* * Revised Fall of Gondolin pt.4 -- >end [the remaining sections] * *

[Aiwendil]

FG-B-02b: Yes, I agree that the plural should be restored. You are probably also right that "company" cannot be used.

FG-B-03c: I fail to see the advantage of some of these changes over FG-B-03b. Whence comes "with their clubs"? And what concrete advantage does "battered them with their clubs into retreat" offer over "sent them into retreat"? Though perhaps it might be preferable to retain "battered" since it's the original word.

The proposed phrase "or catching at their whips and wielding these against them, that they tore . . ." is ungrammatical. I see two general ways to go on this phrase: retain the conjunction or eliminate it. The first way would give "They (battered/sent) them into retreat, (or/and) catching at their whips wielded these against them . . ." The second way gives "They (battered/sent) them into retreat, catching at their whips and wielding these against them . . ." In either case, the following phrase, "that they tore . . ." could be either retained or dropped.

I prefer to eliminate the conjunction, since its presence suggests two separate actions: battering them into retreat and wielding their whips against them. In the original tale, there's no problem here, but in the revision the idea is that all the Balrogs were sent into retreat (none were killed, at least not explicitly). So I think it's more logical to retain the "catching at their whips phrase" as a description of how they were sent into retreat rather than as a separate or alternative action.

I also think we ought to avoid reference to the Balrogs' skin. The later conception of a Balrog appears not exactly to be something of flesh and blood as in the original tale, but rather a being composed of flames and darkness. I think it's safest to eliminate the whole "that they tore . . ." phrase.

I know this discussion is getting to be very picky, but here's my proposal for the passage:

FG-B-03d:

... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at those Balrogs and smote them grievously, for all they had whips of flame and claws of steel, and were in stature very great. They battered them into {nought} [retreat], {or} catching at their whips [and] wield[ing] these against them{,} {that they tore them even as they had aforetime torn the Gnomes}; and [that ]the {number of} Balrogs {that prished}[were defeated] was a marvel
and dread to the hosts of Morgoth[.]{, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.}
Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons [and monsters] that were about the city and ordered them thus: a number made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater company rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.

FG-B-04b: I'm still very hesitant about "slaughter". I think it definitely implies that Balrogs were slain. A somewhat risky substitution would be:

FG-B-04d

Fearful too they were for that {slaughter} [victory of] Rog {had done amid} [against] the Balrogs, because of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.

That would solve the problem, but I'm afraid the edits are a bit too heavy.

(The issue of serpants - machines dargons - streams should be discussed in the Mechanical Monsters thread.)

I would say that regardless of our decision there, we should not replace "dragon, drake, serpent, etc." with "machine, stream, etc." I can think of no justification for it save clarity, but that's a stylistic matter.