those
occasions as well.
>> >This is less than probable, and its improbability is bolstered by the
>> >fact that Tolkien did not make any _significant_ alterations to "The
>> >Bridge" at this time.
>>
>> Or later.
>>
>> >*Without published authority, I suspect that the final form of the LR
>> >narrative was achieved in 1949, when T. made the final typescript-
>> >leaving aside certain very late name-changes like Trotter>Strider and
>>
>> >Hamilcar>Fredegar
>>
>> Tolkien was rewriting sections of the text on the galleys. The final
>> form of LOTR was not achieved until much later.
>
>"rewriting sections of the text?" Which sections (relevant to this
>discussion)?
The discussion about when Tolkien stopped making changes to THE LORD OF THE
RINGS (which point you yourself raised)?
[more snippage]
>> What reconciliation would be necessary? You've jumped into the
>> debate over whether the Balrog could fly (or had wings) with a
>> complete tangent.
>
>It's not a complete tangent. As above, _your_ assertion that Rogs could
>fly depends on the proposition that they were Maiar.
Nope. It depends on the texts that say they have wings and the text which
says they fly. I don't use assumptions, I use the texts.
[more snippage]
>> Are Balrogs Maiar or not? If not, what are they? If so, why is the
>> passage in Moria somehow suspect? Did not Tolkien have plenty of
>> opportunity to revise it as he revised other passages? He made
>> substantial changes to THE HOBBIT to reconcile it with later changes
>> in the cosmology. Surely one little Balrog would not intimidate him.
>
>No, but it could slip his mind.
Highly unlikely, considering he returned to the matter of the Balrog and
changed its story more than once after moving on from "The Bridge of
Khazad-dum".
Steuard Jensen
Forgive me for a lack of knowledge of the background of this debate;
I've been away from school on spring break. In fact, that absence
gives me a rather different perspective on this thread, in that I
can't tell what the discussion is trying to determine. (This branch,
at least, has strayed from the "do Balrogs have wings" topic.)
I've managed to narrow it down to one topic per side: William seems to
be arguing that Tolkien did not have the concept of Balrogs-as-Maiar
in mind when he wrote "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" (in any revision).
Michael's point appears to be primarily that Balrogs were Maiar in the
overall cosmology (or at least, in the form that we tend to consider
most final), and that any discussion of their abilities must be based
on that assumption.
Again, I haven't been here throughout; that's just what I've been able
to glean from the recent posts to this thread. The interesting thing
from my perspective is that these positions aren't really mutually
exclusive, and each would be useful in answering different questions.
In light of this fact, I think that the debate would be much more
productive if it were better focused on its "overall goal", whatever
that might be.
Along those lines, I rather suspect that trying to determine which of
the two approaches is more relevant to that goal would prove to be a
more interesting topic than a debate about either one would for its
own sake. To my mind, it's very obvious that Balrogs _were_ Maiar in
every possible "final form" of the mythology; that is not really even
up for debate. On the other hand, I personally have less interest in
the relative timelines of the writing of LotR and the development of
Balrogs' place in the cosmos than in many other issues; I prefer
discussions of the sub-created world to discussions of the act and
details of its sub-creation.
Because of that preference, even without knowing what the original
issue is I tend to favor arguments that build on the overall cosmology
rather than arguments which depend on the details of how the accounts
were written. Tolkien's "window" on to Middle-earth may have been
imperfect, but it remains the only one we have. I believe that any
discussion about the details of that world should have as its
foundation a desire to find the interpretation of the stories which is
most consistent with the best information available.
A couple of specific comments:
Quoth soli...@gamewood.net:
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> > In article <35127C98...@gamewood.net>, soli...@gamewood.net
> > wrote:
> Rationalizations like "the room wasn't big enough for it to fly" are
> just that: rationalizations. They are attempts to synthesize
> consistency in a work which is not, in fact, consistent.
This is a perfect example of the idea I began above: if we want to
"truly understand" a subcreated world such as Middle-earth, we must
become _very skilled_ at precisely this sort of synthesis.
Admittedly, many attempts at synthesis are rediculous or silly, but
that does not mean that the overall approach is wrong.
To me, the appeal of Middle-earth comes largely from its combination
of enormous detail and nearly univeral consistency: few if any other
fantasy worlds could support the intensity of discussion that we see
here. When that consistency appears to fail, Middle-earth is
typically robust enough to provide a possible "story-internal"
explanation. If we don't take advantage of that robustness, we are
turning our backs on one of the more appealing features of Tolkien's
creation.
> nonetheless are both manifestly true. Treebeard is the oldest living
> thing. Bombadil is the oldest living thing. Go figure.
Hmm... to take your example and run with it a little, where do we hear
that Bombadil is a living thing? Would Treebeard's definition of
"life" include Bombadil? Many of the "what is Bombadil" suggestions
would likely lie outside an Ent's intuitive definition. (Including
both the common Bombadil=Maia suggestion and my own belief that
Bombadil is in some sense a personification of the living spirit of
Arda, among others.) I don't want to bring up that topic again, but
your suggestion provides a perfect example of the way I like to look
at the texts.
At any rate, my overall point was that this discussion seems to be in
need of better focus before unnecessary arguments about many tangents
swamp the interesting questions that started it. I look forward to
seeing it continue in that direction.
Steuard Jensen