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

[lindil]

The Attack

FG-A-01
Now when the {seventh} summer [of the treason of Maeglin] had gone {since the treason of {Meglin} [Maeglin]},
In all chronologies from the "The Earliest Annals of Beleriand" to the last version of "The Tale of Years" Maeglin's treachery occurs the year before the fall of Gondolin, not seven years and and some months before its fall as in FG. I have slightly changed a phrase and moved its position to create the required new information.

FG-A-02 Maeglin's discovery of the hidden way:
{; and by reason of the folly of certain of the quarrymen, and yet more by reason of the loose words of certain among his tin to whom word was somewhat unwarily spoken by Tuor, he gathered a knowledge of the secret work and laid against that a plan of his own}
These words should possibly be deleted. In QS77 there is an account of the preparation of the Secret Way which ends with the words: "and no whisper of it came to Maeglin's ears." But I cannot find sources for most of this passage and suspect it to be a CT/Guy Kay editorial addition. If no-one else can find a source then the story of Maeglin's discovery should perhaps be retained.

FG-A-03 Gladness in winter:
... yet the fountains played ever on Amon {Gwareth} [Gwared]{ and the two trees blossomed}, and folk made merry till the day of terror that was hidden in the heart of {Melko} [Morgoth].
The two trees of Gondolin are now metal images, not live blossoming trees.

FG-A-04 The two festivals:
So came and passed with revelry of children the festival of {Nost-na-Lothion or} the Birth of Flowers, and the hearts of the {Gondothlim} [Gondolindrim] were uplifted for the good promise of the year; and now at length is that great feast /*Q30 they named*/ {Tarnin Austa or} the Gates of Summer near at hand.
Nost is dubious for 'birth', but could be kept as the stem still appears in "Etymologies" with meaning 'beget', but Tarnin Austa is almost certainly not valid, and so stylistically it makes sense to drop the Elvish names of both feasts.
We could possibly make keep a Sindarin name for 'Gates of Summer' using _annon_=gate, and a Sindarin form of either Q. _Laire_ or Q. _Saiwen_, just to give us another option; but I agree that deleting both names is the way to go.

FG-A-05
/*Q30 At last, and {Eärendel} [Eärendil] was then seven years of age, Morgoth was ready, and he loosed upon Gondolin his {Orcs} [Orks] and his Balrogs and his serpents; and of these, dragons of many and dire shapes {were} new devised for the taking of the city. The host of Morgoth came over the Northern hills where the height was greatest and the watch less vigilant, and it came at night at time of festival.*/ For know that on a night it was their custom to begin a solemn ceremony at midnight, continuing it even till the dawn of {Tarnin Austa} /*Q30 the Gates of Summer*/ broke, and no voice was uttered in the city from midnight till the break of day, but the {dawn} /*rising sun*/ they hailed with ancient songs /*Q30 at its uplifting*/. For years uncounted had the coming of summer thus been greeted with music of choirs, /*Q30 all the folk of Gondolin*/ standing upon their gleaming eastern wall; and now comes even the night of vigil and the city is filled with silver lamps, while in the groves upon the new-leaved trees lights of jewelled colours swing, and low musics go along the ways, but no voice sings until the dawn.
The sun has sunk beyond the hills and folk array them for the festival very gladly and eagerly − glancing in expectation to the East. {Lo!} /*Q30 But*/ even when she had gone and all was dark, a new /*Q30 red*/ light suddenly began, and a glow there was, but it {was} /*Q30 mounted*/ beyond the {northward heights} /*hills in the North and not in the East*/, and men marvelled, and there was a thronging of the walls and battlements. Then wonder grew to doubt as that light waxed and became yet redder, and doubt to dread as men saw the snow upon the mountains dyed as it were with blood. And thus it was that the fire-serpents of {Melko} [Morgoth] came upon Gondolin.
Light in the North.
For know that on a night it was their custom to begin a solemn ceremony at midnight, continuing it even till the dawn of {Tarnin Austa} the Gates of Summer broke, ...[/quote]Merging of the two accounts. I removed the word "were" as a detailed account of the devising will have already appeared from FG. This is the only place where directions in the old FG account should not be reversed.

FG-A-06
Mighty was the array of the house of the king and their colours were white and gold {and red}, and their emblems the moon and the sun {and the scarlet heart}.
The embalmed heart of Turgon's father which became his symbol early vanished from the legendarium. I suppose he could still have the heart as a symbol, but now with some other origin. But such is never mentioned. Removing all information on colors and emblems here is difficult because the information is given for every other house and at the end we are told: "This was the fashion and the array of the eleven houses of the Gondothlim with their signs and emblems, ...." Unfortunately Tolkien, so far as I know, did not create a colored heraldic design for Turgon as he did for many of the other Noldorin princes.

FG-A-07 The Comming of the Host.
And now came the Monsters across the valley /*Q30 and there was no stay in the advance of the foe until they were beneath the very walls of Gondolin*/ and the white towers of Gondolin reddened before them/*Q30 , and Gondolin was beleaguered without hope*/

Merging two accounts.

FG-A-08 Maeglin's plotting.
{Learning much of the secret delving of Tuor (yet only at the last moment had he got this knowledge and he could not discover all) he said nought to the king or any other, for it was his thought that of a surety that tunnel would go in the end toward the Way of Escape, this being the most nigh to the city, and he had a mind to use this to his good, and to the ill of the Noldoli. Messengers by great stealth he despatched to Melko to set a guard about the outer issue of that Way when the assault was made; but he} [He] himself thought now to take {Eärendel} [Eärendil] and cast him into the fire beneath the walls, and seizing Idril he would {constrain her to guide him to the secrets of the passage, that he might} win out of this terror of fire and slaughter and drag her withal along with him to the lands of {Melko} [Morgoth]{. Now Meglin was afeared that even} [with] the secret token which {Melko} [Morgoth] had given him{ would fail in that direful sack, and was minded to help that Ainu to the fulfilment of his promises of safety}.
These outer deletions need not be made if it is decided that the QS77 declaration that Maeglin did not discover the delving is taken as valid. Unless someone can find the passage that says so and is the souce of the QS77 I think they should be retained.
In any case, the last part of it is seemingly a backflash to when Maeglin first discovered the Tuor's tunnel, at which point he then, and only then, sent to Melko concerning the Way of Escape. This is odd, why wait till then to mention this possible exit? And as CT questions, who would Meglin be able to trust to send on this mission? This also depends on whether the Way of Escape is considered openable at this time, or whether all such mentions should be ignored. I think probably a separate Way of Escape discussion is needed on this theme, like Balrogs and metal dragons it is a thread of incidents that needs to be treated as a whole, and which does not effect anything else in the tale.

FG-A-09
… snakes heaves against the {western} [eastern] wall and a great mass of it shakes and falls, …

Ambiguous Balrogs

FG-B-01 Balrogs on the dragons of flame.
... and {upon} with them {rode} [came] the Balrogs {in hundreds};
Eliminates reference to Balrogs riding dragons. These Balrogs may or may not be capable of flight. Also, if we change the mechanical dragons to real ones, they may no longer serve as transport.
Possibly adding [as captains]

FG-B-02 Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.
... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} [one] of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents of iron and thence loosed unceasingly from {their bows and slings} [his bow] till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.
I have changed the company of Balrogs to a single Balrog. This links to the next item. Removal of words "of iron" are per the modification of the dragons, and should not be considered part of the changes to be considered in this discussion.
I can find nothiing better to do with this passage, unless we decide to cut out Rog's slaying of a Balrog (which we may very well have to do.)

FG-B-03 Rog's men attack
... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those Balrogs} [that Balrog] and smote {them} [him] grievously, for all {they} [he] had {whips} [whip] of Same and claws of steel, and {were} [was] in stature very great. They battered {them} [him] into nought, {or} [and] catching at {their whips} [his whip] wielded {these} [it] against {them} [him], that they tore {them} [him] even as {they} [he] had aforetime torn the Gnomes; and {the number of Balrogs} that [this Balrog] perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Melko, 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.
This leaves the Rog situation as it was; I'll discuss this later. My (risky) addition to the second paragraph, I think, nicely sidesteps the question of Balrog numbers. I wonder if it is justified.

FG-B-04 Rog's slaughter
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done {amid} [to] the {Balrogs} [Balrog], {because} of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents of bronze and with great feet for trampling climbed slowly over {those of iron} [the others], and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride upon} [come with] the dragons of flame …
I doubt that the first sentence should be deleted, but I can at the moment think of nothing better. At any rate, Rog, whether he kills a Balrog or not, cannot be said to have done slaughter amid them. The change in the second paragraph eliminates Balrogs riding on dragons.

FG-B-05 Entrance into the city
… and behind comes a creature of fire and Balrogs [and monsters] {upon} [with] it.
If we eliminate the dragon-riders altogether, the ‘s' on the end of ‘Balrogs' can stand. My ‘and monsters' is dubious, but follows the trend of this proposed revision. I don't think there's any problem with dropping it, though - there's no reason, even if there were only four Balrogs, that not more than one could have been in the square.

FG-B-06 Ecthelion against the Balrogs
{Of those demons of power Ecthelion slew three} [And he drove them back], for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed
This (rather innocuous looking) bit is quite troublesome. My proposal is probably not justified, though I think would work well. Jallanite's proposal is, of course, good; but the mention of ‘three', as innocent as it looks, says things about how many Balrogs there are and aren't.

FG-B-07 The Great Market
… where a force of Orcs {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares …
We use Jallanite first proposal

FG-B-08 To the Square of the King

… and seven dragons of fire are come with Orcs about them {and Balrogs upon them} down all the ways …
This Balrog must be kept, and must be Gothmog, as he appears in the next paragraph. I have eliminated the dragon-riding.

FG-B-09 The king and his guard
... the royal house laid on and the king came down in splendour among them and hewed with them, that they swept again much of the square, {and of the Balrogs slew even two score,} which was a great prowess indeed:

Mechanical and metal monsters

FG-D-01 Deleting from Maeglin's advice to Morgoth.
{From the greatness of his wealth of metals and his powers of fire he }[He] bid him make {beasts like} snakes and dragons of irresistible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills and lap that plain and its fair city in flame and death.
Maeglin now advises Morogth to make snakes and dragons (by which should be understood more of the normal kinds of snakes and dragons) but of great strength, as the best means of bringing Gondolin to the ground.

FG-D-02 Devising of the dragons.
Yet these years are filled by Melko in the utmost ferment of labour, and all the thrall-folk of the {Noldoli} [Noldor] must dig unceasingly for metals{ while Melko sitteth and deviseth fires and calleth flames and smokes to come from the lower heats}, nor does {he} [Morgoth] suffer any of the {Noldoli} [Noldor] to stray ever a foot from their places of bondage.
…
Then on a time {Melko} [Morgoth] assembled all his most cunning {smiths and} sorcerers, and {of iron and flame} they wrought a host of monsters such as have only at that time been seen and shall not again be till the Great End. Some {were all of iron so cunningly linked that they} might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and these {were filled in their innermost depths with} [carried on their backs] the grimmest of the Orcs with scimitars and spears; others {of bronze and copper} were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire, and they blasted all that stood before them with the terror of their snorting or trampled whatso escaped the ardour of their breath; yet others were creatures of {pure} flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, …
The Noldor are now presumably mining metal to arm Morgoth's troops, not to create dragon. The revised acount leaves obscure how these monsters were devised: by breeding or by pods or other method. That they were only seen at that time would mean, in this new context, the time of the end of the First Age, not merely the time of the fall of Gondolin.
I am tempted to keep "of bronze and copper" and modify to "with scales of bronze and copper" here and elsewhere. It would be possible to distinguish iron-scaled and bronze-scaled dragons, but this feels too obviously "clever" to me. The omission of the number of Balrogs is questioned as something that should belong to another thread of change that chances to overlap this thread at this point and should not be considered in this discussion.
It feels a little artificial to me to keep the great mining and work of his thralls, but to entirely change its purpose. Still, it seems only logical that arms would be smithied in preparation for a battle. I think we might consider eliminating the whole passage, but it needs some thought.

FG-D-03 Description of the enemies.
... and go naked into the open against enemies of {steel and} fire, whose trampling shakes the earth ...

FG-D-04
but the stoutest were in dread seeing those dragons of fire and those serpents {of bronze and iron}

FG-D-05 Flexible dragons pressed into service.
But now Gothmog lord of Balrogs, captain of the hosts of {Melko} [Morgoth], took counsel and gathered all his {things of iron} [creatures] that could coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them.
The word "things" doesn't really work at all if "of iron" is removed, as it doesn't seem to refer to the dragons sufficiently. It sounds like the account is talking about some kind of siege devices, like ropes with grapling hooks. Hence I emend to "creatures". Too daring?

FG-D-06 Hollowness of the iron beasts.
Then the engines and the catapults of the king poured darts and boulders and molten metals on those ruthless beasts, and {their hollow bellies clanged} beneath the buffeting, yet it availed not for they might not be broken, and the fires rolled off them. Then {were} the topmost {opened about their middles, and} an innumerable host of the {Orcs} [Orks], the goblins of hatred, poured {therefrom} into the breach;
Minimal change here in the kind of noise that came from the beasts. If felt to be too daring then eliminate "and their hollow bellies clanged beneath the buffeting," entirely.
Some deletions and movement of the word "from" in the last sentence to make it appear the Orks have climbed the stacked beasts as the great-footed dragons will soon do.

FG-D-07 The great-footed dragons prepare to attack Gondolin.
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents {of bronze and }with great feet for trampling climbed slowly over {those of iron} [the others], and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride upon} [come with] the dragons of flame: yet they knew this must be done with speed, for the heats of those drakes lasted not for ever{, and might only be plenished from the wells of fire that Melko had made in the fastness of his own land}.
I think the replacement of "those of iron" with "the others" is a minimal change. That the fire of the dragons can only be replenished by wells of fire in Angband works for me with the original bronze dragons, but not with live creatures. But the idea that the flame of the dragons dies out after use and must be replenished (now presumably by rest) can be retained.

FG-D-08 Breaking of the Walls.
… one of those {brazen} snakes heaves against …
We need something too connect the bronze serpent here to those previously mentioned. Since the attribute of bronze is gone, I repeat instead "with great feet" from the previous description. Again, the Balrog change belongs to another thread of consideration, hence the queries here.

FG-D-09 Imprisonment of the Noldor.
... they bound and led back and flung {in the iron chambers} amid the dragons{ of iron}, that they might drag them afterward to be thralls of {Melko} [Morgoth].
The prisoners are flung, presumably tied, to be guarded by dragons, not flung into cells within the dragons' bodies.

FG-D-10 At the gate.
Fire-drakes are about it and monsters {of iron} fare in and out of its gates, …

Ambiguous Balrogs

FG-B-01 Balrogs on the dragons of flame.
... and {upon} with them {rode} [came] the Balrogs {in hundreds};
Eliminates reference to Balrogs riding dragons. These Balrogs may or may not be capable of flight. Also, if we change the mechanical dragons to real ones, they may no longer serve as transport.
Possibly adding [as captains]

FG-B-02 Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.
... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} [one] of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents of iron and thence loosed unceasingly from {their bows and slings} [his bow] till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.
I have changed the company of Balrogs to a single Balrog. This links to the next item. Removal of words "of iron" are per the modification of the dragons, and should not be considered part of the changes to be considered in this discussion.
I can find nothiing better to do with this passage, unless we decide to cut out Rog's slaying of a Balrog (which we may very well have to do.)

FG-B-03 Rog's men attack
... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those Balrogs} [that Balrog] and smote {them} [him] grievously, for all {they} [he] had {whips} [whip] of Same and claws of steel, and {were} [was] in stature very great. They battered {them} [him] into nought, {or} [and] catching at {their whips} [his whip] wielded {these} [it] against {them} [him], that they tore {them} [him] even as {they} [he] had aforetime torn the Gnomes; and {the number of Balrogs} that [this Balrog] perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Melko, 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.
This leaves the Rog situation as it was; I'll discuss this later. My (risky) addition to the second paragraph, I think, nicely sidesteps the question of Balrog numbers. I wonder if it is justified.

FG-B-04 Rog's slaughter
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done {amid} [to] the {Balrogs} [Balrog], {because} of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.
Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents of bronze and with great feet for trampling climbed slowly over {those of iron} [the others], and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride upon} [come with] the dragons of flame …
I doubt that the first sentence should be deleted, but I can at the moment think of nothing better. At any rate, Rog, whether he kills a Balrog or not, cannot be said to have done slaughter amid them. The change in the second paragraph eliminates Balrogs riding on dragons.

FG-B-05 Entrance into the city
… and behind comes a creature of fire and Balrogs [and monsters] {upon} [with] it.
If we eliminate the dragon-riders altogether, the ‘s' on the end of ‘Balrogs' can stand. My ‘and monsters' is dubious, but follows the trend of this proposed revision. I don't think there's any problem with dropping it, though - there's no reason, even if there were only four Balrogs, that not more than one could have been in the square.

FG-B-06 Ecthelion against the Balrogs
{Of those demons of power Ecthelion slew three} [And he drove them back], for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed
This (rather innocuous looking) bit is quite troublesome. My proposal is probably not justified, though I think would work well. Jallanite's proposal is, of course, good; but the mention of ‘three', as innocent as it looks, says things about how many Balrogs there are and aren't.

FG-B-07 The Great Market
… where a force of Orcs {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares …
We use Jallanite first proposal

FG-B-08 To the Square of the King

… and seven dragons of fire are come with Orcs about them {and Balrogs upon them} down all the ways …
This Balrog must be kept, and must be Gothmog, as he appears in the next paragraph. I have eliminated the dragon-riding.

FG-B-09 The king and his guard
... the royal house laid on and the king came down in splendour among them and hewed with them, that they swept again much of the square, {and of the Balrogs slew even two score,} which was a great prowess indeed:

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

Please not this is mostly material transfered from Pt 1.[ w/ a little editing]

also note I removed the 'Quenya for qenya substituting ideas' as there seems alost no real support for that type of change. So the comments remaining in pt 1 will look a little funny till everyone cleans them up.


concerning Rog [ as I argued before, Rog is possibly the most aethetically dissonant name in all of FoG if not the entire BoLT. CRT stated bluntly that he was removed from the Silmarillion this very reason. I def would like to keep the story as we have modified it so far [ for balrog purposes] w/ the addition of Jallanite's suggestion that we use 'lord of the Hammer' .


OK another possibility I will explore later is keeping Rog's company and deleting his person. Just an idea. Or better yet keep his 'company' and still have a captain or lord, but mention no name. I do not have the time to look at the text to see how akward [or not] this could be, but I do want to have the idea down in case I forget it later.

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Maédhros]

FG-A-01
Now when the {seventh} summer [of the treason of Maeglin] had gone {since the treason of {Meglin} [Maeglin]},
In all chronologies from the "The Earliest Annals of Beleriand" to the last version of "The Tale of Years" Maeglin's treachery occurs the year before the fall of Gondolin, not seven years and and some months before its fall as in FG. I have slightly changed a phrase and moved its position to create the required new information.

I think that this could help with the problem of the Balrogs.

There too were the folk of the Pillar and of the Tower of Snow, and both these kindreds were marshalled by Penlod, tallest of Gnomes.

Was this addressed at some point before? This certainly conflicts with the account that Turgons was the tallest of the elves save Thingol.

FG-D-01 Deleting from Maeglin's advice to Morgoth.
{From the greatness of his wealth of metals and his powers of fire he }[He] bid him make {beasts like} snakes and dragons of irresistible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills and lap that plain and its fair city in flame and death.
Maeglin now advises Morogth to make snakes and dragons (by which should be understood more of the normal kinds of snakes and dragons) but of great strength, as the best means of bringing Gondolin to the ground.

I'm of the idea of replacing the "Mechanical Monsters" with dragons. One of the problems that I had was that why would Melkor had to wait 7 years for the "creation" of dragons. I do not know the time it takes to breed one but i bet that it's longer than 7 years. But because in the new account only 1 year passed, it could be said that Maeglin advised Melkor to use dragons and snakes (?) that he already had. The lapse of 1 year can be attributted to the fact that it takes time to move such an army.

Then on a time {Melko} [Morgoth] assembled all his most cunning {smiths and} sorcerers, and {of iron and flame} they wrought a host of monsters such as have only at that time been seen and shall not again be till the Great End.

Agree with this.

yet others were creatures of pure flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, and they brought to ruin whatever fabric they came nigh, and iron and stone melted before them and became as water, and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds; and these were the most dire of all those monsters which Melko devised against Gondolin.

Is the concept of fire drake acceptable or are they just dragons. I would modify it this way:
yet others were [dragons] (perhaps those like Glaurung's kind)of pure flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, and they brought to ruin whatever fabric they came nigh, and iron and stone melted before them and became as water and [with] them came balrogs; and those were the most dire of all those monsters which Melkor [used] against Gondolin.

And thus it was that the fire-serpents of Melko came upon Gondolin.

And thus it was that the [dragons] of Melkor came upon Gondolin.

and the love of Tuor and herself that had dwelt therein; but now she saw its destroying nigh at hand, and feared that her contriving would fail against this overwhelming might of the terror of the serpents.

Again, I think that serpents can be changed to dragons.

It was now four hours still from middle night, and the sky was red in the north and in the east and west; and those serpents of iron had reached the levels of Tumladin

dragons of iron scales as suggested elsewhere.

Then the engines and the catapults of the king poured darts and boulders and molten metals on those ruthless beasts

engines?

an innumerable host of the {Orcs} [Orks], the goblins of hatred,

globlins of hatred? I know that the term is used in the Hobbit, but is it appropiate here?

He seized Meglin by that hand that held the knife and broke the arm with the wrench

wrench?

yet a worse matter was it that {a company} [one] of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents of iron and thence loosed unceasingly from {their bows and slings} [his bow] till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.

I can live with this but a balrog with a bow?
I would have used instead a hosts of orcs with bows. I can't imagine a balrog with a bow.

But now the men of Melko have assembled their forces

Men? I would replace by, now the host of Melko was assembled.

Then leapt Ecthelion lord of the Fountain, fairest of the Noldoli

Is Echtelion to remain the fairest of the Noldor?

[Aiwendil]

I think that this could help with the problem of the Balrogs.

I'm not sure I understand. How does the quoted passage relate to Balrogs? Maybe I'm just missing something - it is 1:30 in the morning.

The Balrog problem, though, has largely been solved as far as the actual text of FoG goes.

Was this addressed at some point before? This certainly conflicts with the account that Turgons was the tallest of the elves save Thingol.

Very observant! Perhaps this we should delete 'tallest of the Gnomes' - unless anyone can think of a way to retain the description of him as 'tall' without violating the principles.

I'm of the idea of replacing the "Mechanical Monsters" with dragons.

So am I. This is the biggest issue left to be resolved. I think we should probably deal with that separately, apart from these individual changes (it does have its own thread somewhere . . .)

Is the concept of fire drake acceptable or are they just dragons.

This goes with the dragon matter.

And thus it was that the [dragons] of Melkor came upon Gondolin.

Again, I think that serpents can be changed to dragons.

Even if we make all the dragons normal Glaurung-types, I don't think we should eliminate the terms 'serpent' and 'fire-serpent'. Certainly dragons are serpent-like, and certainly at least some of them have powers of fire. 'Serpent' is no worse a synonym than 'wyrm'.

dragons of iron scales as suggested elsewhere.

Dragon matter again; I agree with you on this, though.

engines?

Probably seige engines rather than combustion engines (if I had to venture a guess).

globlins of hatred? I know that the term is used in the Hobbit, but is it appropiate here?

In my opinion, it's very appropriate. 'Goblin' is, after all, used at least once or twice in LotR. I see nothing wrong with the word - in fact I rather like it as an alternate translation of yrch.

wrench?

Well . . . apparently. I'm not sure on this, but if Tolkien wrote it, I don't see why we should change it.

I can live with this but a balrog with a bow?
I would have used instead a hosts of orcs with bows. I can't imagine a balrog with a bow.

This is a matter of some difficulty. I don't have a huge problem with a Balrog shooting a bow, but I am having doubts about specifying that one was killed by Rog's men. I will give this thought.

Men? I would replace by, now the host of Melko was assembled.

Hmm. You may be right.

Is Echtelion to remain the fairest of the Noldor?

I don't see why not.

[Maédhros]

I'm not sure I understand. How does the quoted passage relate to Balrogs? Maybe I'm just missing something - it is 1:30 in the morning.

Sorry for not being that clear. I meant that I would as sugested elsewhere that the mechanical dragons/serpents etc, could be changed to "natural" ones. One of the problems that i saw with this is that in the Original FOG, the time between Maeglins treachery and the attack was 7 years. In the Annals, the times is shortened to 1 year. I don't know how long it takes to "grow" a dragon, but i venture that 7 years are not enough, but if the time is only 1 year, the dragons are alredy there and the time of the attack could be considered because of logistical problems of moving so big an army to Gondolin.

Even if we make all the dragons normal Glaurung-types, I don't think we should eliminate the terms 'serpent' and 'fire-serpent'. Certainly dragons are serpent-like, and certainly at least some of them have powers of fire. 'Serpent' is no worse a synonym than 'wyrm'.

Yes, i agree with that. There is also the fire drake type.

[Aiwendil]

I meant that I would as sugested elsewhere that the mechanical dragons/serpents etc, could be changed to "natural" ones. One of the problems that i saw with this is that in the Original FOG, the time between Maeglins treachery and the attack was 7 years. In the Annals, the times is shortened to 1 year. I don't know how long it takes to "grow" a dragon, but i venture that 7 years are not enough, but if the time is only 1 year, the dragons are alredy there and the time of the attack could be considered because of logistical problems of moving so big an army to Gondolin.

Very true. I think it's probably best if we drop altogether the idea that dragons or dragon-types were created specifically for the attack on Gondolin.

[Eru]

Very observant! Perhaps this we should delete 'tallest of the Gnomes' - unless anyone can think of a way to retain the description of him as 'tall' without violating the principles.

couldn't you say that 'Penlod, tallest of Gnomes beside Turgon and Thingol'?

[Maédhros]

I can live with that change Eru. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[lindil]

Thingol is not a Gnome or Nolodo though.

[Aiwendil]

I think we have three options here.

1. Delete "tallest of the Gnomes". There is not much harm in doing this - only that we lose a bit of description.

2. Change to "tall among the Noldor". We're allowed to do this by our principles I think, since it's a minimal change.

3. Change to "tallest of the Noldor save Turgon". This is the most direct way of dealing with it.

I see no reason not to go with 2 or 3. I'd prefer 2, though, since it has the virtue of being less specific.

[Maédhros]

From the Book of Lost Tales: The Cottage of Lost Play

Gnomes: the Second Kindred, the Noldoli (later Noldor).

I got confused with the observation made in part # 1 of the Transition of the Fall of Gondolin:

Gnome/Gnomes to Elf/Elves or Noldo/Noldor. "Gnomes" was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldoli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Elves except where a general refenence to Elves would not fit, as in "the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not." Then use Noldor.

So, are we going to follow Bolt I and change Gnomes to Ñoldor, or can Gnomes mean elves too?

3. Change to "tallest of the Noldor save Turgon". This is the most direct way of dealing with it.

I would prefer # 3 because it seems to me a more specific solution to the problem.

[Eru]

3. Change to "tallest of the Noldor save Turgon". This is the most direct way of dealing with it.

i agree. better suggestion than mine.

[Aiwendil]

So, are we going to follow Bolt I and change Gnomes to Ñoldor, or can Gnomes mean elves too?

There's no question that "Gnomes" refers to, and refers exclusively to, the Noldor. The point that Jallanite was making in the bit you quoted was this: in the original text, Tolkien sometimes used "Gnomes" and sometimes used "Noldor", even though they are synonyms. Rather like "worms", "serpents", "drakes", and "dragons" all being used. There is something artistic about the variation "Gnomes" vs. "Noldor", and to lose that distinction (even though they're really the same thing) would be to lose something from the text - just as we would lose something if we changed every instance of "drake" to "dragon". So Jallanite's solution (which I agree with) was to convert "Gnomes" to "Elves" in all cases but those in which it referred specifically to the Gnomes/Noldor as opposed to the other kindreds of Elves. So something like "the brave Gnome" would become "the brave Elf", but something like "the exiled Gnomes" would become "the exiled Noldor".

The present point falls, I think, into the latter category. However, I notice that in the emended text posted in the private forum, it was made "Elves". It should certainly not be this.

A cursory scan over that text reveals another spot with the same problem: "Now their leader was Rog, strongest of the {Gnomes} [Elves]". This should certainly be "Noldor", since that is the extent of the claim made by the text.

There very well may be other similar cases; a careful look at the text is clearly needed.

[ February 01, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Eru]

That makes sense. so we are only comparing Gnome(Noldor) to Gnome(Noldor)? but since we know that Thigol was the tallest of elves(right?), and he is counted among the Eldar(the three peoples of elves that took the westerly march, as they were after called. origanaly all elves were called this, but when they set out, the ones who did not follow no longer carried that name.[right?])

so that would follow since he is of the Eldar, which the Noldor are part of, why can't we compare them? or is that not an issue? if that isn't an issue, i understand what you are talking about. but since Aiwendil explained it pretty good, i won't "recap". anyways, i hope all of this made sense. if not, i will try to clarify it up. (if possible.)

-Lenwa

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Am I right in thinking that the Tallest of the Noldor excludes Arakano (Argon) because he is dead?

[Maédhros]

Originally posted by Inderjit Sanghera
Am I right in thinking that the Tallest of the Noldor excludes Arakano (Argon) because he is dead?

I think that you are right.

[Maédhros]

I have posted our Version of Part 4 of the Fall of Gondolin in the Private Forum.
Here are a list of the changes that I have made alternatively to the ones proposed:

FG-A-02 Maeglin's discovery of the hidden way:*****

{; and by reason of the folly of certain of the quarrymen, and yet more by reason of the loose words of certain among his tin to whom word was somewhat unwarily spoken by Tuor, he gathered a knowledge of the secret work and laid against that a plan of his own}

These words should possibly be deleted. In QS77 there is an account of the preparation of the Secret Way which ends with the words: "and no whisper of it came to Maeglin's ears." But I cannot find sources for most of this passage and suspect it to be a CT/Guy Kay editorial addition. If no-one else can find a source then the story of Maeglin's discovery should perhaps be retained.
Evidence:
From The Shaping of Middle-Earth: The Quenta 16

But of the new passage Meglin had not heard, and it was not thought that fugitives would take a path towards the North and the highest parts of the mountains and the nighest to Angband.

I think that the change should be retained.

FG-A-04 The two festivals:

So came and passed with revelry of children the festival of {Nost-na-Lothion or} the Birth of Flowers, and the hearts of the Gondolindrim were uplifted for the good promise of the year; and now at length is that great feast [which they named] {Tarnin Austa or}

Nost is dubious for 'birth', but could be kept as the stem still appears in "Etymologies" with meaning 'beget', but Tarnin Austa is almost certainly not valid, and so stylistically it makes sense to drop the Elvish names of both feasts.
We could possibly make keep a Sindarin name for 'Gates of Summer' using _annon_=gate, and a Sindarin form of either Q. _Laire_ or Q. _Saiwen_, just to give us another option; but I agree that deleting both names is the way to go.
Maedhros addition: which before the Q30 they named

FG-A-05
I have added the {new devised} to remove the creation of new dragons for the assault of Gondolin. The time frame between the capture of Maeglin and the attack on Gondolin is a year and some months. I don’t think it probable that Morgoth could bread dragons that fast, if we are going to get rid of the Mechanical Monsters.

FG-A-06.05

There too were the folk of the Pillar and of the Tower of Snow, and both these kindreds were marshalled by Penlod, tallest of {Gnomes} [Noldor, save Turgon].

As proposed by Aiwendil.

FG-B-03.05

Then that house of the Hammer fared about smiting and hewing the astonied bands of Morgoth till they were hemmed at the last by an overwhelming force of the Orcs and {the Balrogs} [a Balrog], and a fire-drake was loosed upon them.

Altered the plural to singular because of the amount of Balrogs.

FG-B-04 Rog's slaughter

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

I have undo the deletion of because.

FG-B-06.05a

{yet of the leap of that axe Dramborleg that was swung by the hand of Tuor were they still more afraid, for it sang like the rush of eagle's wings in the air and took death as it fell, and five of them went down before it.}

This has to go because there is just no way that Tuor could beat 5 balrogs.

FG-B-06.05b

But so it is that few cannot fight always against the many, and Ecthelion's left arm got a sore rent from a whip of {the} [a] {Balrog's} [Balrog] and his shield fell to earth even as {that} [a] dragon of fire drew nigh amid the ruin of the walls.

Plural to singular.

FG-B-07.05

But now the {men} [host] of Morgoth have assembled their forces

Same reason as in part 3.

FG-D-06

Then the engines and the catapults of the king poured darts and boulders and molten metals on those ruthless beasts, and their hollow bellies clanged beneath the buffeting, yet it availed not for they might not be broken, and the fires rolled off them. Then [from] {were} the topmost {opened about their middles, and} an innumerable host of the Orcs, the goblins of hatred, poured {therefrom}

My suggestions are:
1: insert [from]
2: delete {were the topmost opened about their middles, and}

FG-D-07.5a

He himself thought now to take Eärendil and cast him into the fire beneath the walls, and seizing Idril he would {constrain her to guide him to the secrets of the passage, that he might win out of this terror of fire and slaughter and} drag her withal along with him to the lands of Morgoth.

In the Original Fall of Gondolin, it is stated that Maeglin knows of the secret way of Escape, in the Q30 there is no reference of that, since we have deleted that account in our version, this seems suitable for a change. There is little chance that Idril would tell Maeglin of the Secret Way. Of course, there is the possibility that Maeglin being in Tuor’s house found that way himself.

FG-D-07.5b

He himself thought now to take Eärendil and cast him into the fire beneath the walls, and seizing Idril he would constrain her to guide him to the secrets of the passage [which he just discovered so]{,} that he might win out of this terror of fire and slaughter and drag her withal along with him to the lands of Morgoth.

In the Original Fall of Gondolin, it is stated that Maeglin knows of the secret way of Escape, in the Q30 there is no reference of that, since we have deleted that account in our version, this seems suitable for a change. There is a possibility that Maeglin found out of the secret way once in Tuor’s house.

Of course, there is still the issue of Rog that we have to deal with. For me, it would seem wrong not to mention his name in the tale, it will seem out of sorts given that all of the captains are mentioned. Because we have changed the name of Legolas to Laegolas, we might apply the same principle and use a different name for Rog, perhaps one of those proposed by Aiwendil. There are some parragraphs that need some attention, especially the ones who deal with plural number of balrogs.

[Aiwendil]

FG-A-02: I think the Q30 evidence is enough to justify retaining this change.

FG-A-04: I agree that we should probably leave out both names. What makes you say that 'Tarnin Austa' is 'almost certainly not valid'? As far as I know, there's no later conflict with it, though there is also no later use of either element.

FG-A-05: Okay.

FG-A-06.05: Agreed.

FG-B-03.05: I'm not sure about this one. There was often a need to reduce the number of Balrogs in specific instances during the attack, but here it seems that, even in the revision, we are talking about 'the Balrogs' as a group, mingled with the other forces of Morgoth before they actually entered the city. Even if we are talking about just 7 Balrogs, I think it can still be plural here.

FG-B-04: I'm not sure what you mean here.

FG-B-06.05a: Good catch, but I think perhaps we could revise it a little more tightly. What about:

yet of the leap of that axe Dramborleg that was swung by the hand of Tuor were they still more afraid, for it sang like the rush of eagle's wings in the air and took death as it fell[.] {, and five of them went down before it.}

I think 'took death as it fell' can stand as a general description of the activity of the axe (not a specific description of the current battle). But if this is thought still to be too risky, we could just use:

yet of the leap of that axe Dramborleg that was swung by the hand of Tuor were they still more afraid, for it sang like the rush of eagle's wings in the air[.] {and took death as it fell, and five of them went down before it.}

or:

yet of the leap of that axe Dramborleg that was swung by the hand of Tuor were they still more afraid[.] {, for it sang like the rush of eagle's wings in the air and took death as it fell, and five of them went down before it.}

FG-B-06.05b: Two points about this:
1. I don't see a need for changing plural to singular, since we retain the plural in the previous paragraph (as indeed we should); and
2. Unless there is a mistake in the transcription of this, the text as it stands is not plural. 'The Balrog's' is possessive singular; i.e., the whip of one Balrog.

I also don't see the need for changing 'that' to 'a' with regard to the dragon. We have not made any deletions that invalidate the demonstrative (it refers to the dragon mentioned two paragraphs before).

So I would delete FG-B-06.05b.

FG-B-07.05: I must say I don't see the need for this either. 'Men' in the original text (uncapitalized) clearly does not mean 'humans'; it simply means 'forces', 'soldiers'. There is no reason to change it except for style, and that is something that we are consciously avoiding in this revision.

FG-D-06: Agreed.

FG-D-07.5a: Good point.

FG-D-07.5b: I think it would be safer to stick with a and not suggest that Maeglin discovered the secret way.

Concerning Rog: I would still rather keep his name. There is no suitable replacement and any invented name would be by far a worse choice. The only possible improvement I can think of would be to add a circumflex over the 'o'. Even this seems somewhat uncertain. If it's not acceptable, the only other option is to delete the character, causing considerable awkwardness and possibly necessitating some major deletions.

I'm far more concerned about Rog's slaying of a Balrog than about his name. Looking over the revisions, I am suddenly very unsure about FG-B-03. I will think about this.

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Maédhros]

FG-B-04
The original change was:
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done {amid} [to] the {Balrogs} [Balrog], {because} of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart.
I thought that we could use because instead of deleting it. Anyway, it depends on what to do with Rog.

FG-B-03.05
Again, the problem is that the preceding paragraph § 70, is the one about Rog and his men slaying balrogs. If we are make Rog and his men, not kill a balrog, then paragraph § 70 and 71 will require some editing. It is because in change FG-B-03, the balrogs was change from plural to singular that I made this one.

FG-B-06.05a
Again, those are good observations, but when I read that paragraph § 77:

Now the Orcs again take heart from the coming of the drakes, and they mingle with the Balrogs that pour about the breach, and they assail the Gondolindrim grievously. There Tuor slew Othrod a lord of the Orcs cleaving his helm, and Balcmeg he hewed asunder, and Lug he smote with his axe that his limbs were cut from beneath him at the knee, but Ecthelion shore through two captains of the goblins at a sweep and cleft the head of Orcobal their chiefest champion to his teeth; and by reason of the great doughtiness of those two lords they came even unto the Balrogs. {Of those demons of power Ecthelion slew three} [And he drove them back], for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed FG-B-06 {;} [.] {yet of the leap of that axe Dramborleg that was swung by the hand of Tuor were they still more afraid, for it sang like the rush of eagle's wings in the air and took death as it fell, and five of them went down before it.} FG-B-06.05a

I included the part of the axe of Tuor, because I thought that it referred to it’s use against the balrogs.

FG-B-06.05b
I changed it from plural to singular because in paragraph § 77:

But so it is that few cannot fight always against the many, and Ecthelion's left arm got a sore rent from a whip of {the} [a] {Balrog's} [Balrog] and his shield fell to earth even as {that} [a] FG-B-06.05b dragon of fire drew nigh amid the ruin of the walls.

I thought that how would it be possible for Ecthelion to have fought several balrogs. I included the change of {that} to [a] because I thought that the dragon of fire refer to the balrog and not a drake.

FG-B-07.05
I will delete it then.


FG-D-07.5a
We will use version a instead of b then.

Concerning Rog:
Looking at the text of the Fall of Gondolin I would now delete the part of Rog and his men killing a balrog. In the case of both Echtelion and Glorfindel, the text make the balrog that they kill in singular (Gothmog and a balrog).
I would not have a problem using the name Rog, because it is used in the Quenta Noldorinwa.

[ August 04, 2003: Message edited by: Maédhros ]

[Aiwendil]

FG-B-04: Ah. I understand. Good.

FG-B-03.05: I still don't understand a need for the change. In the previous paragraph, we have Rog kill a Balrog. In this paragraph, they continue to fight against other Balrogs until they are penned and destroyed. I don't think the Balrogs here have anything to do with the Balrog in the previous paragraph.

Of course, if we delete Rog's slaying of a Balrog, both paragraphs will have to change, though I'm not quite sure exactly how.

FG-B-06.05a: I agree that the reference to Tuor's axe refers to its use against Balrogs. But I don't see any problem with this. The problem is only that it refers to five Balrogs being slain. My revisions were intended to keep Tuor's attack with Dramborleg but eliminate the deaths of the Balrogs.

FG-B-06.05b: I would still prefer to retain the plural. There's no reason that Ecthelion couldn't have been fighting several Balrogs at this point (it's not as though he's killing several Balrogs). But I'll wait to hear from Lindil and anyone else. I'm assuming that the original "Balrog's" was here a mistake for "Balrogs", because otherwise it's already singular.

I am rather of the opinion that the "dragon of fire" refers to the previously mentioned drake, not to the Balrog. We have never seen "dragon" used for a Balrog as far as I know. In any case, I think "that" should stand.

Concerning Rog: We are then agreed in principle. I am now of the opinion that we must not explicitly say that Rog killed a Balrog. Ideally, we would keep the attack of Rog against the Balrogs (or possibly against a Balrog) and keep its success, but eliminate a statement to the effect that the Balrog was killed, leaving the possibility that it was simply driven back. I should have done something like this in my initial Balrog revision. However, I can at the moment see no good way of doing this without inserting fabricated text.

[Maédhros]

FG-B-06.05a: I agree that the reference to Tuor's axe refers to its use against Balrogs. But I don't see any problem with this. The problem is only that it refers to five Balrogs being slain. My revisions were intended to keep Tuor's attack with Dramborleg but eliminate the deaths of the Balrogs.

But if the balrogs were afraid because Tuor had killed 5 of them, then if you remove the killing part, wouldn't that remove the fear factor that the balrogs had?
And if Gothmog was defeating Tuor in a definite way, why wouldn't a normal Balrog do the same. What would be the power difference between them?

FG-B-06.05b: I would still prefer to retain the plural. There's no reason that Ecthelion couldn't have been fighting several Balrogs at this point (it's not as though he's killing several Balrogs). But I'll wait to hear from Lindil and anyone else. I'm assuming that the original "Balrog's" was here a mistake for "Balrogs", because otherwise it's already singular.

I am rather of the opinion that the "dragon of fire" refers to the previously mentioned drake, not to the Balrog. We have never seen "dragon" used for a Balrog as far as I know. In any case, I think "that" should stand.

Ok.

Concerning Rog: We are then agreed in principle. I am now of the opinion that we must not explicitly say that Rog killed a Balrog. Ideally, we would keep the attack of Rog against the Balrogs (or possibly against a Balrog) and keep its success, but eliminate a statement to the effect that the Balrog was killed, leaving the possibility that it was simply driven back. I should have done something like this in my initial Balrog revision. However, I can at the moment see no good way of doing this without inserting fabricated text.

I think that this may be done, without inserting much fabricated text. Let me think about it, and then I will post a suggestion then.

[Aiwendil]

But if the balrogs were afraid because Tuor had killed 5 of them, then if you remove the killing part, wouldn't that remove the fear factor that the balrogs had?

Not necessariliy - they are afraid because "it sang like the rush of eagle's wings in the air and took death as it fell"; in other words they are afraid of the axe itself, because it is a great weapon.

And if Gothmog was defeating Tuor in a definite way, why wouldn't a normal Balrog do the same. What would be the power difference between them?

Well, by this logic the entire course of the narrative at this point would have to be changed, for this is where Tuor and Ecthelion are doing somewhat well against the Balrogs, which changes in the next paragraph.

Another thing I just noticed in looking over this section: we need to make the change

for the brightness of {his} Ecthelion's sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire

- since we eliminated his name in the previous phrase and the 'his' has no antecedent.

[Aiwendil]

Rog/Balrog Options

I can think of the following general ways to handle this:

1. As in the current revision, the slaughter done to the balrogs is turned into the slaying of a single Balrog. This has the advantage of maintaining most of the structure of the original narrative. It has the strong disadvantage that it specifies that a Balrog died here.

2. Eliminate Rog completely. The advantage is that the whole problem disappears. Also, this would remove a potential problem with the name "Rog". The disadvantage is that we lose a substantial portion of the narrative. Also, it may prove very difficult to make a clean break, and the narrative may lose some internal coherence.

3. Eliminate or obfuscate the Balrog. That is, remove any statement that specifies that a Balrog is making this attack from the coils of a serpent - it is merely Orcs, or something else. Then retain Rog's attack against these enemies. The advantage is that it eliminates the death of the Balrog while retaining Rog's role. The disadvantage is that it changes the whole thrust of the narrative at this point and makes things significantly less dire (and Rog less heroic). Also it may prove quite difficult to actually construct the text.

4. Retain the Balrog (or Balrogs), retain Rog's attack, but eliminate the death of the Balrog. The advantage here is that we retain most of the structure of the narrative and alter it only in one detail. The disadvantage is that we would be required to insert some fabricated text for the outcome of Rog's attack (something to the effect that the Balrog was driven back, I suppose).

That's all I can think of. I like none of the options, but I'm pulled a little toward 4.

[lindil]

I will needto closely read the material which is not easy at the mment, but there are 2 Rog problems as Aiwendil identifies:

1- his name. As all here may well recall, I am strongly [ I suppose adamantly is probably the best word [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]] opposed to the name. CJRT basically says in a footnote in the Q30 that Rog 'almost certainly' would not have survivied his fathers next revision of the FoG. Thus he does not make it into the 77/00 text. I heartily concur.

His killing the Balrog makes difficult/impossible the 3/7 note depending on which number you use.

As a theory, if


i reacll aright, we agreed [informally?] to try and adhere to it, without making specific reference to it, and apply as a general idea to remain in the backround when debating the many FoG Balrog issues.

I can see keeping the balrog to be destoyed by the Company of Rog and possibly even by it's capitan [whose name has been lost to time] or some such. but that is from ideology, not looking at the text itself.

Of course, like all I would like to keep as much of the battle intaxct as possible, but the name Rog is to me a greater sticking piont than another balrog death.

Keep in mind that of all the balrogs slaughtered in the HII FoG only 3 make it to Q30. Glorfindels, Ecthelion's and Rog's.

I will need to look at everytyhing else more closely when I am back in CA in a few days...

great work M.

[Aiwendil]

You correctly point out that there are two separate issues here: the name and the death of the Balrog. I was above considering primarily the latter issue.

but the name Rog is to me a greater sticking piont than another balrog death.

And for me it is very much the opposite. But perhaps we should strive to keep the two issues separate and focus on one at a time.

Keep in mind that of all the balrogs slaughtered in the HII FoG only 3 make it to Q30. Glorfindels, Ecthelion's and Rog's.

Actually, no - Rog's name appears in Q30 but the compressed account says nothing of his exact deeds: "of the death of Rog without the walls" it says, and nothing more. But even if it did specify that Balrogs were slain there, Q30's conception of Balrogs is still quite far away from the 3/7 note's conception of them.

[Maédhros]

Of Balrogs and Rog:
Originally posted by Aiwendil

4. Retain the Balrog (or Balrogs), retain Rog's attack, but eliminate the death of the Balrog. The advantage here is that we retain most of the structure of the narrative and alter it only in one detail. The disadvantage is that we would be required to insert some fabricated text for the outcome of Rog's attack (something to the effect that the Balrog was driven back, I suppose).

Looking at this issue now, I would rather use this part. Why, because as Aiwendil has posted, in the Quenta Noldorinwa, there is the mention of Rog and of his deeds in the battle. I would remove his slaying of the balrog because in the two instances where a single balrog was defeated in Gondolin, the battle was described as an elf vs balrog.
The slayings of several balrogs by Rog and his men would seem out of order with the latest view of JRRT regarding Balrogs.

Originally posted by lindil

1- his name. As all here may well recall, I am strongly [ I suppose adamantly is probably the best word ] opposed to the name. CJRT basically says in a footnote in the Q30 that Rog 'almost certainly' would not have survivied his fathers next revision of the FoG. Thus he does not make it into the 77/00 text. I heartily concur.

lindil, you are right about the footnote but, the fact remains that the name Rog does appears in the Quenta Noldorinwa. It would seem odd to remove the character because of his name. For example, in the description of the houses of the Ñoldor of Gondolin, we would either use a generic name like captain of the Hammer of Wrath or an enmended name such as Polwë, etc.
I would personally retain the name Rog or try to fit in later Sindarin or Quenya.

Good to see you back lindil. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ August 12, 2003: Message edited by: Maédhros ]

[Aiwendil]

Looking at this issue now, I would rather use this part. Why, because as Aiwendil has posted, in the Quenta Noldorinwa, there is the mention of Rog and of his deeds in the battle. I would remove his slaying of the balrog because in the two instances where a single balrog was defeated in Gondolin, the battle was described as an elf vs balrog.

I am inclined toward this as well, but the difficulty is that this would require the fabrication of some text to describe the outcome of Rog's attack. I cannot see any other way of doing it at the moment.

we would either use a generic name like captain of the Hammer of Wrath or an enmended name such as Polwë, etc.
I would personally retain the name Rog or try to fit in later Sindarin or Quenya.

Of course we could try something like "Polwe", but any such solution would be quite arbitrary and not very good. It would be best, of course, if we could update Rog into later Sindarin. But we cannot. The element "Rog = strength" is not attested anywhere but in the Lost Tales, so we don't have some updated etymology to use. Nor is "Rog" unsuitable for any specific phonological reason that I can think of.

[Maédhros]

Originally posted by Aiwendil

I am inclined toward this as well, but the difficulty is that this would require the fabrication of some text to describe the outcome of Rog's attack. I cannot see any other way of doing it at the moment.

How about this:
FG-B-03b
§ 70 Then said Rog in a great voice: "Who now shall fear the Balrogs for all their terror? See before us the accursed ones who for ages have tormented the children of the Noldor, and who now set a fire at our backs with their shooting. Come ye of the Hammer of Wrath and we will smite them for their evil." Thereupon he lifted his mace, and its handle was long; and he made a way before him by the wrath of his onset even unto the fallen gate: but all the people of the Stricken Anvil ran behind like a wedge, and sparks came from their eyes for the fury of their rage. A great deed was that sally, as the Noldor sing yet, and many of the Orcs were borne backward into the fires below; but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at those Balrogs and {smote} [fought] them {grievously} [valiantly], for all they had whips of flame and claws of steel, and were in stature very great. They {battered} [sent] them into {nought} [retreat], {or} [by] catching at their whips [they] wielded these against them[.] {, that they tore {them} [him] even as {they} [he] had aforetime torn the {Gnomes} [Noldor]; and {the number of Balrogs} that [this Balrog]perished 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.}

Note: I have left the plural of the numbers of Balrogs as per the original text. The fabricated text that I introduced are only the change of some verbs:
1. smote replaced by fought.
2. battered replaced by sent.

and the words:
1. grievously replaced by valiantly.
2. nought replaced by retreat.
3. or to by.

I have added [they] in the last part. I added it because it sounded right to me. Is that ok with the rest?
Unfortunately, I had to delete the last part, I saw no way of saving it, without further altering the passage.

[Aiwendil]

I would change

They {battered} [sent] them into {nought} [retreat], {or} [by] catching at their whips [they] wielded these against them[.]

to

They {battered} [sent] them into {nought} [retreat], {or} catching at their whips [and] wield[ing] these against them[.]

Very good - better than I thought possible. It still involves some fabrication, but it appears now to be a very good option.

I'm still not sure whether we want the singular or plural for the Balrog(s) in this section. Since Rog is no longer killing one, one reason for the change to singular is gone. But if we revert to the plural here we must also do so in FG-B-02.

[Maédhros]

Originally posted by Aiwendil

I'm still not sure whether we want the singular or plural for the Balrog(s) in this section. Since Rog is no longer killing one, one reason for the change to singular is gone. But if we revert to the plural here we must also do so in FG-B-02.

I would rather retain the plural in this part because, as you have said, there is no Rog slaying a Balrog and it would seem more valiant that he made Balrogs retreat in that battle, than instead of one. There is the plural in the original Fall of Gondolin also. So I would change FG-B-02 to plural too.

I like your change better. I would like to receive more input from the other members regarding this change, if it's going to go foward and do you think that the matter of the name "Rog" should be treated here or in a separate thread.

Also we have Findegil's ideas about the Mechanical Monsters that require some revisions to our text.

[Findegil]

I also like these version much more than Rog's company slaying a single Balrog. The new version has much more the heorisem of the old tale, but has also the advantage to be not specific about the number of Balrogs involved (and slain, since if someone likes to have one or more of the Balrogs in his own version of cannon slain by Rog, he can interpret the new version still in that way).

As you Maedhros, I would also like to hold more of the last sentenc. And since my last try in editing the Text seems to be not as bad as I thought, I will try again:

They battered them[ with thier clubs] into {nought} [retreat], or catching at their whips [and] wield[ing] these against them, that they tore {them} [their skin] even as they had aforetime torn the {Gnomes} [Noldor]; and [that ]the {number of} Balrogs {that prished}[were defeated] was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Morgoth, {for}[ and] ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.

The last half sentence should in my version not indicat that Rog did slay a Balrog, but I am far form sure if I was succesfull with it. I wanted to retain it because it adds some more heroism to Ecthelion's and Glrofindel's deads later in the tale. But may be it is better to use it after the death of Gothmog?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Maédhros]

Originally posted by Findegil

and [that ]the {number of} Balrogs {that prished}[were defeated] was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Morgoth, {for}[ and] ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.

I think that if you keep this last part as it is, it is understood (at least by me) that some Balrogs did indeed died in that battle.

[Aiwendil]

Maedhros wrote:

I think that if you keep this last part as it is, it is understood (at least by me) that some Balrogs did indeed died in that battle.

I agree. I am sympathetic with Findegil's desire to include more of the last sentence, but I'd rather leave it out than risk suggesting the death of some Balrogs.

[Findegil]

Okay, I agree that it should not make any suggestion that a Balrog was killed.

I will do some further work on this passage:
FG-B-02b Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.
... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} [some] of those demons climbed upon the coils of the ?{serpents}[machines]? of iron and thence loosed unceasingly from their bows and slings till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.
I reestablished the plural here because if no Balrog is killed the plural can stand. But a company of Balrogs is not possible.

FG-B-03C Rog's men attack
... 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[ with thier clubs] into {nought} [retreat], or catching at their whips [and] wield[ing] these against them, that they tore {them} [their skin] even as they had aforetime torn the {Gnomes} [Noldor]; 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}[machines] and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.
I deleted the last half-sentence, as it seems impossible to use it in this place without suggesting the death of at least one Balrog.

FG-B-04B Rog's slaughter
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had done {amid} [agianst] the Balrogs, because of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart. Now then the plan that they made was to hold what they had won, while those serpents of bronze and with
great feet for trampling climbed slowly over those ?[machines]? of iron, and reaching the walls there opened a breach wherethrough the Balrogs might {ride upon} [come with] the ?{dragons}[streams]? of flame …
Since "slaughter" can mean a bloody battle as well as the work of a butcher I tried to do a minimal change to the text by using the same word but changing the meaning. May be the "done" must also go:
FG-B-04C Rog's slaughter
Fearful too they were for that slaughter Rog had {done amid} [given agianst] the Balrogs, because of those demons they had great courage and confidence of heart. ...

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

Hope that helps a bit.
Respectfully
Findegil

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: Findegil ]

[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.

[Olorin_TLA]

Hello,

Just on the subject of Balrogs and Glorfindel - in HomE X, after JRRT decides that Balrogs are (a) much mroe powerful than originally concieved, and (b) much fewer in number than originally concieved, he mentions Glorfindel;'s dul with the Balrog. Balrog is immediately crossed out and replaced by Demon, and reffered from then on as a Demon, not a Balrog. This seems to me to strongly indicate that Glorifndle should not kill a Balrog, but instead some other Demon of Morgoth - of which there were many in Aman. In fact, the host of Balrogs could be replaced by a host of Demons of non-Balrog sort.
just a thought.

[Maédhros]

From The People of Middle-Earth: Late Writtings:

It was intended to mean 'Golden-tressed', and was the name given to the heroic 'Gnome' (Ñoldo), a chieftain of Gondolin, who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a Balrog [> Demon], whom he slew at the cost of his own life.

and

More important: Glorfindel had sacrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim,* and so enabling Tuor and Idril daughter of Turgon and their child Eärendil to escape, and seek refuge at the Mouths of Sirion.
* [In the margin, and written at the same time as the text, my father noted: 'The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision.']

Now the question is: What is a demon? What is a balrog?
I don't think that without a clear understanding of what exactly is a Demon we can proceed to make that change in The Fall of Gondolin.
I think that someone has suggested that we replace the hundreds of Balrogs to Boldogs.
I just don't think that with the change to demon, without anything specific we can proceed to such a change.
As for the revision of the battle of Glorfindel, we all know that JRRT was rewritting the entire Fall of Gondolin too.

[Aiwendil]

You do raise a good point, Olorin_TLA. I don't think we had given any real thought to the implications of "Late Writings" specifically to the battle of Glorfindel and the Balrog.

While the change does have an air of importance about it, I agree with Maedhros - it's hard to know what to do with it. In fact, it's hard to tell whether it was an actual substantial change or merely a change of phrasing. Is a "Demon" different from a "Balrog"? And if so, which is the more powerful and which the more generic? For Glorfindel's deed was supposed to be extremely heroic, and was put on par with Ecthelion's slaying of Gothmog.

We've already played around, as Maedhros says, with making Balrogs into Boldogs and such things, and nothich satisfactory has ever come out of it. There's simply not enough evidence for doing something like that.

But the question that does have some interest is this: ought we to change "Balrog" to "Demon" in the Glorfindel passage? It's easy to dismiss the possibility, but note that making such a change in no way ties us to any particular interpretation of the change found in "Late Writings". That is, regardless of why Tolkien changed Balrog > Demon, he did change it. And on the surface, following that change would amount to nothing more than changing Balrog > Demon in one passage.

The trouble with this is that it causes problems of cohesion for the Lost Tales text, as it creates a (probably) artificial distinction between the Balrogs mentioned earlier and the one that Glorfindel fought. It may well be that Tolkien would have changed Balrog > Demon throughout, but if we were to do so, we would be interpreting the note, and I think that any such interpretation is extremely dubious.

So after thinking this through, I come back to my original feeling: keep the Balrog as it is.

[lindil]

Welcome Olorin, and along with Mithadan I find your unearthed gem greatly intriguing.

Now if only someone will find a note linking demon and boldog, and then we could maybe get somewhere!

Short of that we are, as tempting as it is, left with to many loose ends to try and weave demons or Boldogs into the fabric that is the Fall of Gondolin.

Again Olorin, welcome to the Downs and the Translations from the Elvish forum - and keep those obscure footnotes comin'...

[Olorin_TLA]

Thanks for the welcomes [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ... looks like my £10 (ish) were well spent on HoMe X. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

The way I see it, having read a lot of Tokien's later writings, is that a "Demon" would just be a maiar spirit who is evil. It's a generic cover all term...just like Valar's a generic term for the most powerful of the ainur.

Boldog and the other demon-Orks were lesser spirits (demons, maiar) in the form of Ork/Ork-like creatures.
Balrogs were some of the most pwoerful/the most powerful (with the probable exception of Sauron) demons around.
Morgoth had many, many different monsters under his command: imho, the use of Demon in Glorfindel's passage indicates a certainly non-Balrog (and it's unlikely it was a Boldog either) maiar spirit (with a bodily form, obviously [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) under Morgoth's command. It's quite possible there were many, maybe of different types, at the Fall of Gondolin.

(Maybe even replacing/alongside the "new" dragons? - though of course, this last sentance is just entirely speculation based on nothing! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img])