Does the Silmarillion Contradict Third age History? How Powerful Were Those First age

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

I don't suppose it at that point, but what I mean is, Tolkien did make a notable change between writing the Balrog-Gandalf encounter and answering this letter, and it changes nothing with respect to explaining that Durin's Bane is a creature from the First Age...

... thus in 1958 or later, the same remains true (or easily can): the conception shifts in Tolkien's mind regarding both works, and with each shift the Balrogs remain consistent.

In other other words: Durin's bane was not a Maia when Tolkien wrote the encounter, same as the other Balrogs in QS > then "DB" was a Maia, so also the Balrogs in QS, at the time this letter was answered. Still consistent.



Then in the later 1950s Tolkien (possibly) begins to question if Maia status is problematic in any way with respect to great numbers in the Elder Days. Too powerful? Or whatever other reason (I still tend to lean toward "too powerful", but as I say, just my opinion so far)...

... so, if so, DB's battle with GS (G. Stormcrow) can remain as written, as arguably, there's nothing necessarily inconsistent about this with respect to Tolkien's question. And if original numbers are to be revised, Tolkien never gets to a full revision of everything in QS however, as we know is true in general, in any case.

So possibly, we get less Balrogs at about the same time when we get Orc-formed Maiar thrown into Morgoth's mix.

What do you have to offer in support the balrogs were not maia at this point? how did it kill gandalf and give him such trouble? is there something in the published text to suggest this? as far as i am aware tolkiens cosmology was finished and his understanding of balrogs as well.

"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."


Does this text come from after the publishing of LOTR? In the end I think we must go with what Tolien did have, rather than what we think he might have possibly done do you agree? he saw balrogs as maia before the first book of lotr was published and does not see any issues, I dont see reason why we should.

[Zigûr]

According to The Return of the Shadow, Professor Tolkien planned for a Balrog being in Moria around 1940 (after originally planning that it would be a Ringwraith on the bridge instead). When did he first conceive of Balrogs as being Maiar? That's the key question.

Certainly in Letter 144 he does refer to them as "primeval spirits", although that doesn't necessarily mean Maiar as we understand it now. When was the concept of the Maiar properly solidified? When he was writing The Lord of the Rings, there were still "Children of the Valar".

I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make to be honest

EDIT: I believe Christopher Tolkien thinks that the term "Maiar" was first used in 1958 (according to Morgoth's Ring) but that doesn't prove much about finding a date for the idea of what would eventually be called "Maiar".

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Certainly in Letter 144 he does refer to them as "primeval spirits", although that doesn't necessarily mean Maiar as we understand it now.

Good point. I simplified the matter too much above, although I was centering on "primeval spirits" compared to Melkor-made creatures. The terms Maiar and Umaiar (for Balrogs) do appear in the early 1950s (if CJRT's guess about AAm* is correct), but the matter is not so simple, as you correctly suggest (for example: Maiar "the beautiful" at a point in this phase, and the Valarindi, the children of the Valar).

I should have gone with "primeval spirits" versus Melkor-made

I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make to be honest

I rarely am sure what point I'm trying to make

[Eldy]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

What do you have to offer in support the balrogs were not maia at this point? how did it kill gandalf and give him such trouble? is there something in the published text to suggest this? as far as i am aware tolkiens cosmology was finished and his understanding of balrogs as well.

The idea of Maiar did not yet exist at the time Tolkien wrote the encounter between Gandalf and Durin's Bane. The main text of LOTR was finished by 1949 (and the Moria material was first written much earlier), but the Maiar did not enter enter the picture until the 1950s during the reworking of the Annals of Valinor into the Annals of Aman. Morgoth's Ring discusses this in the chapter of that name.

The idea that Tolkien's cosmology -- or really anything else about the First Age -- was ever "finished" is a misconception and will impede any attempt to make sense of his writing. He obviously continued to tinker with the later Ages as well, but he tended to consider himself bound by published material except in the course of preparing new editions.

[Eldy]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

EDIT: I believe Christopher Tolkien thinks that the term "Maiar" was first used in 1958 (according to Morgoth's Ring) but that doesn't prove much about finding a date for the idea of what would eventually be called "Maiar".

You're probably thinking of the footnotes to the first section of the Annals of Aman in which Christopher comments (note 4): "AV 2 had here (V.110) 'these are the Vanimor, the Beautiful', changed in the later rewriting (see note 3) to 'these are the Mairi...', and then to 'these are the Maiar...' This was probably where the word Maiar first arose." In the introduction to that chapter he dates the text to probably 1958, but acknowledges his uncertainty about that. I can't recall offhand anything to suggest that the idea of a new catch-all category for lesser spirits emerged much earlier than 1958, though of course the categories that it subsumed had for the most part been around for a very long time.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Eldorion

The idea of Maiar did not yet exist at the time Tolkien wrote the encounter between Gandalf and Durin's Bane. The main text of LOTR was finished by 1949 (and the Moria material was first written much earlier), but the Maiar did not enter enter the picture until the 1950s during the reworking of the Annals of Valinor into the Annals of Aman. Morgoth's Ring discusses this in the chapter of that name.

The idea that Tolkien's cosmology -- or really anything else about the First Age -- was ever "finished" is a misconception and will impede any attempt to make sense of his writing. He obviously continued to tinker with the later Ages as well, but he tended to consider himself bound by published material except in the course of preparing new editions.

Nice to see you on this forum as well my wise friend. I am not one to question you so it seems I must accept maiar was not fully developed yet. However the strength of the balrogs and at least some of the history of them seemed clearly finished in the letters of tolkien at this point. He had even previously tried to publish what he saw as a consistent [few touch ups] sillmarillion with the LOTR. I would also say while he may have never totally finished the sillmarillion due to lack of energy in old age, he thought it close to finished and tells of its history many times in its letters that matches the published sillmarillion we have today.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

In the end I think we must go with what Tolien did have, rather than what we think he might have possibly done do you agree?

Yes... so I'll go with three or at most seven Balrogs ever existing, according to Tolkien's note and revision to The Annals of Aman, instead of the possibility that JRRT might have stuck with "hosts" of Balrogs.


Apologies. Couldn't resist!

Eldo's here! Huzzah!


By the way, this notion seemingly arose to Tolkien with respect to the Valarin siege of Utumno, where a host of Balrogs "assailed the standard of Manwe, as it were a tide of flame"... in other words, it's here that JRRT ultimately altered "host" to "his" and noted: "There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed."

And also by the way, if someone were arguing that we must accept 3 or 7, I would probably be saying something like: "Maybe, maybe not, Tolkien didn't revise every example of very many Balrogs, and..."

So yes, I'm annoying

[Eldy]

Thanks Galin! I saw my Ancalagon essay quoted in the OP so I couldn't resist taking a look through the rest of the thread.

(Not John Garth's essay, the other one, obviously. )

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Eldorion

Thanks Galin! I saw my Ancalagon essay quoted in the OP so I couldn't resist taking a look through the rest of the thread.

(Not John Garth's essay, the other one, obviously. )

I loved your essays. Glad it suckered you into this thread.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

By the way, this notion seemingly arose to Tolkien with respect to the Valarin siege of Utumno, where a host of Balrogs "assailed the standard of Manwe, as it were a tide of flame"... in other words, it's here that JRRT ultimately altered "host" to "his" and noted: "There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed."

That "3" opens a very interesting line of questioning. Assuming it's intended as 'there should be not supposed more than... 3... ever existed' - ie, that there were (potentially) only 3 balrogs ever, rather than only 3 involved in the siege - does that mean that Tolkien considered a view where Gothmog, Durin's Bane, and Glorfindel's fighting buddy were the only balrogs? In that scenario, two of the three that ever lived would have died in quick succession, which would cement the Fall of Gondolin as the climactic event of the First Age.

And, thinking about it, perhaps in Tolkien's mind it was. Certainly Gondolin is name-dropped more than any other place in the First Age during LotR and The Hobbit: Elrond describes his father as 'born in Gondolin before its fall' rather than pointing out that he's the Evening Star, both Gimli and Galadriel mention it, and of course there are multiple swords from there.

Leaving the published works behind, we know that the Fall of Gondolin was the first full-length Lost Tale Tolkien wrote, and that the Doom of Mandos at one point included the words 'Great is the fall of Gondolin'. There's certainly a feeling that, whether or not Gondolin was the greatest Elven realm, its fall was the most significant event of the First Age.

So maybe the note does indicate Tolkien considering that two-thirds of Morgoth's elite died at Gondolin. If only he'd finished writing Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin...!

hS

[Galin]

Interesting post Huinesoron.

I wonder if we (despite what I just pointed out above!) could have the scenario: many Balrogs before the siege of Utumno > reduced by this battle to a more limited number for later in the First Age. Granted I'm just making this up, but...

... "many" could be left vague, and the survivors of Utumno would be quite notable in Gondolin, along with that later recreant Durin's Bane.

I'm sort of used to imagining "some" at the War of Wrath, but JRRT never really fully updated the conclusion to QS, so... or am I just liking the idea to help me in some Galadriel argument I have in the back of my mind?

Hmm. I can't always trust me

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

Yes... so I'll go with three or at most seven Balrogs ever existing, according to Tolkien's note and revision to The Annals of Aman, instead of the possibility that JRRT might have stuck with "hosts" of Balrogs.


Apologies. Couldn't resist!

Eldo's here! Huzzah!


By the way, this notion seemingly arose to Tolkien with respect to the Valarin siege of Utumno, where a host of Balrogs "assailed the standard of Manwe, as it were a tide of flame"... in other words, it's here that JRRT ultimately altered "host" to "his" and noted: "There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed."

And also by the way, if someone were arguing that we must accept 3 or 7, I would probably be saying something like: "Maybe, maybe not, Tolkien didn't revise every example of very many Balrogs, and..."

So yes, I'm annoying

I think you are putting to much weight on a unpublished note. You would think he would have revised his sillmarillion on this big change as one of his first chances if he was going to go though with it. Tolkien was a perfectionist in his writings. Nothing hit the press unless revised, reconsidered and then finally published. For example frodo was originally bingo bibbo's son. The hobbits originally met in Bree a “ranger” hobbit named trotter. Even sections that had stayed constant over and over could be drastically changed moments before publication such as the design to minis tirith. Lewis said his friends had “hoped for a final text of an old work, what they actually got was the first draft of a new one.”

“Whole thing comes out of the wash quite different to any preliminary sketch”
-Letters of J.R.R Tolkien

“It will probable work out very differently from this plan when it really gets written, as the thing seems to rite itself once I get going as if the truth comes out then, only imperfectly simple in the preliminary sketch.”
-J.R.R Tolkien letters 91

“Every part has been [re]written many times”
-Letters of J.R.R Tolkien 130


But as i said in my op this post must assume the published sillmarillion as cannon weather i agree with it or not [i need to read the histories of ME in full first] . Plus Tolkiens sillmarillion that included "host" at this time of letters 144, saw no contradiction.

and yes your annoying, but i like it.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I think you are putting to much weight on a unpublished note.

Well, the Silmarillion is unpublished to my mind, but anyway, the last section of my last post basically says that if you (or anyone) were pushing the idea that we must accept 3 or 7, I would probably be arguing the other side.

I'd put at least some weight on the ambiguous nature of this matter, and I'm not used to limiting my blatherings to the constructed Silmarillion.

You would think he would have revised his sillmarillion on this big change as one of his first chances if he was going to go though with it.

Why? Tolkien didn't know this thread was someday going to exist

Due to CJRT there's no mention of "hosts/thousands" of Balrogs in the 1977 constructed Silmarillion anyway. If I recall correctly, we have the anglicized plural Balrogs in places, and that the Balrogs were destroyed in the War of Wrath, save "some few" that fled (a description written before the 3 or 7 note).

Gothmog -- slain by Ecthelion

Glorfindel's Bane -- slain by we-know-who

Four Mighty Raugs -- slain in the War of Wrath

Durin's Bane -- slain by Mithrandir

I'm also not sure if Tolkien was going to keep his "save some few" that survived -- I think letter 144 can arguably be read two ways regarding this, but admittedly "save some few" messes with my seven little Balrogath list here, in any case.

and yes your annoying, but i like it

LOL!

[Eldy]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Nice to see you on this forum as well my wise friend. I am not one to question you so it seems I must accept maiar was not fully developed yet. However the strength of the balrogs and at least some of the history of them seemed clearly finished in the letters of tolkien at this point. He had even previously tried to publish what he saw as a consistent [few touch ups] sillmarillion with the LOTR. I would also say while he may have never totally finished the sillmarillion due to lack of energy in old age, he thought it close to finished and tells of its history many times in its letters that matches the published sillmarillion we have today.

While I wouldn't advise anyone to accept everything I say without question, I appreciate your vote of confidence and especially your kind words about my essays; thank you.

The 1977 Silmarillion is not a great guide as to what Tolkien's latest intentions for the First Age were (though his intentions would undoubtedly have continued to evolve had he lived longer). Tolkien contemplated a lot of major revisions late in his life and the Later Silmarillion (HoMe X-XI) has a lot of examples of points on which Tolkien never made up his mind. I do think there is solid evidence in some cases (such as the excision of Elfwine) that Tolkien more or less definitively decided the change should be made, but he did not engage in large-scale rewriting of established texts towards the end of his life. As a result, much of the Silm is based on Tolkien's mid-ish 1950s (pre-Myths Transformed) conception of the legendarium, although some passages are based on much earlier texts that Christopher mixed later ideas into to achieve at least partial consistency. It is natural, then, that there is a good deal of compatibility between the 1977 Silm and letters that Tolkien wrote in the mid-1950s such as Letter 144 (as you point out). But Tolkien explored a lot of different ideas (some radically so) later on.

Christopher Tolkien did not entirely ignore his father's later ideas; he removed the Second Prophecy of Mandos and the Elfwine framing device, although in the latter case he did not replace it with a different framing device (something he discussed the downsides of in the Foreword to The Book of Lost Tales, Part 1), but in general he did not implement radical changes to the mythology. I don't want this post to come off as an attack on Christopher because I think he did a remarkable job when faced with an unenviable situation, but I do not think that the 1977 Silm was intended to be treated as definitive or that doing so helps us gain a better understanding of Tolkien's First Age works. I'm perfectly happy to use the 1977 Silm as a baseline for discussion and speculation, but I have no compunctions about putting other material above it. This is to some extent a subjective process (Galin has referred to it as assembling one's own "personal Silmarillion", which is a phrase I like), so as far as Lore discussions go, I think it's more worthwhile to pay attention to the full scope of the evolving legendarium. (I've already said my piece about the idea of canon and why I don't think it's useful in one of my essays and in the TORn thread you linked to above, so I won't bore you with it again. )

I'm not sure how much sense any of this makes because I am really behind on sleep and a bit mentally frazzled from grad school plus a large personal project, but this is sorta where I'm coming from. I know a lot of people don't find this level of uncertainty to be satisfying but it actually makes the Silmarillion more like Primary World mythologies which I think is neat. And the Bilbo/Red Book transmission allows for a lot of Silmarillion material from various eras to potentially be retained as in-universe texts (by analogy with the First Edition of The Hobbit, which was replaced on bookshelves but not excised from its place in the internal source tradition of the Red Book), which I think was part of Tolkien's intention towards the end of his life. That's a subject for another (more awake) post, though. But it doesn't necessarily make them "definitive".

There is of course a ton of room for disagreement and debate on the subject of what Tolkien might have done. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority with my view of Elfwine vs Bilbo, though it's something that I personally think is relatively straightforward as far as Later Silmarillion issues go.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Eldorion

While I wouldn't advise anyone to accept everything I say without question, I appreciate your vote of confidence and especially your kind words about my essays; thank you.

The 1977 Silmarillion is not a great guide as to what Tolkien's latest intentions for the First Age were (though his intentions would undoubtedly have continued to evolve had he lived longer). Tolkien contemplated a lot of major revisions late in his life and the Later Silmarillion (HoMe X-XI) has a lot of examples of points on which Tolkien never made up his mind. I do think there is solid evidence in some cases (such as the excision of Elfwine) that Tolkien more or less definitively decided the change should be made, but he did not engage in large-scale rewriting of established texts towards the end of his life. As a result, much of the Silm is based on Tolkien's mid-ish 1950s (pre-Myths Transformed) conception of the legendarium, although some passages are based on much earlier texts that Christopher mixed later ideas into to achieve at least partial consistency. It is natural, then, that there is a good deal of compatibility between the 1977 Silm and letters that Tolkien wrote in the mid-1950s such as Letter 144 (as you point out). But Tolkien explored a lot of different ideas (some radically so) later on.

I need those volumes before i could give a good evaluation. But it just seems to me in the case of DB, that Tolkien at the time [1950's] and post publishing of the fellowship of the rings, saw no inconsistencies and wanted than to publish the sillmarillion that he seemed over and over to refer to as a finished history of the first ages [in his letters]. He very well may have drastically wanted to chang things later but i need those volumes first. With my limited knowledge it seems the 1977 sil likely took the best option, or very close to it. Tolkien must have had in mind the 1950's version of the sil when he wrote LOTR because it

“The Lord of the Rings was not not so much a sequel to the hobbit as a sequel to the silmarillion, every aspect of the earlier work was playing a part into the new story.”
-J.R.R Tolkien The Authorized Biography Humphrey carpenter Houghton Mifflin company NY 2000

“It [LOTR] is not really a sequel to the hobbit, but to the sillmarillion”
-J.R.R Tolkien letters 124

Originally Posted by Eldorion

Christopher Tolkien did not entirely ignore his father's later ideas; he removed the Second Prophecy of Mandos and the Elfwine framing device, although in the latter case he did not replace it with a different framing device (something he discussed the downsides of in the Foreword to The Book of Lost Tales, Part 1), but in general he did not implement radical changes to the mythology. I don't want this post to come off as an attack on Christopher because I think he did a remarkable job when faced with an unenviable situation, but I do not think that the 1977 Silm was intended to be treated as definitive or that doing so helps us gain a better understanding of Tolkien's First Age works. I'm perfectly happy to use the 1977 Silm as a baseline for discussion and speculation, but I have no compunctions about putting other material above it. This is to some extent a subjective process (Galin has referred to it as assembling one's own "personal Silmarillion", which is a phrase I like), so as far as Lore discussions go, I think it's more worthwhile to pay attention to the full scope of the evolving legendarium. (I've already said my piece about the idea of canon and why I don't think it's useful in one of my essays and in the TORn thread you linked to above, so I won't bore you with it again. )

Just to be clear I have no position yet especially before I have not read the HoMe X-XI. I very well may end up agreeing with you as I often did with your essays. However to even engage in such a discussion as my op, there must be a set standard and only the published sillmarillion can fulfilling that even if imperfectly. As you said otherwise its "one's own personal Silmarillion" and it would vary. Even if that is the correct mode.

Originally Posted by Eldorion

I'm not sure how much sense any of this makes because I am really behind on sleep and a bit mentally frazzled from grad school plus a large personal project, but this is sorta where I'm coming from. I know a lot of people don't find this level of uncertainty to be satisfying but it actually makes the Silmarillion more like Primary World mythologies which I think is neat. And the Bilbo/Red Book transmission allows for a lot of Silmarillion material from various eras to potentially be retained as in-universe texts (by analogy with the First Edition of The Hobbit, which was replaced on bookshelves but not excised from its place in the internal source tradition of the Red Book), which I think was part of Tolkien's intention towards the end of his life. That's a subject for another (more awake) post, though. But it doesn't necessarily make them "definitive".

There is of course a ton of room for disagreement and debate on the subject of what Tolkien might have done. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm pretty sure that I'm in the minority with my view of Elfwine vs Bilbo, though it's something that I personally think is relatively straightforward as far as Later Silmarillion issues go.

Thanks as always for your posts.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

“The Lord of the Rings was not not so much a sequel to the hobbit as a sequel to the silmarillion, every aspect of the earlier work was playing a part into the new story.”
-J.R.R Tolkien The Authorized Biography Humphrey carpenter Houghton Mifflin company NY 2000

“It [LOTR] is not really a sequel to the hobbit, but to the sillmarillion”
-J.R.R Tolkien letters 124


I posted this above in a reply but I wanted all to see it because i think it supports what I have said on DB. In the letters of Tolkien he wrote the LOTR more as a squeal to his personal favorite the sillmarillion [rather than the hobbit] and after LOTR was published saw his 1950's sillmarillion as constant with LoTR and tried to get it published. This seems to me to support the 1977 sillmarillion and the take on DB and balrogs i have offered. Comments?

[Eldy]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I need those volumes before i could give a good evaluation. But it just seems to me in the case of DB, that Tolkien at the time [1950's] and post publishing of the fellowship of the rings, saw no inconsistencies and wanted than to publish the sillmarillion that he seemed over and over to refer to as a finished history of the first ages [in his letters]. He very well may have drastically wanted to chang things later but i need those volumes first. With my limited knowledge it seems the 1977 sil likely took the best option, or very close to it. Tolkien must have had in mind the 1950's version of the sil when he wrote LOTR because it

“The Lord of the Rings was not not so much a sequel to the hobbit as a sequel to the silmarillion, every aspect of the earlier work was playing a part into the new story.”
-J.R.R Tolkien The Authorized Biography Humphrey carpenter Houghton Mifflin company NY 2000

“It [LOTR] is not really a sequel to the hobbit, but to the sillmarillion”
-J.R.R Tolkien letters 124

The Silmarillion wasn't finished in the early 1950s, despite Tolkien's attempts to find a publisher interested in. It wasn't finished at the time of his death either, of course, but in the intervening years much of the work he did was influenced by a desire to make the Silm consistent with LOTR. Within a few years of the first edition of LOTR being published Tolkien considered large portions of the Silm, mostly early mythological material, to be inconsistent with the more novelistic and (for lack of a better term) realistic material from the Third Age. The legend of the sun and the moon was of particular concern during the Myths Transformed period as Tolkien thought the Elves must have had an advanced enough knowledge of the physical world and laws of nature to know that the sun couldn't "really" be a magical fruit, that vast forests could not grow in a world illuminated only by starlight, that the world was never flat, etc. This led him to the idea that much of the Silmarillion material (the Great Tales, at the very least) were not true historical accounts written by Elves but human myths preserved by the Númenóreans that mixed the "actual" events with their own traditional folkloric beliefs.

It's an open question how radically different a hypothetical published Silm would have been if Tolkien had lived longer (or whether he'd have finished it even with an extra 10-15 years of life). A lot of people dislike the the Númenórean transmission and choose to ignore it. Certainly, if one is reading early and middle period texts by Tolkien, those must be understood in the context in which they were written, which did not include the more scientifically realistic setting conceived later. And if one wants to approach the 1977 Silmarillion as its own distinct work (as does, for example, Dennis Wilson Wise in "Book of the Lost Narrator" in volume 13 of Tolkien Studies), those ideas obviously aren't present there either. But if one wishes to take a holistic view of the First Age, then Tolkien's ideas from the last 15 years of his life can't be disregarded. I tend to think that Tolkien was right that they improve the Silm's consistency with LOTR (the mythological version of the sun and the moon always seemed out of place to me in the world of LOTR, even before reading HoMe) but there are of course plenty of people who disagree.

Fake edit: also, the early 1950s version of the Silm wasn't the one Tolkien had in mind when writing LOTR, since it didn't exist yet. The latest extant version of the Silm during the period when Tolkien wrote the main body of LOTR (1937-1949) was the version found in HoMe V that Huinesoron mentioned above.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Just to be clear I have no position yet especially before I have not read the HoMe X-XI. I very well may end up agreeing with you as I often did with your essays. However to even engage in such a discussion as my op, there must be a set standard and only the published sillmarillion can fulfilling that even if imperfectly. As you said otherwise its "one's own personal Silmarillion" and it would vary. Even if that is the correct mode.

My view is that meaningful discussions of Tolkien's works are not only possible if we take into account the lack of a set standard, but that doing so makes it easier to understand the works in relation to each other. Because Tolkien did not finish the Silm a consistent vision of the First Age can only be achieved by readers, and even if it's a group of people creating a collective Silmarillion, that's not really more authoritative than a plethora of personal Silmarillions, IMO. And the 1977 Silm was not intended to be a standard like this. As Christopher Tolkien stated in the foreword:

A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost. Moreover, my father came to conceive The Silmarillion as a compilation, a compendious narrative, made long afterwards from sources of great diversity (poems, and annals, and oral tales) that had survived in agelong tradition; and this conception has indeed its parallel in the actual history of the book, for a great deal of earlier prose and poetry does underlie it, and it is to some extent a compendium in fact and not only in theory.

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Thanks as always for your posts.

Thanks for starting such an interesting thread!

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, the Silmarillion is unpublished to my mind, but anyway, the last section of my last post basically says that if you (or anyone) were pushing the idea that we must accept 3 or 7, I would probably be arguing the other side.

I'd put at least some weight on the ambiguous nature of this matter, and I'm not used to limiting my blatherings to the constructed Silmarillion.

and just to be clear i am not on one side or the other as far as canonization of the sillmarillion. But to even have such a discussion it must be assumed otherwise we have no constant sillmarillion as they would vary from person to person.

Originally Posted by Galin

Why? Tolkien didn't know this thread was someday going to exist

Due to CJRT there's no mention of "hosts/thousands" of Balrogs in the 1977 constructed Silmarillion anyway. If I recall correctly, we have the anglicized plural Balrogs in places, and that the Balrogs were destroyed in the War of Wrath, save "some few" that fled (a description written before the 3 or 7 note).

Gothmog -- slain by Ecthelion

Glorfindel's Bane -- slain by we-know-who

Four Mighty Raugs -- slain in the War of Wrath

Durin's Bane -- slain by Mithrandir

He did however wish to publish his sillmarillion. You would think he would have wanted this corrected if he wished to stick with it rather than his normative of

“Whole thing comes out of the wash quite different to any preliminary sketch”
-Letters of J.R.R Tolkien

“Every part has been [re]written many times”
-Letters of J.R.R Tolkien 130


and as you stated, he held the same view of balrogs [regardless of how they were categorized] for a long period, one note against it is not that great of evidence imo.


I just finished the 1977 sil and I believe it does not say thousands however it does mention many multiple times. More than 7, or at least so it seemed. Maybe someone could help with some direct quotes.

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm also not sure if Tolkien was going to keep his "save some few" that survived -- I think letter 144 can arguably be read two ways regarding this, but admittedly "save some few" messes with my seven little Balrogath list here, in any case.

lol.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

He did however wish to publish his sillmarillion. You would think he would have wanted this corrected if he wished to stick with it rather than his normative of...

Well, for myself I don't find this a very compelling point though, considering how much else had not been updated or revised even at the end of Tolkien's life. Christopher Tolkien even had to deal with some material that still dated to 1930!

And if the notion of reducing numbers waited till 1958 or later (going by the note being found on a text in this phase), then the notion/opportunity of getting The Silmarillion published along with The Lord of the Rings with Waldman, had passed...

... yes, Tolkien still wanted to revise, update, publish his Silmarillion in the later 1950s, 1960s, early 1970s but there was arguably plenty to do outside of this Balrog detail, not to mention work on the long prose versions of the Great Tales.

and as you stated, he held the same view of balrogs [regardless of how they were categorized] for a long period, one note against it is not that great of evidence imo.

A note... and a revision; a revision which CJRT arguably echoed for the 1977 Silmarillion, since...

I just finished the 1977 sil and I believe it does not say thousands however it does mention many multiple times. More than 7, or at least so it seemed. Maybe someone could help with some direct quotes.

But you just read it! Why do I have to do the work... [wanders away]...

... [eats snack, returns] okay, if the Silmarillion index reference pages are complete, then there are no references to "many" Balrogs. Which makes sense to me, as why would CJRT alter a reference to hosts of Balrogs (or whatever), and leave some other reference indicating very many.

Actually, I know I've written a post concerning the Tolkien-made revision to AAm, including instances that were never changed by JRRT himself (for whatever reason), compared to CJRT's revised wording in the 1977 Silmarillion. It might even be here at BD somewhere, but I can't recall at the moment.

Anyway, as I said, there are instances of the anglicized plural (Balrog-s), and this "some few" survived text (with respect to the War of Wrath), and now I'll add that we have one description of "another" Balrog at one point, indicating two in the scene...

... or at least two, if you like

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, for myself I don't find this a very compelling point though, considering how much else had not been updated or revised even at the end of Tolkien's life. Christopher Tolkien even had to deal with some material that still dated to 1930!

And if the notion of reducing numbers waited till 1958 or later (going by the note being found on a text in this phase), then the notion/opportunity of getting The Silmarillion published along with The Lord of the Rings with Waldman, had passed...

... yes, Tolkien still wanted to revise, update, publish his Silmarillion in the later 1950s, 1960s, early 1970s but there was arguably plenty to do outside of this Balrog detail, not to mention work on the long prose versions of the Great Tales.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Galin

A note... and a revision; a revision which CJRT arguably echoed for the 1977 Silmarillion, since...

But you just read it! Why do I have to do the work... [wanders away]...

... [eats snack, returns] okay, if the Silmarillion index reference pages are complete, then there are no references to "many" Balrogs. Which makes sense to me, as why would CJRT alter a reference to hosts of Balrogs (or whatever), and leave some other reference indicating very many.

Actually, I know I've written a post concerning the Tolkien-made revision to AAm, including instances that were never changed by JRRT himself (for whatever reason), compared to CJRT's revised wording in the 1977 Silmarillion. It might even be here at BD somewhere, but I can't recall at the moment.

Anyway, as I said, there are instances of the anglicized plural (Balrog-s), and this "some few" survived text (with respect to the War of Wrath), and now I'll add that we have one description of "another" Balrog at one point, indicating two in the scene...

... or at least two, if you like

without direct quotes to look up or the care/energy to. I think this cannot progress. Maybe we can be lazy and Eldorion can give us some of the qoutes