Why not Ecthelion?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Tolkien seems to find a number of reasons why Glorfindel was reincarnated before the ban was lifted (which is different from being sent back of course, but being under the ban was problematic). He didn't list them like this, but here goes:

1) Glorfindel was an Elda of high and noble spirit (I'm going to assume exceptionally high and noble is meant)

2) he incurred the ban reluctantly only because of kinship and allegiance to Turgon, and love for his Kindred.

3) he took no part in the Kinslaying

4) 'More important': he had sacrificed his life, enabling Tuor and Idril to escape, a deed of vital importance to the designs of the Valar.

So Glorfindel was purged of any guilt -- in note 12 Tolkien describes that his guilt had been small, and once again refers to his noble character, among other things. He was released from Mandos, and Manwe restored him to bodily life -- and he gained the primitive innocence and grace of the Eldar. It is then said he became a friend and follower of Gandalf!

These are thorough account of the reasons that Tolkien gave. I think it's interesting that Glorfindel left with Turgon, because of the kinship the two shared. With his blonde hair, it seems that Glorfindel probably had significant Vanyar ancestry. At the same time he was a Noldor prince. I always thought that he was a descendant of one of Finwe's daughters that had married a Vanyar relative of Elenwe, hence the close kinship to Turgon.

It's already been noted, but these Balrogs were more destructible than Tolkien would later imagine them. I doubt these numbers were going to stand -- and actually, there is evidence that JRRT imagined as little as three, or at most seven Balrogs, ever existing.

The matter of Balrog numbers is a bit complicated, and involves 'when Tolkien wrote what' (as there are plenty of descriptions written when Tolkien imagined very many Balrogs existing), but the idea at least (in my opinion) notably calls into question the number of Balrogs that were going to be slain in any theoried, updated revision of The Fall of Gondolin...

... the detailed version of which never got very much beyond Tuor's coming to the city [see Unfinished Tales], although Tolkien did some updating with Maeglin too.

I don't think the matter of Balrogs are complicated at all. Tolkien just changed his mind on them from being a race of fire creatures, to being demons. He is also quite clear on reducing the number and even says that the fight between Glorfindel and the Balrog would have to be rewritten. With the story we have, it is almost a given there were no more than 3-7 Balrogs.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I don't think the matter of Balrogs are complicated at all. Tolkien just changed his mind on them from being a race of fire creatures, to being demons. He is also quite clear on reducing the number and even says that the fight between Glorfindel and the Balrog would have to be rewritten. With the story we have, it is almost a given there were no more than 3-7 Balrogs.

Well, I said the matter of Balrog numbers, and let me complicate that a bit more then

Yes Tolkien clearly made one marginal note in the later 1950s [or sometime later, as it's hard to tell], and revised one passage -- which revision did not however, speak to how many Balrogs actually existed.

And yet Tolkien does not revise other texts that still refer to very many Balrogs. Why not? When I look at all of them, some might be explained by saying that he simply didn't get around to them, but I'm not sure that necessarily works perfectly for all examples.

And since there are seemingly more edited Silmarillion readers that HME readers, many do not realize that it was Christopher Tolkien, not JRRT himself, who edited the pasages in question. This often enough 'complicates' the discussion, especially since Christopher Tolkien did not edit the War of Wrath passage in this respect, which often enough gets raised in the discussion.

That is, Silmarillion-readers-only do not necessarily know that the War of Wrath passage was written well before the marginal note, nor that Christopher Tolkien has edited other reference where his father did not.

And as this marginal note is not part of the text proper, was Tolkien going to truly give a specific number in the tale itself? And if so, three or seven? Or was JRRT just going to revise all the passages concerned to make the matter ambiguous -- while not refering to large numbers at least.

And while Tolkien did write another, this time certainly 'late' note, that the duel with Glorfindel and the 'demon' may need revision, that in itself does not tell us that the revisions were going to let the reader know how many Balrogs actually existed.

Revise what? Add a shadow? Make this Balrog more powerful? Shorten it? Since Tolkien wrote demon and seems to 'avoid' Balrog in this late text, was he going to have Glorfindel fight a notable demon if 'lesser than Balrog' kind of demon -- hardly seems likely to me after all the external history behind Glorfindel slaying a Balrog, but I have read someone argue this possibility nonetheless.

So it can get 'a bit' complicated in my opinion

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well, I said the matter of Balrog numbers, and let me complicate that a bit more then

Yes Tolkien clearly made one marginal note in the later 1950s [or sometime later, as it's hard to tell], and revised one passage -- which revision did not however, speak to how many Balrogs actually existed.

And yet Tolkien does not revise other texts that still refer to very many Balrogs. Why not? When I look at all of them, some might be explained by saying that he simply didn't get around to them, but I'm not sure that necessarily works perfectly for all examples.

And since there are seemingly more edited Silmarillion readers that HME readers, many do not realize that it was Christopher Tolkien, not JRRT himself, who edited the pasages in question. This often enough 'complicates' the discussion, especially since Christopher Tolkien did not edit the War of Wrath passage in this respect, which often enough gets raised in the discussion.

That is, Silmarillion-readers-only do not necessarily know that the War of Wrath passage was written well before the marginal note, nor that Christopher Tolkien has edited other reference where his father did not.

And as this marginal note is not part of the text proper, was Tolkien going to truly give a specific number in the tale itself? And if so, three or seven? Or was JRRT just going to revise all the passages concerned to make the matter ambiguous -- while not refering to large numbers at least.

And while Tolkien did write another, this time certainly 'late' note, that the duel with Glorfindel and the 'demon' may need revision, that in itself does not tell us that the revisions were going to let the reader know how many Balrogs actually existed.

Revise what? Add a shadow? Make this Balrog more powerful? Shorten it? Since Tolkien wrote demon and seems to 'avoid' Balrog in this late text, was he going to have Glorfindel fight a notable demon if 'lesser than Balrog' kind of demon -- hardly seems likely to me after all the external history behind Glorfindel slaying a Balrog, but I have read someone argue this possibility nonetheless.

So it can get 'a bit' complicated in my opinion

Your entire argument is just stretching the what is possible.

1. We have been through this and we have seen that Christopher Tolkien has the right to edit any unpublished material he liked. What he says and edits is good enough for me.

2. Tolkien was a busy man and had a very demanding full time job. He never got to rewrite many things that he planned to do. It's a very weak argument to use that he had not rewritten the stories as an excuse. Especially, since it's very easy to edit the number of balrogs. More importantly he never in later work suggested that there were numerous balrogs again.

3. It simply does not fit with the story that the likes of Tuor or Ecthelion were killing Balrogs by the handful. We have seen that Gandalf died fighting one and it was a real threat to Lothlorien, that contained Galadriel.

4. Tolkien constantly refers to Balrogs as demons throughout his letters and notes. So just, because he refers to Glorfindel's battle with 'demon' hardly implies he planned to change it from a Balrog to some other beast.

So I am sorry to say the matter is a very simple one. There were no more than 7 Balrogs in the story as we know it and no reason that there should even be more than 3.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Your entire argument is just stretching the what is possible.

Well more than one possibility makes things more complicated, especially since, included within my statement is the idea that not everyone has read HME -- that alone makes it a 'bit' complicated in my opinion, at least as far as discussion goes.

1. We have been through this and we have seen that Christopher Tolkien has the right to edit any unpublished material he liked. What he says and edits is good enough for me.

Yes let's bring canon considerations into the matter. That never complicates things

2. Tolkien was a busy man and had a very demanding full time job. He never got to rewrite many things that he planned to do. It's a very weak argument to use that he had not rewritten the stories as an excuse. Especially, since it's very easy to edit the number of balrogs. More importantly he never in later work suggested that there were numerous balrogs again.

I never say above that by not revising a given passage containing many Balrogs 'proves' that Tolkien was of two minds, but rather that it doesn't exactly make the matter as cut and dry as you seem to be trying to make it now...

'Sauron came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower, with a host of Balrogs.' Of the Ruin of Beleriand And the Fall of Fingolfin [Christopher Tolkien edited this to: '... named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion.' Of The Ruin Of Beleriand]

But not only did Tolkien not revise 'host of Balrogs' in the early 1950s -- while making revisions to this same passage [passage 143], Christopher Tolkien even notes a revision to passage 143 on LQ2, which puts this revision [even if more minor than the early 1950s revision], in the same time phase as the '3 or 7' Balrog note...

... at least generally, so we don't know which comes later, the revision to 143 or the marginal note, and now one has to argue that Tolkien maybe just missed this reference, even on LQ2. Well, maybe is part of the point: it helps complicate matters 'a bit' because people will have different opinions about how to view these things.

3. It simply does not fit with the story that the likes of Tuor or Ecthelion were killing Balrogs by the handful. We have seen that Gandalf died fighting one and it was a real threat to Lothlorien, that contained Galadriel.

I haven't said otherwise. Still it's a fact [and not that you said otherwise] that after Tolkien wrote the Moria passage he still imagined very many Balrogs existing in Middle-earth in the First Age.

4. Tolkien constantly refers to Balrogs as demons throughout his letters and notes. So just, because he refers to Glorfindel's battle with 'demon' hardly implies he planned to change it from a Balrog to some other beast.

Well, all I said was that someone else raised this, and that I thought it very unlikely myself.

In any case the point there was, in response to you bringing up this statement from JRRT about Glorfindel, was that Tolkien's note about Glorfindel's fight with the demon possibly needing revision tells us nothing about Balrog numbers.

So I am sorry to say the matter is a very simple one. There were no more than 7 Balrogs in the story as we know it and no reason that there should even be more than 3.

Yes and The Lord of the Rings is about a short guy trying to get rid of some evil jewelry

[Galin]

So just, because he refers to Glorfindel's battle with 'demon' hardly implies he planned to change it from a Balrog to some other beast.

And incidentally, to be fair to the other person who raised the possibility, Tolkien actually appears to have crossed out the word Balrog in one instance [in the late text concerned], as well as employ demon throughout. I can't really easily explain why he should feel the need to do that...

... although again I still don't buy it myself [even if Balrog numbers were drastically reduced]...

but let's not [including me, if I have] simplify this person's suggestion of a possibility

And that's all it was, if I recall correctly.

[gondowe]

I think the matter is easier (my humble opinion). If we would want (as it stands in the section of the New Silmarillion) to create an coherent text, the number of Balrogs must be treated as a mixed version. I mean, the 3 or 7 note is that, "a note" , not developed by the professor, if the text had been rewritten we had the "truth", but we haven't, only know that the number is wanted to be reduced in accordance with the new "strength" of the demons opposite to the Lost Tales version. I think with no more data rewritten, we can assume 7 equal to 10 or 12 for example.
Greetings

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galin

Well more than one possibility makes things more complicated, especially since, included within my statement is the idea that not everyone has read HME -- that alone makes it a 'bit' complicated in my opinion, at least as far as discussion goes.

Not reading all the source material does not make things more complicated. It just means that you don't have the full information.

Yes let's bring canon considerations into the matter. That never complicates things

Again only if you want to make things difficult. Tolkien was explicit with what he wrote in his will. Whether you or I like it or not does not matter. Christoper Tolkien has actually greatly restrained his hand and could have done far more with the power his father left him.

I never say above that by not revising a given passage containing many Balrogs 'proves' that Tolkien was of two minds, but rather that it doesn't exactly make the matter as cut and dry as you seem to be trying to make it now...

'Sauron came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower, with a host of Balrogs.' Of the Ruin of Beleriand And the Fall of Fingolfin [Christopher Tolkien edited this to: '... named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion.' Of The Ruin Of Beleriand]

But not only did Tolkien not revise 'host of Balrogs' in the early 1950s -- while making revisions to this same passage [passage 143], Christopher Tolkien even notes a revision to passage 143 on LQ2, which puts this revision [even if more minor than the early 1950s revision], in the same time phase as the '3 or 7' Balrog note...

... at least generally, so we don't know which comes later, the revision to 143 or the marginal note, and now one has to argue that Tolkien maybe just missed this reference, even on LQ2. Well, maybe is part of the point: it helps complicate matters 'a bit' because people will have different opinions about how to view these things.

Tolkien is not perfect and is not going to notice every little detail We have to look at the grand picture and we get to my next point.

I haven't said otherwise. Still it's a fact [and not that you said otherwise] that after Tolkien wrote the Moria passage he still imagined very many Balrogs existing in Middle-earth in the First Age.

Where is the proof in this? As he made the Balrog more powerful he was probably considering the change at that point. It's quite apparent that a host of Balrogs does not work. One Balrog alone was enough to defeat Gandalf.

Well, all I said was that someone else raised this, and that I thought it very unlikely myself.

In any case the point there was, in response to you bringing up this statement from JRRT about Glorfindel, was that Tolkien's note about Glorfindel's fight with the demon possibly needing revision tells us nothing about Balrog numbers.

Yes and The Lord of the Rings is about a short guy trying to get rid of some evil jewelry

Look we can see all the information we have including Tolkien's notes the power of the Balrogs etc and we get a picture. I don't see any contradiction to the updated note and you have not convinced me it is remotely complicated. We will have to agree to disagree here once more.

[Yregwyn]

Well, heres another way to look at it. Even if the Balrogs were as Durin's Bane was portrayed in the movie, there could have been a great number of them. It would just mean that the Eldar of the 1st age were that much tougher. You cant really go by Gandalf getting killed by one if this was the case, 1st the elfs of old would have been greater then Gandalf was in 3rd age as a Istari, thats not saying he couldnt have just snapped his fingers and blew it to pieces in his true form, if he wanted to. Or being able to do the same to the any of the eldar from the 1st age either. Its saying that he wasnt allowed to... or that he didnt have that kind of power in the mortal form. Its just another way to think about it and include both views of the Balrogs. Like this also, i think if Fingolfin had ran into Gothmog on his way to challenge Morgoth he would have absolutly destroyed him, and even Sauron would have been hard pressed for that matter, In my opinion. Dont burn me at the stake please. Its just an idea, thinking out loud it you will.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Yregwyn

Well, heres another way to look at it. Even if the Balrogs were as Durin's Bane was portrayed in the movie, there could have been a great number of them. It would just mean that the Eldar of the 1st age were that much tougher. You cant really go by Gandalf getting killed by one if this was the case, 1st the elfs of old would have been greater then Gandalf was in 3rd age as a Istari, thats not saying he couldnt have just snapped his fingers and blew it to pieces in his true form, if he wanted to. Or being able to do the same to the any of the eldar from the 1st age either. Its saying that he wasnt allowed to... or that he didnt have that kind of power in the mortal form. Its just another way to think about it and include both views of the Balrogs. Like this also, i think if Fingolfin had ran into Gothmog on his way to challenge Morgoth he would have absolutly destroyed him, and even Sauron would have been hard pressed for that matter, In my opinion. Dont burn me at the stake please. Its just an idea, thinking out loud it you will.

Elrond and Galadriel were a match for any first age elves. The Balrog was still a huge threat to them. The first age Elves were really no stronger than those of the 2nd Age or even the third Age. The First Age just had more of them.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Not reading all the source material does not make things more complicated. It just means that you don't have the full information.

I said it makes the discussion more complicated. And obviously it does when one reader is looking at or raising a quote that he or she is not aware has been edited.

Again only if you want to make things difficult. Tolkien was explicit with what he wrote in his will. Whether you or I like it or not does not matter. Christoper Tolkien has actually greatly restrained his hand and could have done far more with the power his father left him.

Did Tolkien explicitly state in his will that if CJRT chose to publish a single volume version of the Silmarillion [which was not what CJRT originally intended incidentally] that he [JRRT] would consider it 'canon'? Does CJRT ever claim the constructed version is intended to be the 'canonical' version?

Not that I'm aware of, to both questions.

But now you're just complicating matters here, with 'canon'

Galin wrote: 'Still it's a fact [and not that you said otherwise] that after Tolkien wrote the Moria passage he still imagined very many Balrogs existing in Middle-earth in the First Age.'

Cellurdur responded: Where is the proof in this? As he made the Balrog more powerful he was probably considering the change at that point. It's quite apparent that a host of Balrogs does not work. One Balrog alone was enough to defeat Gandalf.

The proof is in the dating: the early 1950s Silmarillion passages [in which many Balrogs still exist] post date the Moria encounter with Gandalf, as [obviously] do those references to very many Balrogs that survive the later 1950s revisions.

So the proof is in The History of Middle-Earth series, basically.