previously published at the Barrow-Downs)

 

Orcs are creatures mostly interesting to me. There are several issues concerning them, namely, their origin (dubious thing, you know, with Tolkien changing his mind about it), do they have free will, and, in this case, are to be considered sinners on their own behalf or just puppets of Morgoth/Sauron and therefore blameless, what is their lifespan etc. Most of what I ever had to say about the subject is placed at The Barrow Downs, but is scattered in several threads. I'll try to gather all there is worth of posting as a separate thread and present it to your attention. First installment will deal with so called (by me usually) Twelve Orkish Statements, referred to as TOS further on.



12 Orkish Statements:

1. Orcs have different origins, including beasts, Men and Elves. Great orcish leaders (Boldog) were orcish hróar inhabited by corrupted Maiar.

2. Those of beast origin need direct control of an evil mind (i.e. Morgoth or Sauron) to act with some purpose, otherwise they "stray aimlessly".

3. The Elvish and Mannish orcs are capable of independent action in those "good old days", when Sauron is out of the stage.

4. The Elvish and Mannish orcs definitely have fëar.

5. The Elvish-orcish fëa has the right of Elvish ones to go to Mandos, therefore having the possibility to repent. The decision to rebuild its hróa lies with the Valar, though usually the fëa is supposed to be kept in captivity till the end of the World. On the other hand, it has the right to refuse the summons and remain in the Hither Lands as a houseless ghost or wraith.

6. A Mannish fëa has to leave the confines of the world, as human fëar do.

7. Orcs are capable to be interbred with Men even in the third age, thus acts Saruman, as well as Sauron, producing a new type of "man-orc".

8. Beast-orcs must be considered innocent in a way, for they are just tormented and perverted animals, Kevlar with no free will.

9. Elvish and Mannish orcs possess free will, as all the Children of Eru, however it is suppressed by thehorror of Dark Lord, therefore they are not irredeemable and must be considered sinners, even those natural born ones, thus being distinguished from beast-orcs. Elvish and Mannish orcs know the Good from the Evil and appreciate the good (see Shagrat and Gorbag converse, where the "Elvish trick" of leaving companions is evaluated to be bad, and generally ascribed to the other side).

10. All Orcs hate the Dark Lord for what was done to them, but the hatred is suppressed by horror, and they hate peoples of free and good will still more.

11. Elven-Orcs especially dislike the Elves proper, and receive the same feeling from the other side.

12. Elven-orcs have the usual Elven longevity, therefore , for instance, some of them can recall and recognize items of several thousand years of age (Orcrist and Glamdring recognized by orcs in The Hobbit).


Those statements will be discussed one by one below:



All About Orcs clause 1

1. Orcs have different origins, including beasts, Men and Elves. Great orcish leaders (Boldog) were orcish hróar inhabited by corrupted Maiar

Before we proceed to their origins, it must be underlined that orcs are not the Dark Lord's creations, but only pervertions of what was in existence before:

"I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them" (JRRT's letter to Peter Hastings (#153 in The Letters)

***

Orcs as Elves

In the published Silmarillion (further referred to as S77) it is stated:

"Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressëa, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes"


Mark the following points: 1. Opinion (not precise knowledge) is ascribed to the 'wise of Eressëa' (cf Treebeard and his opinion concerning trolls), not to the author himself.
2. Orcs are described as 'bitterest foes' of Elves. In case they are themselves perverted Elves, the situation is psychologically fitting (Elves seeing in Orcs what they themselves might have become, Orcs seeing in Elves what they were ripped of).

Point one plays against the Elven origin theory, point two for it. Not having 100% conclusion, I may assume that at least some (even if a very limited number) Elves were used in the breeding of Orcs.

***


Orcs as Men

If Morgoth was capable of twisting Elves (see assumption above), then he must have been capable of doing the same to Men. Immediate objection: Men haven't yet been awoken while Orcs were already in existence. On the other hand, we see Men used to be interbred with Orcs in later time (Saruman). Conclusion: Men might have been used by Morgoth to produce Orcs, yet were not at a time, and were added up to Orcish genetic soup in later ages.

***


Orcs as beasts

This is backed up by JRRT's direct statement: "Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar" from 'Late Writings', History of Middle Earth (further HoME) volume XII.

I will come back to the source of the quote when I have to deal with free-will.

***


Orcs as Maiar

"Boldog, for instance, is a name that occurs many times in the tales of the War. But it is possible that Boldog was not a personal name, and either a title, or else the name of a kind of creature: the Orc-formed Maiar, only less formidable than the Balrogs." (HoME v X, Myths transformed)



All about Orcs Clause 2

Those of beast origin need direct control of an evil mind (i.e. Morgoth or Sauron) to act with some purpose, otherwise they "stray aimlessly".

Let me start with quatation from the Lord of The Rings (LoTR):

"But the Nazgûl turned and fled, and vanished into Mordor's shadows, hearing a sudden terrible call out of the Dark Tower; and even at that moment all the hosts of Mordor trembled, doubt clutched their hearts, their laughter failed, their hands shook and their limbs were loosed. The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid."

and this:

"As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope."

Further it is said that some Men, on the other hand, gathered for the last stand against the Captains of the West.

Three points to underline here:

1. 'All the hosts of Mordor' - i.e. not only orcs, but Easterlings, Haradrim etc. So, Sauron is affecting not only Orcs, but Men; and his will imposed causes them to be furious in battle and fearless.
2. Only Orcs and the like are directly controlled by Sauron's will, and men are just infuriated and made fierce by it.
3. 'they saw a deadly light and were afraid'. Well, not to stray off topic and fall into discussion of Sauron's abilities, let me ask you to compare this sudden fear to:

"Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Ilúvatar had compassion upon Aulë and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and wore afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: 'Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.'" (S77)

In both cases independent 'fear' on the creature's part is a sign it possesses 'life of its own'. Is it a contradiction? For in case the dwarves' fear indicates that they are 'adopted' by Eru and given the will of their own. Does it mean that (beast)orcs have free will as well? (Free will in general will be discussed in entry 4). I think not, for the 'life of their own' is a essence of kelvar (animals) as well as of 'Speaking Peoples', though it does not imply they have fear and posses the free will.

Let us go back to the words already quoted in the entry 1: "Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar" (HoME XII, Late Writings) and add something to it: "It will there be seen that the wills of Orcs and Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their spirit is one of hate." (ibid.)

But what happens to (beast)orcs where there is nobody around to control them? Detailed discussion will be given in the next entry, but here it must be said the following:

"One of the reasons for his [Melkor's] self-weakening is that he has given to his 'creatures', Orcs, Balrogs, etc. power of recuperation and multiplication. So that they will gather again without further specific orders. Part of his native creative power has gone out into making an independent evil growth out of his control." (ibid.)



Clause 3.

The Elvish and Mannish orcs are capable of independent action in those "good old days", when Sauron is out of the stage.



But, in the course of research, I think I may be even allowed to rephrase it as simply as:

orcs are capable of independent action.

There are several examples of orcs acting on their own: the ambush of the Gladden Fields, where Isildur was destroyed being the most intense of all examples, since the Evil Mind supposed to be controlling them, i.e. Sauron, was just unclad and diminished at that time. Another example of orcs' capability of independence may be given with Shagrat's / Gorbag's conversation in the Lord of the Rings, who go as far as 'talking as rebels':

"Oho! So they haven't told you what to expect? They don't tell us all they know, do they? Not by half. But they can make mistakes, even the Top Ones can."

Gorbag is criticizing if not Sauron himself, yet his mostly "beloved" Nazgûl. How is it possible, especially in the light of the above discussed 'direct control of Evil'?
cf this from HoME X, Myths Transformed:

"I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fea. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted I converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words - he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots). In The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them."

and

"Morgoth not Sauron is the source of Orc-wills. Sauron is just another (if greater) agent. Orcs can rebel against him without losing their own irremediable allegiance to evil (Morgoth)."

That says it all I think. As an assumption: those orcs who had a human (and mostly rare, yet still possible, Elvish) strain in their blood still more were capable to act independently.



Clause 4

The elvish and mannish orcs definitely have fëar.

Well, the above stated is logical in case [Elves and] Men were used to produce orcs. Though Elvish origin, as was stated above, is improbable, men are proven to be used in orc production. Evidence is given in LoTR: "'But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun"

Such a deed is considered the most sinful of what Saruman has done. Earlier, the same evaluation is given to Morgoth and his production of works:

compare

"And deep in their dark hearts the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery. This it may be was the vilest deed of Melkor, and the most hateful to Ilúvatar." (S77)

with

"Therefore Isildur must have fallen not into the deep stream but into shallow water, no more than shoulder-high, Why then, though an Age had passed, were there no traces of his bones? Had Saruman found them, and scorned them - burned them with dishonour in one of his furnaces? If that were so, it was a shameful deed; but not his worst." (Unfinished Tales)

'not his worst' here refers to cross-breeding of Men and orcs, which is his worst deed.

And, with the already stated above, compare:

"I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them." (Letter 153)

I have to conclude vice-versa is also impossible, so taking away the soul, fëa, already in existence is as impossible as giving one to a "golem" created.



Clause 5:

The Elvish-orcish fëa has the right of Elvish ones to go to Mandos, therefore having the possibility to repent. The decision to rebuild its hróa lies with the Valar, though usually the fëa is supposed to be kept in captivity till the end of the World. On the other hand, it has the right to refuse the summons and remain in the Hither Lands as a houseless ghost or wraith.

Well, the above is an almost entirely speculative statement, but logically chained to what has been already said above concerning the subject. Since I assume that noone can take away a fëa once it is there, I logically conclude that its essentials (i.e. going to Mandos, equally as the right not to go there) cannot be taken away as well. As for captivity till the end of time, I have Tolkien's own words to back me up, though those may be not a final statement but meditation on the subject: "And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End." (HoME X)

But, since Tolkien himself stated that no creature (with the possible exception of Morgoth [and Sauron]) is irredeemable, I may speculate further and assume that there always remains a possibility (however minor) of an orkish fëa repenting. Then, speculating again, one may assume it may be allowed and be provided with a rebuilt hróa, which, naturally, would equal the state of a repenting fëa and be not of an orc, but maybe similar to what was once original concept - Elven bodily form.
As for wraith/ghost assumption, again I can not provide you with clear statement, but possibility is there:

"When released they would [umaiar spirits killed in bodily form], of course, like Sauron, be 'damned': i.e. reduced to impotence, infinitely recessive: still hating but unable more and more to make it effective physically (or would not a very dwindled dead Orc-state be a poltergeist?" (HoME X, Myths Transformed)

The entries 6-12 seem self-explaining to yours truly, so will stand as they are and need not be discussed separately.

 

top of the page

 

 

Well, how people do acquire title of an elf-friend?

General requisite is to be, well, friendly and of use to elves. In the first age title is applied to the whole peoples (three kindred of elf-friends), as well as in particular cases for those who were of great valour in prooving their friendship. In the second age the picture is much the same, but criteria is slightly different. Now we have particular p0ersons, who rended some service to elves, and whole peoples, who, maybe, haven’t seen an elf in their whole life, yet are considered elf-friends for the mere knowledge of the elven tongues: for the first case:

 

Long I have owed you thanks, for you have so many times sent to me your son Anardil Aldarion: the greatest Elf-friend that now is among Men, as I deem

 

that is Gil-Galad in his letter to Tar-Meneldur concerning latter’s son Aldarion.

but, as was said above, the knowledge of Noldorin (or even Sindarin) is sufficient in the case:

If she came through the settled lands of Gondor," .they said, "she would not be molested, and might receive help; for the Men of Gondor are good, and they are ruled by descendants of the Elf-friends of old who can still speak our tongue, after a fashion; but in the mountains are many unfriendly Men and evil things.”

 

stress falls on the ability to talk elven tongue, and in Gondorin case it is Sindarin allright.

 

And sometimes the title is even name for a political party, i.e “elendili” of Numenor

 

But the most fully the requisite of language is expressed in FoTR

 

 

 ‘I thank you indeed, Gildor Inglorion,’ said Frodo bowing. ‘Elen síla lúmenn’ omentielvo, a star shines on the hour of our meeting,’ he added in the high-elven speech.

‘Be careful, friends!’ cried Gildor laughing. ‘Speak no secrets! Here is a scholar in the Ancient Tongue. Bilbo was a good master. Hail, Elf-friend!’ he said, bowing to Frodo. ‘Come now with your friends and join our company! You had best walk in the middle so that you may not stray. You may be weary before we halt.’

 

this is the first time Frodo is named Elf-Friend, and here it’s not stressed, goes without solemnity, somehow there is a feeling it just slipped off Gildor’s lips unconsciously. Next time he does it on purpose:

 

 Courage is found in unlikely places,’ said Gildor. ‘Be of good hope! Sleep now! In the morning we shall have gone; but we will send our messages through the lands. The Wandering Companies shall know of your journey, and those that have power for good shall be on the watch. I name you Elf-friend; and may the stars shine upon the end of your road! Seldom have we had such delight in strangers, and it is fair to hear words of the Ancient Speech from the lips of other wanderers in the world.’

 

He applies Elf-friend to Frodo as a title, but again because it is fair to hear words of the Ancient Speech from the lips of other wanderers in the world.

So, thechnically, even evil person knowing Noldorin can acquire such a title? I think not, for, decency is required too:

 

I beg of you," said Bilbo stammering and standing on one foot, "to accept this gift!" and he brought out a necklace of silver and pearls that Dain had given him at their parting.

"In what way have I earned such a gift, O hobbit?" said the king.

"Well, er, I thought, don't you know," said Bilbo rather confused, "that, er, some little return should be made for your, er, hospitality. I mean even a burglar has his feelings. I have drunk much of your wine and eaten much of your bread."

"I will take your gift, O Bilbo the Magnificent!" said the king gravely. "And I name you elf-friend and blessed. May your shadow never grow less (or stealing would be too easy)! Farewell!”

 

Bilbo is rewarded with the title for his honesty and kindness, and it’s not clear does he know elvish already at the moment, or this knowledge comes to him later on, as well as whatever is said before this of Thranduil’s greed and his love of “white gems”, he cannot be bribed so easily, can he?

 

As a conclusion: term “elf-friend” has two possible meanings:

 

1)                     somehow political, expressing general outlook of the person bearing the title.

2)                     inner, expressing state of his fëa

 

in the former sense title may be applied by the person himself, and even without any elf nearby, i.e Faramir and Eomer both fight against Dark Lord, But Faramir is an elf-friend, and Eomer is not, though neither is seen to have connections with elves (up to a moment)

in latter sense the process like to a kind of initiation,  the title is applied by an elf, usually is expressed by the verb “to name” (I name you and elf-friend), and, most interesting of all, title in such sense implies change of inner state of a initiatd person. For Frodo, after being “elffriended” by Gildor, is described thus:

 

Welcome!’ she said. ‘I had not heard that folk of the Shire were so sweet-tongued. But I see you are an elf-friend; the light in your eyes and the ring in your voice tells it. This is a merry meeting

 

That’s Goldberry in Bombadil’s house welcoming Frodo. Still more, the Change is noticed by more sensitive kind of folk only, for Pippin, Merry and Sam don’t notice any new ring in the voice or light in the eyes of Frodo

 

top of the page

 

The following reflects on the moment in the motion picture version of the Gandalf’s fall in Moria

 

If I read correctly some notins between the lines, movie forms an opinion that Gandalf let go out of his choice (as a sacrifice for the fellowship) and that was for the better, for he came back in power (and he knew it would be so). Some meditations on the subject:

 

if you are a wizard:

 

1 Sacrifice for your friends is valuable but when you don’t expect to be rewarded for it with a new body

2 Otherwise it’s a suicide

3 Even if you don’t expect to get new body, than it’s suicide allright, for all other members of the fellowship are this side of the ruined bridge

4 Suicide can not be appraised since it’s an act of refusing the service laid upon you as an emissary of the Valar

 

therefore, Gandalf letting go and falling would mean Gandalf defeated, and not by Balrog, but by his own weakness and weariness of the world. Nothing to admire, really, though understandable with amount of labor upon his shoulders.

 

Yet, as it was said above, that is the movie version

 

top of the page

 (as an answer to Mr. David Brin’s article published here)

 

Me and Mr. Brin seem to disagree in the core of things concerning Tolkien. I honestly
hold an opinion we all live in Present, as well as believe Tolkien shared
this opinion. As a back up of an argument:

"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what
is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the
evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean
earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule"

quote by Gandalf in the Last Debate chapter. All [good] characters are
conforming to this motto, performing their great and small duties NOW,
whatever consequences, whatever personal benefit/loss for themselves. The
pinpoint is made on Frodo, who knows he will fail and die, but goes on
nevertheless. (The happy ending is quite another thing and can not be
perceived form Frodo's viewpoint, even if the reader may guess that hobbits
will be saved. The rescue is to represent the thing Tolkien called
"Eucatastrophe", and is humbly meant to parallel the real Eucatasrophe -
Christ's birth into this

The stress falls on a simple truth - time is not created by us, and can not
belong to us. The only thing we have a faint claim of possesion on is a
present moment, slipping through our fingers so we have no opportunity to
grasp it. In this light that Golden Future of Mr. Brin rs (no sarcasm intended,
English is not my mothertongue, so perhaps some of my expressions fall short
of my intentions, alas) is as much a Romaticism and Escapism  as Mr. Brin  impose
on Tolkien. Or, to use C.S.Lewis' Screwtape's quote:

"We have trained them to think of the Future as a promised land which
favoured heroes attain-not as something which everyone reaches at the rate
of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is"

Another point:

Mr. Brin mentions equal rights for orks. But orks are soulless - automata,
perverted beasts dominated and controlled by remnants of Morgoth's will in
Middle Earth.(see above All About Orks) Some may be/may be not tortured elves, and small amount are
cross-breedings with men. The majority however is of beast origin Killing of
a beast-ork (technical term) is not a crime. Killing of human/elf-ork
(another technical term) may be considered as a release of its FEA (soul) of
bonds imposed by tortured and perverted HROA (body). So there by definition
may not be coalition goverments with ork participants

Sauron can not be shown as an active hero/villain since Tolkien is a
Christian. Official Christianity holds as proved truth that evil is not a
self consisten entity, but merely lack, absence of Good, i.e. God (Boethius
for the Western, Pseudo Dionisis Areopagitus for the Eastern Churches).
Though supernatural being, Sauron is LESS of a person than any even of his
servants, since he went the longer way down form the light. Though his Ring
is in some aspect just asking for been seen as a symbol of technology, it is
not quite so - it represents also another (though unofficial, but very firm
a tradition) Christian pensee - that however technically impersonal, evil
sometimes has it's own face, is an active force and should be fought (for
there were some followers of the former who preached some "neutral position"
for Christians, since "it all will settle by itself" The truth is somewhere
in between (I believe) - Evil is nothing, but not to withstand it is a
derilition of one's duty.

Though in any case Mr. Brin is free to stick to his opinions (those being
respected) I nevertheless believe Mr. Brin’s perception of Tolkien's world is erroneous.
Mr. Brin  sees a mere allegory in LoTR, but there is much more to Tolkien than
allegories with Nazis, Nuclaer Weapons and WWII.

 

top of the page

 

The following is not much of an article, but merely represents my reflections on the subhject of elven societies in Beleriand and elsewhere.

 

The quote to start with:

 

And Felagund seeing that he was forsaken took from his head the silver crown of Nargothrond and cast it at his feet, saying: 'Your oaths of faith to me you may break, but I must hold my bond (S77)

 

Here the tradition of monarchy can be percepted,  i.e. subjects are to take "oaths of faith" upon enthroning of the monarch, there are roayl symbols displayed (crown) etc etc

 

But I would it be clear – the elven kingdom is not feudal society (as many seem to believe). Elves base their structure on the model and tradition given by the Valar, and those, in their turn, represent order given by Eru himself. Therefore (I assume), it is more like Patriarchy than anything else. Every elven society is bulid on it, and High elves being closest to the source of such a tradition – Valar, more so. No better paragon of rightful monarchy is to be found elsewhere, but in Valinor.

 

Low influence of the "High" King of the Noldor (I think Tolkien terms such a person simply "king of the Noldor") has several reasons, them reading as follows:

 

1. Political system of elves at the given time is not feudal, but rather patriarchal/tribal - each leader is reigning over some family group - ie sindar, noldor, nandor etc, not, strictly speaking, over "feud", piece of land. Therefore high kings authority is similar to that of a "Tribal alliance Chief"'s.

 

2 Elves are fallen. Their rebellion agains Valar made it impossibel for thir high king to rule by advice, as Manwe does. For obedience to Manwe is of free will, he is not forcing, but his subjects are rather allies and friends, than subjects proper

 

3 Elves are not fallen enough (quote from the top of my head – elves were not fallen as a race), ie they mental state is not allowing their high king to become tyrant. They still retain the memory of how King should behave, but it's not always enough, so to say, to result in subjects compulsory obedience. Still more there are no enforcement institutions (e.g police force, royal guard etc)

 

That’s why, alas, the passage quoted above is possible

 

top of the page

 

What does Elrond’s name mean? One have to consult etymologies for the answer:

 

 

ETYMOLOGIES:

 

 

EL- star, starry sky. Q poetical elen (ellen or elena) star. Dor el; N only in names, as Elwing, Elbereth. Cf. Eled- Starfolk, that is Elves. Elrond = starry-dome, sky [rod]. [Added in margin:] Q Elerína star-crowned = Taniquetil; Elentári Star Queen = Varda; N Elbereth = Varda. [On Elbereth see note to barath; on Elerína and Elentári see p. 200.]

 

?EL- sky. Q helle, ON elle, sky. In Noldorin and Telerin this is confused with el star. Other derivatives: Q helwa, ON elwa (pale) blue, N elw, cf. name of Elwe King of the Teleri [weg]; and names as Elulind, Elwing, Elrond. Q helyanwe ‘sky-bridge’, rainbow, ON elyadme, N eilian(w) [yat]. Dor. gell sky, gelu sky-blue. [A later note directs that Elwe be transferred to el star. Elrond, Elwing are also given under el.]

 

 

ROD- cave. Q rondo cave; N rhond, rhonn, cf. Nargothrond, othrond (see os). Dor. roth, pl. rodhin, as in Meneg-roth is probably from rōda > rōdh > rōth. Cf. ON rauda hollow, cavernous, N rhauð. ON rostóbe to hollow out, excavate, N rosto.In Ilkorin rond = domed roof, hence Elrond (vault of heaven) [el], name of Eärendel’s son.

 

ÉLED- ‘Star-folk’, Elf. Q Elda (Eldamar or Elende = Elvenhome, Eldalie, Eldarin); N Eledh, pl. Elidh, cf. Eledhrim, Eledhwen [Elf-fair >] Elf-maid, Elennor (Eledandore > Eleðndor). Dor. Eld, pl. Eldin. Dan. Elda. [The Dor. and Dan. forms were subsequently struck through and the following added:] In Dor. and Dan. transposed > edel- whence Dor. Egla, Eglath (cf. Eglamar, Eglorest); Dan. Edel.Eglador = Doriath in Doriathrin; Ariador = lands outside of Eglador. Cf. Eglor (Elf-river), Ilkorin name of a river in W. Beleriand. [On the earlier and later entries eled see p. 344. Further faint pencillings show my father doubtful of the derivation of Eldar from a base meaning ‘star’, and suggesting that, although the name was so interpreted, it was probably in fact altered from edela ‘eldest’ - eðel, eðil being found also in Noldorin. A base ede-, edel- ‘precede, come forward’ is proposed, with derivative edela (= eleda) ‘firstborn’, but this is struck out.]

 

 

So “Starry Dome” rather than “Elf of the Cave”, though latter also may be backed up from etymologies: Eled (as “elf” not as “stars” in this case) + Rond (Cave, vault) = Eledrondo --> Elrond

 

top of the page

 

 

Foreword

Whence do you come, ye fiery spirit?

Many Many Balrogs

Fly Away Little Bird

I do how I would

 

 

 

Foreword

The sources for the following is JRRT’s legendarium and “published” (i.e. at author’s time of life) works, of course, but much inspiration was brought by RS project discussion on The Barrow-Downs forum and many thanks I do awe to a friend of mine at different times known on The Barrow-Downs as Saulotus and Bob Wehadababyitsaboy, and on the Minas-Tirith fora as Nimruzir

The whole thing with balrogs is quite dubious, I must admit, for JRRT himself had several minds about the subject. In most cases I’ll try to ground my statements on the latest decisions, and if it’s not possible, to present you with my own assessments (backed up with best argument I can contrive)

Let the reader be warned though that most of the given below is speculative up to a point and  based on personal belief of the author

So let the game begin

Short summary of what precisely is to appear below (or 4 balrog statements):

1. Origin – Some of the Balrogs are of the same order as Ainur (Valar, Maiar), seduced by Melkor to his service before the actual creation of Arda. They are his most trusted servants (beside Sauron). Others are otehrwise
2. Number - There is uncertain number of Balrogs. Different reports vary from 3-7 to thousands. Yours truly assumes there must be two different types of a balrog  – one of the abovementioned kind (e.g of the same order as Ainur) numbered 3 to 7, and another one introduced by Melkor/Morgoth. The former kind is not reproducible, the latter can be supplied with new species at will (at Morgoth’s will, to be precise, and up to a point – whils there is enough will left in Morgoth). (The difference is further indicated by using capital B for the first kind)
3. Wings - Balrogs either have or do not have wings. Arguments for and against can be supplied in equal quantities
4. Will – Are balrogs free in their choice? for, if they were summoned and answered summons, they must be.On the other hand, Melkor consumes and absorbs everyone and anything in hi service.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Origin (or whence do you come, ye fiery spirit?)

Concept of balrogs developed as early as the first sketches of legendarium began to emerge under Tolkien’s pen. The first balrog ever in history is probably one Kosomot, who at the time was considered to be the son of Melko, and was later to become notorious Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs

But before proceeding to the history of balrogs, I feel it appropriate to undergo a bit of philological analysis of the word itself. After all, the whole history was primarily based on languages. Therefore let us consider what etymological research can bring forward:

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, the name itself is composite and may be literally translated as Tormenting Demon (thrilling topic to be discussed, eh?). As a result we have a conclusion that balrogs were remembered under they Sindarin name, but name itself is not personal

Another speculative conclusion, derived from the fact that elves, being quite observant people, usually named things after their main qualities, so, whatever about balrogs fire (to be discussed below), I have an inclination to state balrogs were distinguished by their cruelty, not external attributes as fire and whips

And cruelty is expression of the sin which caused to ruin of Melkor/Morgoth himself, i.e. pride. So balrogs, on the moral plain, may be somehow equaled with morgoth himself

So far with speculations, let us go back to what are balrogs and where do they come form

Published Silmarillion (referred to below as S77) gives such a description:

Yet so great was the power of his uprising that in ages forgotten he contended with Manwë and all the Valar, and through long years in Arda held dominion over most of the lands of the Earth. But he was not alone. 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.

and

And in Utumno he gathered his demons about him, those spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named in Middle-earth in later days. And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world; and his realm spread now ever southward over Middle-earth.

The highlight shows the most important line of the passage. So, as a result, it is confirmed that Balrogs are summoned (Balrogs, but not balrogs, see below), not made or bred by Morgoth (this is even more stressed by stating in the same passage that other monsters were bred, thus even more distinguishing balrogs). Moral equality stated above is matched with equality of origin. Balrogs, as well as Morgoth himlesf, are before Ea, if lesser in power and/of will.

 

Number (or many many balrogs)

The number of balrogs always was dubious thing. Passages like:

…and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds…

…and the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and dread to

the hosts of Melko…

…and they mingle with the Balrogs that pour about the breach…

(The Fall of Gondolin)

…a  host of  Balrogs, the  last of  his servants

  that  remained,  and  they  assailed   the  standard   of  Manwe…

(Annals of Aman)

strongly imply the great number of those, at least several thousand. Yet these lines were written when Tolkien started to create his mythology, in 10s and 20s of XX century. In the same period balrogs were not summoned, but ‘wrought’ by Melko after the fall of the Lamps. Yet, since the conception that Melkor/Morgoth was unable to create anything but to mock the doings of others was introduced, the idea of ‘wrought’ balrogs was abandoned. Consequently and gradually, their number in Tolkien’s imagination diminishes, until it reaches  the mark of ‘at least three, at most seven’. The last quote given above is mostly interesting in the view, for it was there, that in a marginal note Tolkien added:

'There should not he supposed

     more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed

It may sound like contradiction in terms. Hosts of balrogs consisted of 3 persons? As a solution -there (I assume) must have been two different types of balrog. Philological analysis above does not contradict such a statement (i.e. Thunderbird may be applied to a bird proper, yet first thing one remembers upon hearing may be a Ford’s motorvehicle. Or, on the other hand, whales where though to be fish before closer examination had proved they are mammals). So in this case balrog as general term is applied to anything that looks like one. And looks presumably may be altered by Morgoth (up to a point, for he disperses his power gradually, and, also presumable, must lose and ability after some point. So no more balrogs after certain time, but plenty before the point of no return is reached), who is Master of the Fates of Arda, had put important portion of himself into the matter of it and therefore has partial power over anything consisting of the matter. But Balrogs in essentia, corrupted spirits, e.g. Umaiar, are up to seven only. It would have been logical for Morgoth to conform the looks of the new adepts (if balrogs formed from captive elves and men) or strongest orks to the most terrible looks (wings or no wings) of the Balrog

I suggest to distinguish those two types in writing with capital letter. Thus Umaiar whose number was determined as 3 to 7 will be marked as Balrogs, and the rest as balrogs (referred thus below)

The last two paragraphs are more or less speculative of course (that’s opinion articles for you), yet sound true to my ear, so I will stick to the theory and suggest it to your attention

 

Wings (or fly away little bird)      

How do they look like, I wonder? The most full description is given in the Lord of The Rings:

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; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.

The most that can be said from other sources is:

their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them

Which is rather vague and is not adding much to the also vague description above. The general conclusion is that more or less the physical form of Balrogs/balrogs was reminiscent of a human.

Yet, the main issue usually question whilst discussing balrog looks is not their body, but wings. As long as I remember myself frequenting online boards and fora, the unceasing debate is going on the subject of those notorious wings. Two armies – those believing Balrogs/balrogs were winged and those not are breaking virtual swords at each others backs. Both parties are drawing their inspiration from the same source (or to be precise) two sources:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings

From the same chapter (Bridge of Khazad Dum) of LoTR

and

and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

of S77

I, being inveterate no-winger, do believe both passages prove absence of wings with balrogs, yet other side also uses both as a proof. So I will leave ii at that, just informing you once again that I personally believe balrogs to have no wings

Will (or I do how I would)

Wings or no wings, there is another interesting topic left to discuss. Are Balrogs/balrogs free in their choice once they are under Morgoth? In theory, three kind of balrog free will may be distinguished in this view:

1. Balrogs-corrupted Umaiar (similar in origin to Morgoth and Sauron). Those must have free will. The proof of similarity – Sauron almost repents after the War of Wrath in the end of the First Age
2. balrogs – altered hroar of orks. Must have not (due to reasons given in ‘All About Orks”
3. balrogs – altered hroar of Eruhini. Must have free will. Morgoth, being able to alter hroa, is unable to meddle with fëar

However theory though, no Balrog/balrog in recorded history of Middle-Earth ever repented. The more they serve under Morgoth, the more dependent upon him they become, and though he disperses and spends his power in increasing their numbers, they are less free as time goes

However short and imperfect, that’s all, dears. So if you were expecting several volumes of prolonged high-brow expatiation, I must disappoint you

fin

top of the page

 (some theological aspects, I was forced to reflect on those thanks to the discussion started by Mithadan)

 

Though Numenor was placed withing the sight of Eressea, Dunedain were forbidden to go there, not to mention the Ban of the Valar concerning their going to Aman itself

 

Was it cruelty? Why tempt people with the sight of something they can not possibly get, save by breaking so law? I think I’ve got an answer:

 

Obedience and acceptance are virtues, which are God’s gifts. All of the virtues cause joy, which is also God’s gift. God’s creatures are meant to live in joy .Therefore one obedient is joyful. But Human (or any speaking people of JRRT’s (not counting orcs, debate on which is still going on – are them creatures gifted with fea or not)) is creature who is gifted with free will too, and right of choice, and can not be forced to be obedient. The whole meaning of this virtue is lost then, and obedience is virtue no more. still more – one obedient not out of his own free will looses the joy of it. Now one not joyfull is not blessed by the Lord, cause virtues are gone, but their place is not empty – one rejecting God’s gift is a sinner, and vice comes instead.

Now back to JRRT. First numenoreans are obedient out of free will – they have the Ban which they do not understand, but, even lacking knowledge, data, they believe and accept, and don’t doubt the rightfulness of that, which is ordered by one higher then themselves – Manwe, who is performing God’s – Eru’s will. Therefore they have joy – they are free, and longlived, and happy. Yes, they are tempted to reach it, but God never tempts, temptetion comes from Melkor, the greater part of who’s will is dissolved in the matter of Arda (which is therefore Arda Marred). To overcome this temptetion is also act of free will and acceptance, and virtue, which brings joy. Now imagine Valar shadowing and misting their land. Reaching Aman becomes impossible. In fact, Numenoreans are robbed of their free will, and become obedient by force – there is no way to reach blessed realm. The virtue is gone, and joy is lost, but temptetion remains. Now they wish for something impossible, which is still more severe sin.

Now the question rises – why, if it was so important, Aman was hidden after the Fall? Answer is simple – It is well known, that men are guests here on earth.But even if Eldar have no knowledge where do they abode afterwords, it is assumed that their souls (fëar) are trained here, though purpose of this training is not known. Now, one curled up neatly and comfortably in one’s armchair sipping his/her favorite drinks can not be trained, but degenerates bit by bit. Numenoreans, the mightiest human race ever to be, had no other trials but this one Ban. All came easy to them, all was in their reach, and their fea could not have been trained otherwise than via this Ban. On the other hand, men in Middle Earth had for their souls plenty of multitude of trials to strenghten them and perfect themselves, so the trial of Aman Opened was needed no more.

Now Numenoreans breaking this Ban became worse then orcs, because one falling from a higher level falls deeper on the scale than one standing low from the beginning. They were seduced, but not by Sauron – he was a kind of the last drop, but by their own pride, which is opposite to obedience and acceptance. They started by rejecting the Lord’s gift, and ended up rejecting the Lord himself, wich is severest sin possible to commit. Still they were not punished – harm made to phisical body, hroa, in this case can not be counted as a punishment, but the decision was delayed somehow – here we have their eternal sleep until the day of Doom, which, maybe. is due to Ar-Pharazon’s hesitation in the end, or, still maybe a sign of the great mercy of the Lord who LOVES his children anyway. But their land was polluted by them, and had to be destroyed. So we got Atalante instead of Elenna

 

top of the page