Page 3 of 24
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:09 pm
by librislove
Tell him good and welcome--I envy anyone who is coming to Tolkien for the first time--what joys there are to come!
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:56 pm
by Iolanthe
I'm re-reading The Hobbit again and have come to Beorn. I'd forgotten all about him in the years since I last read this book and it seems to me that like Tom Bombadil he's a one off in Tolkien's Middle Earth Mythology. Is this the only reference to a 'skin-changer'?
He's plainly a man but with an amazing gift that's shared with no one else and for which there is no back-story. Like Tom he has special powers over the natural world. Animals serve him and both animals and plants thrive in his care. Like Tom his house is a sanctuary to the weary travellers with good food and comfy beds prepared for them. Like Tom's house, it isn't safe to go outside Beorn's House after dark. Like Tom he lives on the edge of a dangerous wood, but unlike Tom he's clearly not an immortal.
Fascinating! Does anyone know any more about his character from other writings? Is he a sort of proto Bombadil?
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:46 pm
by Lindariel
Tolkien does refer to Beorn and his descendants, the Beornings, on two occasions in LOTR. The first takes place during Frodo's conversation with Gloin at the dinner in Imladris celebrating Frodo's recovery from the Morgul blade wound.
Frodo learned that Grimbeorn the Old, son of Beorn, was now the lord of many sturdy men, and to their land between the Mountains and Mirkwood neither orc nor wolf dared to go.
"Indeed," said Gloin, "if it were not for the Beornings, the passage from Dale to Rivendell would long ago have become impossible. They are valiant men and keep open the High Pass and the Ford of carrock. But their tolls are high," he added with a shake of his head; "and like Beorn of old they are not over fond of dwarves. Still, they are trusty, and that is much in these days."
Later, we learn from Aragorn that the Rohirrim share kinship with the Beornings:
It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out of the North, and their kinshp is rather with the Bardings of Dale, and with the Beornings of the Wood, among whom may still be seen many men tall and fair, as are the Riders of Rohan.
Here's what the Encyclopedia of Arda has to say about Beorn:
The skin-changer who dwelt in the Vales of Anduin near the western eaves of Mirkwood, who could take the form of a Man or a huge black bear. He played a great part in the victory over the Goblins at the Battle of Five Armies.
Notes
1 Tolkien makes it clear in his letters that Beorn's lifespan was no greater than that of an ordinary Man. It's very unlikely, then, that he survived much beyond III 3000. (see The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 144, dated 1954).
2 In the same letter referred to in Note 1, Tolkien explains that despite his remarkable abilities, Beorn definitely belonged to the race of Men: 'Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man'.
3 The etymology of Beorn's name is interesting. The Old English word originally meant 'bear', but evolved over the centuries to the point where it came to mean 'warrior'. So, Beorn's ability to transform from a bear to a man echoes the linguistic development of his name.
The original meaning of Beorn relates to the bear's love of honey, and contains béo, meaning 'bee'. This also appears in the name Beowulf: like Beorn, this means 'bear', but is literally 'bee-wolf'. This bee connection explains the references in The Hobbit to Beorn's bee-pastures and huge bees: 'The drones were bigger than your thumb, a good deal, and the bands of yellow on their deep black bodies shone like fiery gold' (The Hobbit 7, Queer Lodgings).
and the Beornings:
The descendants of Beorn, who dwelt in the Vales of Anduin between Mirkwood and the Great River, and who for many generations retained their ancestor's ability to take the shape of a bear.
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:19 pm
by Philipa
Yes Iolanthe I remember reading about Beorn and making the same connection. I was pleased to see the character so hunted down much of the referrences Lindariel has done here. Other than
The Hobbit and
LoTR I could not find any more referrences in Tolkien's writings.
I wonder if Tolkien was trying to add his own Beowolf into his stories. He so loved them too.
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:51 pm
by Iolanthe
Thanks for all those references, Lindariel
!
Frodo learned that Grimbeorn the Old, son of Beorn, was now the lord of many sturdy men, and to their land between the Mountains and Mirkwood neither orc nor wolf dared to go.
"Indeed," said Gloin, "if it were not for the Beornings, the passage from Dale to Rivendell would long ago have become impossible. They are valiant men and keep open the High Pass and the Ford of carrock. But their tolls are high," he added with a shake of his head; "and like Beorn of old they are not over fond of dwarves. Still, they are trusty, and that is much in these days."
So....there was a Mrs. Beorn then?
He certainly is a one-off and the 'skin-changing' idea seems to be one that Tolkien never used anywhere else. It's not mentioned here as an attribute either his son or the other Beornings had. I've tried looking in Norse myth for something similar and only found this from an on-line dictionary:
berserk:
1. A wild Norse warrior of great strength and ferocious courage, who fought on the battle-field with a frenzied fury known as the berserker rage; often with a lawless bravo or freebooter (pirate). Also a reference to someone who is frenzied, furiously, or madly violent, who goes berserk.
2. From Old Norse berserk, “wild warrior”, probably from the stem of bjorn,; “bear” plus serkr, “shirt"” because either they wore bearskins or were fierce like bears.
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:38 pm
by Lindariel
Actually, Iolanthe, this entry:
The descendants of Beorn, who dwelt in the Vales of Anduin between Mirkwood and the Great River, and who for many generations retained their ancestor's ability to take the shape of a bear.
makes it pretty clear that Beorn's descendants retained the ability to skin-change, so Beorn is not a "one-off."
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:32 pm
by Iolanthe
I missed that one! That's the penalty for reading posts quickly one day without much time and then logging on again some days later to reply
. You're quite right. I still find it interesting and wonder what Tolkien had in mind when he created Beorn.
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:18 pm
by Merry
I've been doing some more reading about the history of the dwarves, especially in relationship to their on-and-off again home, Erebor, the Lonely Mountain. One thing that has occurred to me is that, if one reads The Hobbit alone, the dwarves seem grasping and materialistic in regard to how far they'll go to unseat Smaug and get their stuff back. Thorin's covetous desire for the Arkenstone also looks this way. But reading a little from Appendix A about the history of Erebor makes it seem a little more understandable. I wonder if JRRT had all this history in mind when he wrote Hobbit.
Still, Thorin's words to Bilbo on his deathbed seems to be Tolkien's judgment on the matter: if more people were like hobbits, the world would be a better place.
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:42 pm
by Philipa
Interesting observation Merry. It does come across that the dwarves are only interested in claiming back their hoard and mountain. But I don't see that as being materialistic. Unless of course all creatures are...even the elves.
I suppose it all has to do with what the goal is for the story doesn't it?
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:01 pm
by Iolanthe
Yes - good point - it depends on the goal of the story. The Hobbit is a children's book so the Dwarves are not far removed from the idea of dwarves in north european legend. They are how we would expect them to be superficially from old stories and we are not fed quite enough back story to understand them in the book in the way that we do in LOTR and its appendices. There is a lot more there, as Merry has said, that tells us why they are as they are. And we have not met Gimli and discovered the heroics a dwarf can really rise to.
But the Dwarves aren't very nice all round in The Hobbit, are they? They have no intention of going back into the mountain to look for Bilbo, even though he was ready to go back in and rescue them when he thought they were still inside. They send Bilbo off down the tunnel to check out Smaug while they sit comfortably at the top. The treasure when they get it makes them selfish to the point of stupidity. They pass through whole acres of story when I don't like them at all. Thorin makes a good end though and almost redeems them...
They don't come off that great in parts of the Sil either. My feeling is that until he got to Gimli Tolkien didn't like them much either, although he had a certain respect for them and their better qualities, and maybe even a fair dose of pity for them.
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:59 pm
by bruce rerek
One must be careful not to sentimentalize the various characters that came to populate Middle Earth. Although the Dwarves had a very self interested side notice how the the rings of power for the Dwarf lords did not turn them into a members of the Nazgul. If the Baggins were typical Hobbits they would have never left their home or care a stich about the world. To forget Feanor's wrath and his tragic folly to burn his ships and defy to the Valar almost pales in comparison to any of the Dwarves faults.
What I most admire about the Professor's works is the ethical quandries that face all of his characters. No one can escape their fate and must act as to the task they have been called to complete or fail. The fact that Tolkien was so concerned with the language is that is encodes culture. The reason the various epics move us so is that the language isn't vague it is specific and full of truths.
I still maintain the Hobbit is not a child's tale but the first expression of not only a history, but an ethos that also came to be fully matured when the following books were created.
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:25 pm
by Philipa
Bruce while I agree other races of Middle-earth have done some pretty selfish things that far out weigh what the dwarves have done, Iolanthe does bring up some valid points from the Hobbit itself to say the Dwarves were pretty self obsorbed.
Gimli does bring some warmth to the race only because he is really not like our dwarves in the Hobbit.
As for whether we think the Hobbit was a children's story this is interesting to me.
The children's stories I know have pretty one dimensional charactors. Can we say that of this book?
Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:41 pm
by Iolanthe
That's a good question. Mmmm. Going back to the dwarves, most of them are one dimensional. Beyond Thorin, Fili and Kili and Bombur I keep wondering why the others are there, except to make the opening funny as they keep arriving and to get around the fact that Thorin would hardly go with only a couple of pals.
Bilbo is obviously well rounded (in every sense
). Gandalf I find hard to quantify in this book because I've got the LOTR Gandalf and all his complexities in my head. I'm wondering if he comes accross as more than the standard mysterious wizard if you haven't read anything else. My first Hobbit reading is too long ago to remember!!!!
When reading The Hobbit this time through, though, I felt that it starts out like a children's book, but he finds it very hard to keep it at that level towards the end when we get the stand off at the Lonely Mountain and the battle. Bit like LOTR which also starts like a children's story but soon morphs into what really interested the Professor.
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:05 am
by Merry
I agree that Hobbit morphs into something new at the end. But it definitely begins as a children's book. One of the devices that reveals this is the author's voice talking directly to the reader, as if it were an oral tale: things like, 'Well, if you knew all that I knew about Gandalf, there would be a lot to tell.' (I don't remember if this line is actually in there, but there are lines like that!) After a while, I find them annoying! And I think JRRT says somewhere in the Letters that he shouldn't have written things like that.
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:31 pm
by Iolanthe
That's interesting. He really is very much at the forefront in The Hobbit, isn't he? Doesn't Shippey have something to say about it along the lines that as a device it keeps reminding us that there is more to Middle-earth than meets the eye? The sort of 'everyone knows that dragons do this' sort of phrases that tell us that there is a lot going on beyond the actual story that we are only allowed to glimpse. Things that we are told are normal for Middle-earth that the narrator slips in to a) make it more real and b) more magical. I agree that without a narrator The Hobbit would be less of a children's book. He clearly abandoned it completely for LOTR, although there are shades of it in the style of the Prologue, even without the 'I's.