Beornings

[Yodaman]

I have a question about Beorings. In the Silmarilion Beren changed into and Orc and a Wolf (think- it's been a couple of years since I've read it), but in the Hobbit Beorn changed into a bear and nothing else. Can Beorings only change into one being, or can they turn into many?

[Earniel]

Beren wore the disguise of an orc only through the magic of Finrod Felagund, if I'm not mistaken. He took the skin of a wolf to enter Morgoth's lair and if he truly changed in a wolf too then I suppose that was Lúthien's doing and not his own.

Whereas Beorn's power to become a bear was his own. And if his people, the Beornings, share that shape-changing gift than I reckon they only can take the shape of a bear and none other.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Yeah, I always got the picture that Beorn could only change into a bear. I don't think Tolkien really would have done anything outlandish like a shape-shifter who can change into anything. Almost anything in excess quickly turns to fantasy, something that Tolkien never quite resorts to- it's always a history, never fantasy. I think Tolkien would have kept it simple with just two forms.

[Ñólendil]

Rosie, I don't agree with your terminology, distinguishing between fantasy and feigned history. Fantasy can be history, and that's what the Lord of the Rings is--a fantasy set in our world, thousands of years ago.

But Tolkien never rejected to the term "fantasy"--in fact he preferred it and suggested its use in place of "faery tales", in his essay on fairy stories (which was published along with "Leaf by Niggle", a story serving as an example of a fairy story that meets all the criteria of the conditions set out in the essay). This essay was written when the Lord of the Rings was finished, but its publication in doubt (I think, at least "Leaf By Niggle" was written then).

I do agree that the magic in Tolkkien's world was used sparingly, and was ultimately subtle, and that Beorn definitely did not change into anything other than a bear. However, a man changing into a bear in the first place belongs to the genre of fantasy, as do Hobbits, and Elves, and Dwarves, and Orcs, and Dragons, and all the rest. Tolkien's style of fantasy is very different from most modern works of fantasy, but the Paendragon Cycle, Memory Sorrow and Thorn, and The Lord of the Rings all belong to the same genre.

Now if you were to distinguish between the Forgotten Realms and Middle-earth, I would completely understand, but is not Tolkien one of the forefathers of modern fantasy?

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

First of all in the origional post Beren Erchamion is mentioned to have changed into an Orc and a Wolf, and as it was pointed out by Eärniel, he did not transform into these things as a Beorning would. It is infact that Beren was no relation to Beorn of the skinchangers. So even if somehow it was Berens power alone that alowed him to shape shift it has no bearing on Beorn and the Beornings ability to shape shift. The name of Beorn losely means bear and warrior, so it would kind of fall in line that the they would only be able to transform into bears. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. Also as stated above I just don't think Tolkien would create a character like that. A Maia or Vala could shap shift into anything or nothing but not a man, elf, ent, dwarf, hobbit, etc.

[Ñólendil]

Well-stated. Just for the fun of it though I'll point out that Beren's people (the people of Marach and Beor) were indeed related to Beorn's people. Beorn's people were of the same host of Men that Beren's people came from, if you go back far enough--it's just that Beorn's seemed to have stopped in the Misty Mountains, and Beren's made it all the way to Beleriand. 'Course, if you want to go that far you might as well go further and say all Men are related, because they are all, well, Men, who began in the East, were corrupted by Melkor, and then either repented, or didn't, and either left for the West, or stayed. But ... by now I've really wasted my time, because I have effectively negated everything I just said, except for "well-stated." So I'll stick with "well-stated".

Well-stated, Halbarad!

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

Haha, I think I may have been well stated... Well thanks Ñólendil. As for the distant relations, it is because of the "All men are realated" issue that causes me to say that they are not exactlly, if you were to say they were then the same could be said of all men ever! I draw the line as I think Tolkien did to at the Three houses of the Edain. Because Beorn syoped at the Misty Mountains he inevitably became a different type of "man" Yet I understand and even track his kinship to Beren... seeing is how like... 80% of Middle earth is related closely to Beren, Elrond, Elros, and all that!*

(*note that 80% and the entire final comment alltogether may just be an over reactment, please do not flame me for it :) )

[Earniel]

The name of Beorn losely means bear and warrior, so it would kind of fall in line that the they would only be able to transform into bears.
Of course along that analogy one can say that Beren's name is the Dutch word for, well,... bears. :D I always wondered if Tolkien knew that.

[Haradrim]

I think it was pretty much understood that Beorn could only change into a bear. If he could change into anything then why at the battle of the 5 armies did he choose to shape as a bear. I can think of a million more powerful things.

Also I agree with Rosie. I believe that Tolkiens work is fantasy but is not meant to be thought of in that way. Therefore magic is used vary spareingly and usually amounts to the power of a match or a maglite. I also would assume that he would never put anything ridiculous in the books.

[Ñólendil]

It's fantasy but is not meant to be thought of as fantasy? Was Tolkien some sort of deceiver, then? I think it was meant to be thought of in a variety of ways, and that it "fantasy" is a great word for what The Hobbit and Tolkien's other books are. Fantasy is what faery tales of the nursury used to be, and ought to be, fantasy is what Tolkien was yearning for, and is what he produced. He himself preferred the word to "faery tales", which was the inadequate term used for his sort of writing before he came along. Just because fantasy has changed over the years does not mean, to me, that the Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit cannot be called one. The Lord of the Rings was a heroic romance, and The Hobbit is an epic for children, but both are fantasy stories.

If The Hobbit is not meant to be thought of as a fantasy (but is a fantasy), what is it meant to be thought of? Shall we go back to faery tales, and put Tolkien with the brothers Grimm? Shall we concoct a new term, because the genre Tolkien pioneered is not up to scratch? I don't think so. The Hobbit is a fantasy, and is meant to be thought of as a fantasy. It just happens to be better than a lot of modern "fantastic" works.

[azalea]

I think they're just saying (I may be wrong) that within the context of the books (since we are given both notes from the author and explanations outside the text of the story proper that are still part of the story), we are meant to look at it as a history, not fantasy. They seem not to be using the term "fantasy" to mean genre, as you are. Then again, they could just be confused! ;)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I've heard the books referred to as mythical. They said it had to much detail for a fantasy and it's history was full so it was a British myth.

[Michael Martinez]

I've heard the books referred to as mythical. They said it had to much detail for a fantasy and it's history was full so it was a British myth.

People are just trying to express their feelings about Tolkien's work. The stories are fantasy stories and there is no need to try to distinguish them from the fantasy genre.

[Rían]

by MM
The stories are fantasy stories and there is no need to try to distinguish them from the fantasy genre.

You're right that there's no need to distinguish them - they distinguish themselves :)



Earniel - reading your note about "Beren" being a Dutch word for "bear" reminds me of that long-ago conversation that lead to my composing the Lay of Beren and Luncheon ... what started it? Some word in that story meant "lunchmeats" in Dutch, IIRC...

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

It was Beorn that translated into that not Beren ;)

[Rían]

Ah, here it is *is thankful for the search function*

here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?p=170728#post170728)


(whoops - you're right, TD!)

[Michael Martinez]

Beorn may be a Dutch word, but it is also an Old English word, and Tolkien intended the Old English association. The Norse version of the name would be Bjarn, I think.

[Earniel]

Um, I need to clear this up. I did mean that Beren is also the Dutch word for 'bears'. I was just adding that in my last post as a side-thought. Beorn is not a specific Dutch word. (I was always under the impression that Beorn was derived from Björn which, I was once told, was a scandinavian word for 'bear'. But I should probably leave that some of our Scandinavian mooters who will have more knowlegde of that)

PS: RÃ*an it was the Beleg-Baloney conversation that sparked that food-related lay of yours. Ah, I see you've found it already. :)

[Nurvingiel]

Björn is a Swedish name meaning bear. It's pronounced pretty much like "Beorn". I wonder if Tolkien knew that.

[Valandil]

... I wonder if Tolkien knew that.

I thought Tolkien knew EVERYTHING!?!?!?? :confused:

[Nurvingiel]

I thought Tolkien knew EVERYTHING!?!?!?? :confused:
Well maybe he did know that then! :p
He did research Viking mythology IIRC...

[Michael Martinez]

Old English and Old Norse are two closely related languages. They did not branch off from each other until around the 7th Century CE. So, Beorn and Bjorn and Bjarn (and probably Beren) are all related words.

[Wayfarer]

You're right that there's no need to distinguish them - they distinguish themselves :) I dissagree.

The singular most distinguishing fact about JRR Tolkien's writings is that they are so very, very hard to distinguish from everything else. Not only is 'The Lord of the Rings' fantasy, it is the very essence of fantasy. Every great work of fantasy before him, and every great work of fantasy since, can be found in Tolkien's writings, and contains Tolkien's writings in itself. Tolkien's writings define and encapsulate everything that we mean when we say the word Fantasy.

If God has planted a seed in men's hearts from which all fantasy grows, it was in JRR Tolkien that it flourished the most.

I don't think Tolkien really would have done anything outlandish like a shape-shifter who can change into anything. At the risk of sounding contrarian, Tolkien did include many such beings. The most notable would be Sauron, but all of the Ainur fall into this category. There are probably a few elves (such as Finrod) who could probably have fit in that category as well.

However, I'm not sure that Beorn's hereditary ability of skin changing is entirely the same thing as shape changing. Sauron was able to take on completely new forms, Beorn alternated between two forms which were closely intertwined. He 'changed his skin', but on the inside he was still essentially the same - similar to the old stories of lycanthropy in which wearing the skin of an animal could transform a person into that animal (except Beorn doesn't need another bear's skin).

Oh, and people should hunt down and read Tree and Leaf. Now.

[Maerbenn]

Beorn's hereditary ability of skin changingWhy do you believe it is hereditary?

[Wayfarer]

Why do you believe it is hereditary? Because he passed it on to his descendents. ;)

[Earniel]

If God has planted a seed in men's hearts from which all fantasy grows, it was in JRR Tolkien that it flourished the most.
Heh, I like the way you said that. I may quote you on that (in other instances than just now).

[BeardofPants]

Er, ditto.

*Nicking....* (http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?p=215766#post215766) :p

[Olmer]

Björn is a Swedish name meaning bear. It's pronounced pretty much like "Beorn". I wonder if Tolkien knew that.
I thought Tolkien knew EVERYTHING!?!?!??
Tolkien was fascinated with foreign words and this why he dedicated his life studying languages and creating his own . He knew 19 languages in perfection: Ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, Welsh, Spanish, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Finnish,Norwegian and , of course ,Swedish and Danish. Besides he spent some time learning Russian and Serbian.
I think, he knew the true meaning of every word in his books. :)

[Michael Martinez]

Tolkien was fascinated with foreign words and this why he dedicated his life studying languages and creating his own . He knew 19 languages in perfection: Ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, Welsh, Spanish, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Finnish,Norwegian and , of course ,Swedish and Danish. Besides he spent some time learning Russian and Serbian.
I think, he knew the true meaning of every word in his books. :)

Oh, he dabbled in a few more than that, and was very good at Hebrew, Indo-European, and a couple of others.

I think he understood the history behind many of the carefully selected words he used in his books better than most people understand that history today.

[Forkbeard]

Oh, he dabbled in a few more than that, and was very good at Hebrew, Indo-European, and a couple of others.

I think he understood the history behind many of the carefully selected words he used in his books better than most people understand that history today.

There is no evidence that he was "very good at Hebrew", there is evidence that he began to learn Hebrew late in life. Indo-European is not a language, but rather a family of languages; by comparing various linguistic elements of this family of languages, some elements of a reconstructed "proto-Indo-European" as a possible model. But it approaches nowhere near a "language" in the way we mean a language.There are no remains of it, it can not be studied as a language, its writings deciphered etc...it is the result of philologists' hypotheses.

That cleared up, I didn't see Welsh mentioned, nor Esperanto which according to Carpenter he did look into at a young age and that there are notebooks of his notes on it though in the Letters he avers any knowledge of it.

FB

[Michael Martinez]

There is no evidence that he was "very good at Hebrew", there is evidence that he began to learn Hebrew late in life.

Yes. I can see how his work on The Jerusalem Bible would constitute "no evidence". His immediate response, when invited to work on the project, was to send in a partial translation of Isaiah. Rather ambitious for someone who didn't know much Hebrew.

He also translated Jonah and reviewed a translation of Job.

As anyone familiar with the project knows, the scholars who worked on the English translation of The Jerusalem Bible translated the texts from the original Hebrew and Greek. Tolkien would not have used the Septuagint as his primary reference for these works. He might have checked his own translations against the Septuagint (a common enough practice).

...Indo-European is not a language, but rather a family of languages; by comparing various linguistic elements of this family of languages, some elements of a reconstructed "proto-Indo-European" as a possible model. But it approaches nowhere near a "language" in the way we mean a language....

It is common enough for people to speak of the "proto-Indo-European" as a language (and to simply refer to it as "Indo-European" -- Tolkien did so himself). And, yes, it DOES "approach" "a language" in the way we mean a language. Curious people who want a quick introduction to the language can read this essay by Calvert Watkins (http://www.bartleby.com/61/8.html) for more accurate and reliable information.

So, now that THAT has been cleared up, perhaps we can get back to discussing Middle-earth.

[Olmer]

Yes. I can see how his work on The Jerusalem Bible would constitute "no evidence". His immediate response, when invited to work on the project, was to send in a partial translation of Isaiah. Rather ambitious for someone who didn't know much Hebrew.

He also translated Jonah and reviewed a translation of Job.

As anyone familiar with the project knows, the scholars who worked on the English translation of The Jerusalem Bible translated the texts from the original Hebrew and Greek. Tolkien would not have used the Septuagint as his primary reference for these works. He might have checked his own translations against the Septuagint (a common enough practice).
Very interesting tidbits, which shows how scrupulously the Professor looked in the true meaning of the words.

Considered that the the Bible was written in ancient Jewish scripts, JRRT was looking in the oldest written source of human history.
Cynics would call it a fictionl story, but the true believers will see it as a glimpse of the time long gone, but not forgotten, thanks to unknown writers who tried to bring to us the true history of humanity through the myphological associations.
In this case it's extremely important to differentiate the very nuance in translation of the written words, because the findings could be astonishing. Here is an example from the 6-th chapter of "Genesis"(This passage was taken from the book on JRRT's work, I'm not sure who wrote it, but seems it was Debra and Ivor Rogers): "...When human beings became numerous on the face of Earth, and daughters were born of the, the BENE EOLIM saw that the human daughters are beautiful and took any they choose for wives... The NEPHILIM were on Earth in those days"... Then from this passage comes an implication that someone was cross-fertile with human beings and someone inhabited this planet then, but not now.
The NEPHILIM (usually translated as"gaints") in Hebrew means as "nebulous","those who have gone down" and quite possibly stands behind Tolkien's description of the Valar.
BENE EOLIM (usually translated as "sons of God") on jewish means "sons of the High", but in Hebrew "sons of" means "member of"... In this case it could imply that it was some race of lowercase celestial beings on the chain between humankind and the Creator. Could it be that this "sons" was the Firstborn, the Elves??

In a view of this comes an implication that we are distant descendants from the elven-race and that Tolkien in his own words tried to depict the real history of our Earth. :)

[Nurvingiel]

In a view of this comes an implication that we are distant descendants from the elven-race and that Tolkien in his own words tried to depict the real history of our Earth. :)
You've brought up an aspect of Tolkien's writing that I absolutely love. He writes as if he was honoured to present history to the readers. This is shown in the forward, as well as in the appendecies on translation, where he explained why the Red Book of Westmarch had some parts translated into modern English, and others into a more archaic form. As if he translated something that was already written.
This makes the tale that much more real and fascinating to me.

[Valandil]

...In a view of this comes an implication that we are distant descendants from the elven-race and that Tolkien in his own words tried to depict the real history of our Earth. :)

Not likely. I believe the biblical account goes on to say that God sent the Flood in part because of the Nephilim.

[Wayfarer]

Heh, I like the way you said that. I may quote you on that (in other instances than just now).Er, ditto. :o That emoticon is horrible.

Of course Tolkien was a master linguist. The work he produced demands it. Literature is language-dependant, and mastery of the language is required before attaining mastery of writing. This is where so many modern authors fail - they try to skip straight to the storytelling with out truly understanding the mechanics of how they're going to tell the story.

Olmer - I don't think so. Tolkien wrote Fiction - fiction based on a firm base, but fiction nonetheless. He no doubt was inspired by the passages you cite, but it is incredibly unlikely that he meant his writings to be applied to real-world history.

I need a new signature quote.

[Forkbeard]

Very interesting tidbits, which shows how scrupulously the Professor looked in the true meaning of the words.

Considered that the the Bible was written in ancient Jewish scripts, JRRT was looking in the oldest written source of human history.
Cynics would call it a fictionl story, but the true believers will see it as a glimpse of the time long gone, but not forgotten, thanks to unknown writers who tried to bring to us the true history of humanity through the myphological associations.
In this case it's extremely important to differentiate the very nuance in translation of the written words, because the findings could be astonishing. Here is an example from the 6-th chapter of "Genesis"(This passage was taken from the book on JRRT's work, I'm not sure who wrote it, but seems it was Debra and Ivor Rogers): Could it be that this "sons" was the Firstborn, the Elves??

In a view of this comes an implication that we are distant descendants from the elven-race and that Tolkien in his own words tried to depict the real history of our Earth. :)


Hey Olmer,

I thought I might try and fill this out some for us. Genesis 6 and the Nephilim is one of those passages that has received a lot of press through the ages, much of which Tolkien would be familiar with. It even shows up in Beowulf! But it doesn't show up in Tolkien that I'm aware.

What stands behind Tolkien's Valar are the choirs of anglels of Christian tradition. According to the orthodox view of Creation, before God created everything on earth, he created the things of heaven, and all the various orders of angles. THEN he turned his attention to earth, which is what Genesis 1-2 record.

Esp. after the Fall there is a hierarchy to the universe (seen esp. in Dante), earth is the bottom center, kind of like a funnel. And then one goes up to the level of the moon and planets, the start, etc until one arrives outside the last circle....God. But at all these levels have angels on/in them, including earth.
So the angels and this hierarchy of them is in large part the inspiration for the Valar.

A very early Christian viewpoint was that the pagan gods were simply God's angels that men were wrongfully worshipping. But you'll note that these gods and goddesses had special functions, such as being in charge of weather, or vegetation of certain types etc--and so these functions and sometimes the deities thenselves become Christian angels while retaining their pagan functions. This marriage of pagan and Christian it seems to me is the inspiration for the Valar in Tolkien.

LIkewise the Blessed Realm is modeled on both pagan and Christian elements. In Greek mythology for example the Blessed Isles are in the West in Ocean; but lo, behold, so is the Christian Purgatory, the mountain of repentance and its surrounding lands, that reaches up and is the "connection" to heaven.

So anyway, the "sons of God" bene elohim from Job is a more likely source to look at than Genesis 6...after all none of the Valar marry or "know" either Elvish or human women. So where do the Elves come in? A question I will have to put off.....but suffice it to say that the idea that there were/are other beings on earth before men is a common one--it occurs in Judaism, Christianity, paganism, and so on. So Tolkien combined some of these elements, put in a dash of invention or perhaps 2 dashes, and there ya go. They are called with Men the Children of Iluvatar because in the Music the "Valar" did not concieve of them, Iluvatar did...they are completely the result of his thought. This is probably modeled on Lk 3 where Luke calls Adam the son of God, the same phrase he will use of Jesus. But the medieval church took this up too....

Anyway, there are some thoughts for you. I think other Biblical passages more influential on Tolkien than the first verses of Genesis 6.

Best Regards,

FB

[Valandil]

Well... going off on tangents can be quite natural, but we've strayed widely from the nature of the Beornings in touching on Tolkien's mastery of languages and reaching into Genesis 6. How about we get this thread back to those furry fellas who dwelt atwixt Anduin and Mirkwood...? Then if someone wants to start a thread on one of the others, either do so or request that a mod or admin start it by splitting off appropriate portions of this thread (I'd be more than happy to do so ;) ).

For Tolkien's languages, I'd suggest the 'Middle Earth' forum - while further discussion on Genesis 6 probably belongs in GM.

[ItalianLegolas]

Beren wore the disguise of an orc only through the magic of Finrod Felagund, if I'm not mistaken. He took the skin of a wolf to enter Morgoth's lair and if he truly changed in a wolf too then I suppose that was Lúthien's doing and not his own.


IT is true that Beren only could change into a wolf because he had a wolf-skin, but we can't be sure if the Beornings could change into anything else, they probably could only turn into bears, and they really only come into play at the battle of the 5 armies anyway...

[Manveru]

IT is true that Beren only could change into a wolf because he had a wolf-skin, but we can't be sure if the Beornings could change into anything else, they probably could only turn into bears, and they really only come into play at the battle of the 5 armies anyway...

Beren couldn't change into anything! He was wearing a wolf's skin as a disguise!

[ItalianLegolas]

I know, thats what I meant!

[Maerbenn]

Beorn's hereditary ability of skin changingWhy do you believe it is hereditary?Because he passed it on to his descendents. ;)Do we really know that it was a hereditary trait?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Do we really know that it was a hereditary trait?
yes we know that passing things on to descendants is a hereditary trait.



;):D

[Maerbenn]

The relevant passage in The Hobbit reads: Beorn indeed became a great chief afterwards in those regions and ruled a wide land between the mountains and the wood; and it is said that for many generations the men of his line had the power of taking bear’s shape, and some were grim men and bad, but most were in heart like Beorn, if less in size and strength.What I meant was:

do we really know that the ability was transmitted genetically?

[me9996]

I have a question about Beorings. In the Silmarilion Beren changed into and Orc and a Wolf (think- it's been a couple of years since I've read it), but in the Hobbit Beorn changed into a bear and nothing else. Can Beorings only change into one being, or can they turn into many?
If I am correct (I very likely might be wrong) Beorn was something called a "Skin-changer", or was it a... Anyway he was some sort of skin related thing...

[Maerbenn]

If I am correct (I very likely might be wrong) Beorn was something called a "Skin-changer", or was it a... Anyway he was some sort of skin related thing...Yes; Gandalf tells Mr. Baggins in ‘Queer Lodgings’:“… He is a skin-changer. He changes his skin: sometimes he is a huge black bear, sometimes he is a great strong black-haired man with huge arms and a great beard. …�