Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I would just like to remind those who are not so familiar with HoMe that this argument is not quite as forcing as it might at first sound, since the Fall of Gondolin was written in the 1910s, at which time there can be little doubt that they were wingless.

That is true, however....

It should perhaps be noted that there is no evidence that Tolkien's perception of Balrogs as wingless ever changed. There are many examples of elements in the Tale remaining unchanged from its conception circa 1920 until its last known form in the early 1970s. And their is no real evidence that Tolkien ever changed his perception of this aspect of the Balrogs.

- A thought from another convinced no-winger

[Aiwendil]

Formendacil:

It should perhaps be noted that there is no evidence that Tolkien's perception of Balrogs as wingless ever changed. There are many examples of elements in the Tale remaining unchanged from its conception circa 1920 until its last known form in the early 1970s. And their is no real evidence that Tolkien ever changed his perception of this aspect of the Balrogs.

If we change "evidence" to "hard evidence", then I agree.

Fordim wrote:

Here, best as I can figure it, is the etymology of the word balrog:

bal is a form of the archaic bale, which is OE for "fire"

rog is a form of OE roge which means a "pyre"

So that makes sense, bal+rog = fire+fire.

Allow me to pick a nit. This is indeed interesting - but it is not right to call it "the etymology" of the word Balrog. The etymology of "Balrog" is:

bal Sindarin, from primitive Quendian root BAL- = "power"
rog Sindarin, from root primitive Quendian RUK- = "demon"

[The Saucepan Man]

Do Balrogs Have Wings? by Michael Martinez

I'm sold.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Sorry I do not go for the "What ifs", I only read what is. (narfforc)

Well, although my theory above wasn't stated anywhere, it doesn't mean it isn't in the realm of possiblity. The fun of these discussions are, Tolkien created a world with rules. As long as you fall within those rules, almost anything goes (note the almost. There are some situation I cannot foresee now where the rules might not work.)

For example, I wouldn't say Orcs have wings, even though Tolkien did not explicitly say they did not have wings.

[Neithan]

Here are my thoughts on that article.

However, when I have asked people in many forums to try, no one has succeeded. You must use all four parts of the sentence. You cannot drop any part. It is simply not possible to rewrite the sentence so as to show something other than flight. Hence, there is no ambiguity in the passage concerning the Balrogs' mode of travel.

In the final analysis, one must accept that the Balrog of Moria had wings because J.R.R. Tolkien said it had wings, and that the Balrogs flew to Lammoth because the sentence cannot mean anything else.

We shall see about that.

swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

Four parts of the sentence you say? Very well.
1)swiftly they arose--As he points out himself they were underground but even if that were not so it does not follow that they flew. Arose can be interpreted as they were in a sleep or simply idle and when they heard their master's cry they came forth once more. Indeed this is normally how I interpret the word when used in such a context.
2)they passed with winged speed--"winged speed" is an ambigous term. "Winged" is used here as an adjective to describe the word speed not the manner of their travel. Here Tolkien compares the speed of the Balrogs to the speed of flight. As a general rule one does not compare a thing to itself. So here "winged speed" means that they traveled with the speed of a winged creature. Actually when interpreted this way it becomes an argument against Balrogs flying.
3)passed....over Hithlum--this one needs no rewriting, one can run over land just as one can fly over it. Also there is the example of Fingolfin and his horse.
4)Tempest of fire--I see no reason that "tempest" should denote something coming from the sky. As I see it "tempest" could mean either sky or land it rather refers to the fire of the Balrogs erupting in their rath an covering the "battle field" of Lammoth.
So the new sentence would be: "Swiftly they came forth once again, and they passed with the speed of one in flight over(as I said I don't think that this need be changed at all) Hithlum, they came to Lammoth with there flames wreathed about them in a great tempest."
There you have it.

The short answer is that they were Maiar and that Maiar can whatever they please.

The obvious problem is that they had become trapped in there forms and so could no longer fly (assuming they couldn't fly before they became trapped in that form).

"what it was could not be seen: it was LIKE a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe yet greater".

This is not the same as saying that the shadow spread out LIKE wings. In this quote he has to say like because to leave it out would be to say "it was a great shadow". But the Balrog was not a "great shadow" it was a being with a physical form that was wraped in shadow. The meaning of "like" changes completely from the one sentence to the other as anyone can see.

I could go on but I am already late for something so I will leave it at that for now.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Do Balrogs Have Wings? by Michael Martinez

I'm sold.

While I respect Mr. Martinez on a great number of Tolkien-related questions, and I agree with him on most, the Balrog debate is not one of them.

Quite frankly, Mr. Martinez does exactly what this and every other Balrog-related thread in every Tolkien-related forum across the web has done, and like just about every other fan, he has joined one or the other respective camps.

His is that of the wingers. Mine is that of the non-wingers. Each have their arsenal of evidence and it depends, with almost every piece, on the reader's perceived intention of the original author's mind.

There are times that I think we have gone so far into the minds of the characters and their world, that we think we have gone into the mind of Tolkien himself. We haven't, exactly, of course, but it is still a game that we play.

Did Balrogs have wings?

Of course not. It says so right there in the Lord of the Rings. If you read it the RIGHT way...

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

bal Sindarin, from primitive Quendian root BAL- = "power"
rog Sindarin, from root primitive Quendian RUK- = "demon"

Quite so, but that Bal is as in Valar rather, whilst Balrog's Bal is:

ÑGWAL- torment. Q ungwale torture; nwalya- to pain, torment; nwalka cruel. N balch cruel; baul torment, cf. Bal- in Balrog or Bolrog [ruk], and Orc-name Boldog = Orc-warrior ‘Torment-slayer’ (cf. ndak).

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko (*ñgwalaraukō, cf. ñgwal); N rhaug, Balrog.

So still my dentist

1910's re: quite so. Just trying to see the picture as a whole. (Cf threads like Two Gandalfs and Evil Things)

[narfforc]

Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR, the SHADOW spread out LIKE wings.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR

Though I see your point, I tend not to put that much weight on published work as opposed to not published, and what is later as opposed to what was written earlier. After all it is all chance - per instance, should publisher's reader read early version of Quenta in 1937, instead of just seeing scraps of Lay of Leithian, who knows what order (and what kind of at all) books would have been published in? Does the printing press sanctify the truth? Tolkien was not happy with lot of things in his published works either, he just had less freedom to alter them.

Do not misunderstand me - I do rely heavier on what is published and/or what represents later view of the author, but still, I generally tend to view the legendarium as a whole (one may say, historically, or even 'historiographically'), as a complex compilation of sources. Quoting myself from C-Thread:

we, readers ... of Tolkien, are free to use any of the texts (starting with the very first up to the very last) which we know to be canonical – i.e. by Tolkien himself, and apply to them our own judgement.

and part of the list from the same post:

A) What Tolkien was creating is nearly as complex as the history of the world itself
B) What he did create, must be viewed (as he himelf was evaluating it as such, 'finding out' rather than 'inventing') as history derived from and depending on different and quite a number of sources as well
C) Following A and B, different sources need not be in agreement between themselves

(Cf also Two Gandalfs by littlemanpoet)

Following said, there is a place in my head for hosts of marching corporate balrogs and for 7 Balrogs corporate too but wrapped in shadow (even if two types of balrog be purely speculation of yours truly, after all. Freedom of the reader? I suppose, but inside the boundaries set by the author. See C-Thread again)

On the other hand, as any historian may agree, it happens that even most smart&clever bookworm may err reading his sources. I'm 100% sure it is not me who's erring in ripping balrog wings off (if they were there in the first place), I know I'm right, and, following narfforc, I proclaim the truth to stand as 'balrogs had no wings', but (and here we part company with narfforc ) source read-outs may differ, so everybody, who can not be convinced is welcome to have their own opinion on the subject

PS Funny how I, having proclaimed in one of my previous that 'physical form does not count that much' spent precious hour pondering the subject (I lost count of 'agains' to go at the end of such sentence )

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Like I keep saying, people are quoting things that Tolkien may have wrote, but did not ultimately sanction, You cannot quote from The Silmarillion, it was published after his death, and you cannot know if seeing that sentence he would have been happy leaving it in, especially after what had already been published in LotR, the SHADOW spread out LIKE wings.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

That's what erasers and pre-death publications are for. Regardless of how [horrifyingly] much writing someone's got laying around, if a writer has written something that he wants to change, he will track down the proper page[s] and rewrite it. If he died before he could change it, than it stays canon, because it is what was last written. You can't say "what he would want now" because he's not alive now to want it. Although I'll stick with not wholly trusting C's work, because it is obviously not J.R.R's, I still insist on wings, whether or not they were made of shadow.

Tolkien himself, as his letters and his son testify, was very careful to stand by anything he had actually published. Consistency with the Lord of the Rings (and to a much lesser degree considering the lesser degree of facts to be found, in the Hobbit as well) was very important to Tolkien. Notice that he broke off his new theory about "the Problem of Ros" because it didn't jive with what he had written about Cair Andros.

Tolkien felt bound by what had appeared in print, hence the final editions of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings must be taken as solidly canonical. Anything else, while quite often demonstrably provable as Tolkien's last word on the subject, and quite often in step with his published works, cannot be given as high a proven standing, especially on matters where he changed his mind repeatedly, and did not seem to have made it up conclusively.

Therefore, with regards to the great Balrog debate, the only published references we have to go by are those in the Lord of the Rings. As Mr Martinez in the above article notes, and as I believe is correct, at the time of writing, the Balrogs (whatever their in-story origin) were wingless, and couldn't fly, and Tolkien wrote the chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-dum" with this intent.

Since the author never changed these passages, it must be held the Balrog in the Lord of the Rings is wingless. As already noted, the author spent great pains to keep his texts consistent. Thus, had he wanted winged Balrogs, he would surely have edited the passage in the Second Edition. Most likely, he never noticed the discrepancy, but that in itself is telling. I personally feel that it shows that Tolkien never changed his mind about Balrogs (whatever their origins) being wingless.