25 Did Balrogs have wings? (Tolkien)
Description
This article is from the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ, by Steuard Jensen sbjensen@midway.uchicago.edu with numerous contributions by others.
25 Did Balrogs have wings? (Tolkien)
[Conrad Dunkerson has written a much more detailed essay on this
question as part of his "The Truth About Balrogs" series, on the web
at: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB6.html. That page also includes
links to other discussions of the issue.]
Debates on this topic have been frequent and intense, in part
because people unknowingly interpret the question in very different
ways. Most participants in these debates agree on the following:
* The Balrog in Moria had "wings" of some sort, or if you prefer, a
"shadow" shaped like wings.
* Those "wings" were probably not made of flesh and blood, but
rather of some sort of "dark emanation" or "palpable darkness".
Many of the most intense arguments seem to have resulted from
different uses of the word "wing". In this consensus statement, the
(quoted) word "wing" is used only as a convenient symbol for the
feature of the Balrog under discussion, without reference to any
standard definition. In particular, the statement does not specify
whether the "palpable darkness" always had a winglike shape.
So what are the different definitions that people use? The Oxford
English Dictionary divides its relevant definitions of the word "wing"
into two groups. Group I includes definitions that for the most part
refer to physical parts of a creature's body. For example, #1.a. is
"Each of the organs of flight of any flying animal" (but broadened to
include cases where similar organs are not used for flight, such as
penguins' wings and even "the enlarged fins of flying fishes").
Group II includes definitions relating primarily to a thing's shape
or position. For example, #5. is "An appliance or appendage resembling
or analagous to a wing in form or function", including #5.a. "An
artificial apparatus attached to the human arms or shoulders" and
#5.d.(a) "one of the planes of an aeroplane". Even broader, #6 is "A
lateral part or appendage: in various connexions."
With a "Group II" definition of "wing", the question "Do Balrogs have
wings?" is more or less trivial: Tolkien's description clearly fits (at
least at the time described in the quotes below), as does the consensus
statement above. With a "Group I" definition of "wing", the question
is more interesting and the answer less obvious: it depends on the
specific definition, and even then not everyone will agree.
The consensus statement above was not reached quickly, and even with
a "Group I" definition some newcomers believe that a simple "yes" or
"no" is clear from the description of the Balrog in "The Bridge of
Khazad-dum". The debates generally begin as follows:
* "Pro-wingers" point out that when the Balrog steps onto the
Bridge, "its wings were spread from wall to wall".
* "No-wingers" point out that the word "wings" was first used in the
phrase "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings", and
deduce that the word "wings" refers to the "shadow" itself rather
than to a part of the Balrog's solid central body. (The "shadow"
was seen when the Balrog first appeared: "it was like a great
shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form", and it is likely
the "cloud" in the phrase "It came to the edge of the fire and
the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it".)
* "Pro-wingers" claim that as the Balrog came closer to the
Fellowship its uncertain appearance became clearer, so what first
looked like a "shadow" or "cloud" and later "like wings" was
finally recognized as "wings" once the Balrog was nearby.
"No-wingers" do not agree with this interpretation.
Progress beyond this point is difficult, but again, most of those on
both sides of the debate agree with the consensus statement. One
substantial remaining point of disagreement is whether the "wings"
always had a winglike shape (supported in part by Tolkien's use of the
direct phrase "its wings") or if their form was variable (supported in
part by the "cloud" description), and there is no firm evidence known
for either position.
Continue to:
My Books
