|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Konrad S
Lorien
Jan 30 2016, 10:42pm
Post #1 of 5
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How many Balrogs is there?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well i know Tolkien wrote they where pretty many bc Ecthelion himself killed 3 + Ghotmog and stuff i know Tuor, Feanor, Gandalf and Glorfindel also killed Balrog, but i Heard that christofer Tolkien said it where only 7 or 9. But is what christofer says really cannon if Tolkien said something other. If it is then christofer could rewrite gandalf as a fat badger yellow badger that like hugs. I Heard someone said Tolkiens kids can not just add new things about the other dwarf lords and stuff. So i there really 7/9 or is it mroe like 50 , i bet there is some dying in the battles by regular warriors, plu, Glorfindel took one, Gandalf one, Ecthelion took 4, Tuor 5, and Feanor slaid some in his last stand. So sorry for bad English btw.
|
|
|
hanne
Lorien
Jan 31 2016, 1:39am
Post #2 of 5
(594 views)
Shortcut
|
Hi Konrad S, sador wrote a great answer to this - because Prof. Tolkien kept changing his mind, it depends what you read and when he wrote it.
Don't worry about the English; the more you write the better you will get!
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jan 31 2016, 2:59am
Post #3 of 5
(590 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Christopher Tolkien did not invent Tolkien's note
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As you can see from the linked thread. I'm not sure Tolkien changed his mind that many times...
... but originally (in an external sense, not in story) there were very many Balrogs, but they were easier to slay and not Maiar (especially in The Book of Lost Tales)...
Tolkien held on to the idea of many Balrogs for decades, it seems...
... but then there is at least one note added to a text dated 1958-ish, where Tolkien notes that it should not be imagined that more than three Balrogs, or at most seven, ever existed...
... JRRT then made a revision to one of the references which suggested very many Balrogs, but he did not, for whatever reason or reasons, revise every existing reference to many Balrogs.
When Christopher Tolkien edited the Silmarillion for its publication in 1977, he altered some wording so that Balrog numbers were basically left obscure.
The textual matter is more complicated than this, but that's the quick version.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Jan 31 2016, 3:05am)
|
|
|
Konrad S
Lorien
Jan 31 2016, 7:27am
Post #4 of 5
(574 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Then i think there is many balrogs like the orginal
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Jan 31 2016, 2:33pm
Post #5 of 5
(558 views)
Shortcut
|
... some folks seem to think that the note (no more than 3 or 7) is Tolkien's known last word on the subject, and as there are plenty of other things Tolkien never got around to updating, the argument goes that he just didn't get around to fully updating Quenta Silmarillion with this later idea in mind.
And as with the "who originally owned Orcist" question, again, for myself I would find it a bit dubious to consider The Book of Lost Tales version of The Fall of Gondolin (long prose version) as the best guide here... if I recall correctly, in his commentary to the early Fall of Gondolin even Christopher Tolkien notes how (relatively) easy early Balrogs are to slay, and we know that they were not Maiar at this time.
I'm also not convinced that Tolkien was going to land on a specific number for Quenta Silmarillion. His late-ish note suggests that he might, but that's a marginal note... and not surprisingly his actual revision to the text in question was to simply change "host" of Balrogs (implying many) to "his" Balrogs, which leaves the matter vague.
This is basically what Christopher Tolkien did for the constructed Silmarillion, following in his father's footsteps in my opinion, although he left the War of Wrath reference essentially as it was, I think because it was somewhat vague already.
In my opinion Christopher Tolkien appears to be taking the middle-ground here, conjuring a mist so that the reader cannot count Balrogs.
Or something
(This post was edited by Elthir on Jan 31 2016, 2:40pm)
|
|
|
|
|
