Beorn

[The Might]

About the wizard part, he may not have really been aware about the connection between Radagast and Gandalf before really.

"I am Gandalf," said the wizard.
"Never heard of him," growled the man, "And what's this little fellow?" he said, stooping down to frown at the hobbit with his bushy eyebrows.
"That is Mr. Baggins, a hobbit of good family and unimpeachable reputation," said Gandalf. Bilbo bowed. He had no hat to take off, and was painfully conscious of his many missing buttons. "I am a wizard," continued Gandalf. "I have heard of you, if you have not heard of me; but perhaps you have heard of my good cousin Radagast who lives near the Southern borders of Mirkwood?"
"Yes; not a bad fellow as wizards go, I believe. I used to see him now and again," said Beorn. "Well, now I know who you are, or who you say you are. What do you want?"

So it appears that Beorn had no idea what wizards were or who Gandalf truly was.
Now, you may say that if had indeed learned so much from Radagast he would not call him only "not a bad fellow" and say they only met "now and again".
I admit that a bit more would be expected from Beorn when speaking of the one that passed this knowledge on to him, but still I see no theory being more likely than this one.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, you may say that if had indeed learned so much from Radagast he would not call him only "not a bad fellow" and say they only met "now and again". I admit that a bit more would be expected from Beorn when speaking of the one that passed this knowledge on to him, but still I see no theory being more likely than this one.

One would expect Beorn to be more knowledgeable about wizards and have a closer relationship to Radagast, if he learned this skill from him, but is there any evidence that Beorn is the very first of his line to have this ability? Radagast has been in ME for nearly 2000 years by the time of the Hobbit; could he have taught the skill to one of Beorn's forefathers, who taught it to his son, who taught it to his son, etc.? If this is the case, then Beorn may not have more than a passing acquaintance with Radagast (who was becoming more of a homebody by this time, anyway), and yet the skill could still have come from Radagast, ultimately. That's, to me, a more plausible origin that allows for things like the lack of knowledge about wizards, and yet permits a relatively more contemporary origin of skill than something reaching back into the Elder Days.

[Andsigil]

I've always wondered about Tolkien's, meaning the man's and the author's, preferences for animals when I read about Beorn.

For example, it seems that Tolkien disliked crows, wolves, and reptiles, which is why he made them villains in his books in the form of crebain, wargs (and Carcharoth), and wyrms. Assuming Tolkien acted on his prejudices by paralleling European mythogy, wolves, to the best of my knowledge, have always been villains in European myths (the exception being the wet nurse of Romulus and Remus). And and one has to look far and wide to find a culture which has positive things to say about snakes in its mythology.

Now, while crows are often portrayed as villains in old tales, Norse mythology, which with Tolkien was no doubt quite knowledgeable, shows them as positively as the sidekicks of Odin in the form of Hugin and Munin. Perhaps Tolkien's dislike for crows was personal, seeing them as carrion eaters and thieves. I'm not certain but I can picture the old man throwing rocks at the crows in his back yard which were stealing food from the bird feeder which he had intended for thrushes.

Tolkien portrays other animals as heroic and noble: hounds, horses, eagles, and bears. The bears are an interesting choice for him to portray positively. Bears are fairly scarce in European myths as far as I know. It's long been assumed that the Viking berserkers got the name from the Swedish "Bärsärk" and wore bear skins as a totem. The parallels between Beorn and the beserkers is obvious, but the Norsemen portray them as barbaric and savage killers, which Beorn is obviously not.

So, as I started to say in the beginning, I wonder what personal preferences led Tolkien to portray bears as being on the side of Good in Middle Earth. Tolkien wouldn't have made Beorn what he was unless he, himself, liked bears for some reason.

[The Might]

Well, I'll try to look up some info on bears in mythology an repost them here.

Firstly, we know that Tolkien had extensively studied Norse mythology and particularly the Finnish language when creating the Elvish tongues.
For the Finns the bear has a very important place in their culture, the bear was considered the spirit of the forefathers. It also is the national animal of Finland.
And in many other countries including Germany and Russia bears play an important role often being used symbolically as a way to portray the nation itself and is found in many fairytales.
And even when I think back to my childhood in Romania I remember that the bear is considered to be the king of the forest there and also appears in many fairytales that I used to enjoy.
So I really don't see why the bear would then have to represent anything negative in M-e after Tolkien studied its importance for Europeans.


Ibri, that is a great idea that seems to explain everything we read about in the books. It makes sense that Radagast may have often frequented the Misty Mountains in company of the beasts there, bears as well, and then found these men living there.

[Andsigil]

Thanks, TM. I wasn't aware of bears' representation in both Romania and Finland. Tolkien was obviously widely read in mythology and would likely have known this. I was aware of the Russian bear, but never got the impression that Tolkien was a Russophile.

[The Might]

True, true, and he was no Germanophile either.

But yeah, the Finns are the best example, especially since the Professor knew their mythology so extensively.

And if you think about it, it makes sense for all these people who descended from hunter-gatherers living in forests to worship bears. After all, if you live in the forest, what is probably the most dangerous thing to come across as a human... a bear! So, as a not so intelligent prehistoric man you make up stories and legends to explain yourself the power of the bear and you pass them on to your children and so on.

Bears ftw!

[Tuor in Gondolin]

But yeah, the Finns are the best example, especially since the Professor knew their mythology so extensively.

And if you think about it, it makes sense for all these people who descended from hunter-gatherers living in forests to worship bears.

So Stephen Colbert is definitely not descended from Finns?

More seriously, why did Tolkien (in The Hobbit) portray crows as bad but
ravens as good and noble? Is there some northern mythological
reason?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

It's long been assumed that the Viking berserkers got the name from the Swedish "Bärsärk" and wore bear skins as a totem. The parallels between Beorn and the beserkers is obvious, but the Norsemen portray them as barbaric and savage killers, which Beorn is obviously not.

But doesn't Beorn turn into a bear when he's angry? I also seem to remember that he was quite violent in the battle of Five Armies, and that's the only time we see him fight.

Originally Posted by The Might

And if you think about it, it makes sense for all these people who descended from hunter-gatherers living in forests to worship bears. After all, if you live in the forest, what is probably the most dangerous thing to come across as a human... a bear! So, as a not so intelligent prehistoric man you make up stories and legends to explain yourself the power of the bear and you pass them on to your children and so on.

Not only that, but bears are hunter-gatherers themselves, and good ones at that. Prehistoric man could probably learn a lot from looking at bears (from a safe distance, of course). Their size and power also could be quite enviable.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Now, while crows are often portrayed as villains in old tales, Norse mythology, which with Tolkien was no doubt quite knowledgeable, shows them as positively as the sidekicks of Odin in the form of Hugin and Munin.

The parallels between Beorn and the beserkers is obvious, but the Norsemen portray them as barbaric and savage killers, which Beorn is obviously not.

I'm at work currently, so I am going off my fading memory, but I believe Hugin and Munin were ravens and not crows. Ravens are reverenced by Dwarves in the Hobbit, whereas crows are not (also, 'stormcrow' and 'crows and gibbets' being obvious epithets).

Berserkers being savage and barbaric would depend on one's point of view. Perhaps the Franks or Anglo-Saxons believed they were, but among the various denominations of Norsemen they were considered great warriors and heroes.

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

More seriously, why did Tolkien (in The Hobbit) portray crows as bad but
ravens as good and noble? Is there some northern mythological
reason?

See above. Ravens were Odin's special agents.