Beorn
 

Is Beorn meant to be somewhat of an enigma like Tom Bombadil?

I know Tolkien commented in a letter that he was a man but clearly he was no ordinary man. Even with Tolkien's descriptions of might men of the past like Elendil or Tuor, or even an Elf like Thingol, in size and and strength, Beorn would tower over them. Even conservatively using his description in the Hobbitt, he would be 10+ feet tall and in Bear form at the Battle of Five Armies he had grown so large, he broke the back of an Army, that the combined forces of Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Eagles + a Miar couldn't stop.

Beorn was obviously longer lived than a normal Man, he was supposedly driven our of the Misty Mountains by the Orcs, yet they expanded into the region arounf TA 2800. The Dwarf-Goblin wars were TA 2793-99. Yet 140 years later, he fought in TA 2941 at the Battle of Five Armies, still hale and full of power. Maybe he was of Dunedain blood? Obviously Beorn shares characteristics with Beowulf, the first super-human or superhero both in temperament and his inhuman strength, and likely Beowulf was a template for the character of Beorn.

Here's an older thread discussing possible theories explaining his special powers and his origin: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=13380

The best explanation that I could find is that Beorn's ancestors (known to be related to the Woodmen and the Northmen) lived in the mountains and were forced to flee by the goblins. Perhaps they had a special relationship to bears, but I do not believe that they possessed any shapeshifting abilities at that time.

I believe that Beorn was the first to gain this ability and that he learned it from Radagast. We know that Radagast was a master of shapes and hues and since he loved being around his animal companions, perhaps he did so in animal form. After getting to know Beorn and realising that he loves nature just as much Radagast perhaps taught him how to shapeshift and gave him the possibility to defend himself and the animals against goblins.

My problem with that theory is that I don't think the powers of the Istari could be taught to others.

Tolkien seems to indicate that in Letter 155:

That might seem to be at variance with what was referenced in 144 though; that Beorn was a 'skin-changer' and a 'magician', but still a Man.

Oddly enough, those two letters were both written in 1954.

However, even if Radagast would have been capable of transferring some of his power to another, I would think that to be a very great sin on his part in the view of the Valar, no matter how well intentioned.
That leads to another point: if the Istari could do that, why didn't Saruman do the same thing? Think how devastating a Wormtongue personally armed with Saruman's persuasive voice would have been to Rohan!

About his size... The Hobbit is written from Bilbo's point of view perhaps Beorn was tall for a man about 7Ft? stille possible to a what 3'6? Hobbit He look Huge.

The whole Bear thing... I've got nothing.

Their powers could not be taught or transferred, but Tolkien does state that magic (such as the power of the Istari or the Elves) and sorcery are two different things. The Witch King was a sorcerer, and if I recall correctly learned the black arts from Sauron before he became a wraith. Tolkien also mentions the occult practices of the Men in the East, which may have had their origins in the Blue Wizards. So it does seem possible for Ainur to teach some kind of "magical" arts to Mortals.

The notion of this being a terrible "sin" on the part of those who do it actually would seem to provide a kind of an explanation for why all the wizards but Gandalf were considered to have fallen away from their mission and never returned to the West. Saruman might very well have tried to teach something of his "voice" skill to Wormtongue, who was remarkably successful in the undermining of Theoden. It was nothing compared to Saruman's own ability, but for a little maggot like Wormtongue, it worked astonishingly well. And Radagast may have meant well in teaching shape-changing to Beorn, but it was wrong nonetheless, and may explain why he never returned to Valinor (he either was not permitted back because of his "sin," or the commission thereof was the first step down a path of self-corruption -- not evil per se, but a path that took him farther and farther away from his greater mission into one more selfish). It's an angle I've never considered before. I need to consider it further.... :)

I agree there are some flaws within the theory above, but I just can't come up with anything better.

I simply don't see how a normal human could otherwise learn how to shapeshift.

Welcome to the Downs, Hobbitt_Fan, enjoy being dead!

I'm not sure that Beorn was meant to be an enigma like Bombadil - we have to remember that The Hobbit originally was written as a stand-alone children's book, not as part of the Legendarium established in the earlier Silmarillion tradition, and thus contains all kinds of elements that aren't exactly 'canonical' within that tradition (cockney Trolls, giants in the Misty Mountains and a werebear of somewhat fluctuating stature) coexisting peacefully with borrowings from the matter of the Elder Days (Elrond, Gondolin, the Necromancer). Only when Tolkien decided that TH and its sequel, LotR, were after all set in the same world as the Silmarillion did such elements as Beorn become a problem. (Taking another character, I'm pretty sure the Prof had no idea Gandalf was a Maia when he wrote TH; he only 'discovered' that later, trying to make sense of what he'd written earlier.) But that's of course meta-reasoning and will most likely be considered spoilsport by some of our dear fellow Downers (present company included).;)

I think you're quite right about the similarities between Beorn and Beowulf, especially considering the etymology of the latter's name ('Bee-wolf', a kenning for bear). This was also discussed in the thread The Might has linked to, as well as echoes of Nordic berserker legends in Beorn's character.

As for the origin of Beorn's shape-shifting abilities and his possible connection to Radagast, another explanation of this was suggested by yours truly on yet another Beorn thread. [/shameless self-plug]

I just found this on another site and thought I would post here. To me it seems to be an excellent account of Beorn. Sorry if it has been posted before.

Beorn and Tom Bombadil: a tale of two heroes.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Beorn+...es-a0163972510

Not that I have a good explanation about Beorn's skin-changing,but let us remember the case of Thuringwethil,whose bat form was taken by Luthien.Although in that case Thuringwethil was probably a Maia and Luthien a half-breed,wouldn't Beorn's case be something similar?

But Beorn's case would have to be different. He wasn't a Maia, was he? I was under the impression that he was a man that had some sort of relations to bears. Although, I don't see that being plausible, because humans and bears don't breed with each other. . .

I think this is what speaks to his being a question mark by Tolkien and probably with intent. Although in a letter containing a brief response to a question where he refers to Beorn as man, he never comments in any essay or writing the true nature of Beorn's supernatural power whether it be his immense size or strength, his skin changing, his ability to speak to animals and commune with Bears, or the fact he must be far older than he appears if was alive when the Goblins expanded into the Misty Mountains and was driven out.

I think Beorn, even though Tolkien commented he was a man was meant to be one of those unexplained mysteries that exist in the world.

Alone, he turned the tide of battle where 3/4 of the Orcs of the Northern Misty mountains were wiped out. His arrival almost had a Biblical feeling, a sense that divine intervention(Beorn) arrived and turned the tide of defeat into an impossible victory. No single individual that was just a man, say Aragorn or even a Hurin has that ability. The only characters in the Tolkienverse that had this kind of power were the "mighty", Noldo Lords like Galdriel, or Maiar.

So whether he was a man as Tolkien indicated, Tolkien must have meant Beorn super human in the fashion of Samson even though he was mortal. He was a Samson like figure, him at the Battle of Five Armies was akin to Samson slaying a 1000 Philistene soldiers with the jawbone of an ***. Both epic events by individuals of prodigious, supernatural strength but in the end, both mortals.