Could animals talk?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

There is also a line of argument that sentient animals were actually maia, for example, the great eagles, and the giant mirkwood spiders offspring of Ongoliant.

Would that include the ravens of Erebor and the thrush that spoke to Bard? Or the fox that witnesses the Hobbits travelling through the Shire?

I'm not a fan of this theory or the theories that have the talking animals as merely repeating learned patterns or the products of Hobbitish whimsy, as they all rather detract from the charm of the Hobbit and the early chapters of LotR, which suggest to me that all of these creatures (including the eagles and the spiders) are just what they appear to be - sentient (non-Maiar) animals.

Whoever said that such things could not exist in Middle-earth anyway?

[Makar]

I too resent theories which portray those things not specifically laid out by Tolkien as products of Hobbit lore. I would much rather believe that talking animals, ogres, giants, mewlips, werworms, etc all dwelt in ME. Besides, talking animals fit in with the Bombadil story and The Hobbit styles of writing.

[Eruanna]

LotR was begun as a sequel to 'The Hobbit' and so the earlier parts, up until The Council of Elrond are similar in tone.
Talking animals, along with magical swords and wizards are staples of fairy stories and books from 'Alice in Wonderland' to the Narnia series include them.
To my mind, Tolkien's talking animals are different, they are not whimsical or 'cute'. Some of them align with good, some with evil but all of them, from Ungoliant to Gwaihir exist in Middle-earth by right. If the trees can talk then why not the animals?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I'm not a fan of this theory or the theories that have the talking animals as merely repeating learned patterns or the products of Hobbitish whimsy, as they all rather detract from the charm of the Hobbit and the early chapters of LotR, which suggest to me that all of these creatures (including the eagles and the spiders) are just what they appear to be - sentient (non-Maiar) animals.

Whoever said that such things could not exist in Middle-earth anyway?

I'm not a huge fan of such theories, and I have no problem reading about middle-earth, or accepting such things as being fully able to happen there, but we fans are not the only ones to wonder.

The Professor himself, after having written the LotR, began to try and make things consistent. He took GREAT pains to explain what appeared to be anomolies and exceptions to the rules. In particular, he did this in the linguistic field, vigorously explaining things like how a river flowing through a barren plain can be call the "Shadowy River".

Look also at his continual (and mostly undecided, in the end) attempts to reconcile the origins of the orks with the rules of his world. Somewhat connected with this is the exact portrayal of the Great Eagles.

Now I, personally, have no particular opinion on the "talking animals" one way or another, but I wanted to point out that it not out of character with regards to middle-earth to try and fit everything into a coherent system, and is, in fact, a part of Tolkien's own history of revision and sub-creation.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I would like to suggest another way of looking at this problem.

Perhaps we can distinguish between those "animals" the Professor was careful to tie into the overall Legendarium and those he was not.

In the former category are the Great Eagles, the spiders, and Huan. In the latter we can find a talking thrush or a sentient fox. My gut feeling is that these originated from different places in Tolkien's imagination.

The book The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien goes into great detail showing how there were certain elements in the writings that the author purposely did not tie into the Silm. Chief among these was Tom Bombadil. Except for the early poems (that weren't published till later) and LotR itself, Tom is missing from both the Silm and UT. This stands in sharp contrast to other elements introduced in LotR. The istari , for example, and also the Ents -- these were also new but the author was careful to reintroduce them to Silm and/or UT to show exactly how they fit into the larger scheme. This stands in sharp contrast to Tom who simply does not appear. According to Uncharted Realms, the origin of Tom does not lie in Middle-earth per se, but rather in the English countryside, its legends, folklore, and spirits.

Can we not say the same thing about the animals? I get a wholly different feeling from the Eagles than I do from the small thrush in the Hobbit. To me, the fox and the thrush are a natural outgrowth of the countryside. They are part of the "natural" and "folk" elements: the same kind of character we see in Wind in the Willows. This stands in sharp contrast to something like the dragons or Eagles. Whether they are maia or not is open to question, but they have a "greatness" about them (as do the spiders) which makes them more than simple country animals or an aspect of British folklore.

There is an interesting side question here that Littlemanpoet has raised on several occasions. To what extent do hobbit origins lie in the "animal" side of things: the celebration of the natural? Both rabbits and badgers have been put forward as models. If we choose to see hobbit origin in this way,( and Uncharted Tales makes a fascinating argument for Badger origin,) then the Hobbit is the ultimate talking animal, , one whose roots in the countryside and folklore run deep yet who still makes it into Silm: a unique amalgamation!

[HerenIstarion]

then the Hobbit is the ultimate talking animal

What with hobbits being explicitly defined as human, Tolkien took pains just to underline the same old truth - that the man (in some aspects at least) is the ultimate talking animal

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Did the fox speak?

Regardless, in a land of great fiery demons and rings that turn you invisible, why not throw in some talking animals. 'Twas all in good fun!

[Lalwendë]

There is also the possibility that it is individuals or groups of Men, Hobbits or Elves who understand the animals' language, rather than all animals speaking in the tongues of Men, Hobbits or Elves. Gandalf is able to speak with Shadowfax, and it is said that usually only the monarch of Rohan was able to ride Shadowfax, which suggests that not everyone can understand this 'animal', but some can. Perhaps only Gandalf and Theoden knew what he was 'saying', and indeed, knew how to communicate back with him.

Of course, we can communicate with familiar animals to a certain extent ourselves simply by coming to understand what their behaviour is telling us. If our cat scratches around the door then we know he wants to get outside, and we learn from experience that a wagging tail means we ought to leave him alone.

I'm trying to think of an instance where a creature other than a dragon physically speaks to more than one person. Huan? He is a creature from Valinor so quite obviously different in some way. The other instances are from The Hobbit as far as I can see, which is different in tone and more recognisably 'magical' than LotR, so speaking creatures might be expected. I wonder if there are more instances? If so, then it could be that those creatures are indeed communicating. I'm not including Ents as they were taught to speak by the Elves, and as such could it be said that they had an inherent language?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Boromir -

The fox did not physically speak, but his thoughts could not be considered "typical" of an animal. In fact, the patterns of the words imply a kind of internal speech:

A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped several minutes and sniffled.

"Hobbits!" he thought. "Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them? There's something mighty queer behind this." He was quite right, but he never found out any more about it.

That fox (almost like Tom Bombadil) is seemingly part of the natural world and oblivious to the shifting battles of right and wrong. Yet, just like Tom, that fox could never exist in a world where the Ring or Sauron reigned supreme. Under that scenario, all of Middle-earth would eventually be reduced to the condition of Mordor, with most of natural life snuffed out and the few remnents left struggling to survive. So although the fox is unaware (as Tom is blissfully unaware) his entire being and way of life is actually dependent on those three hobbits.

My guess is that, as a Catholic, Tolkien felt this way about life in general. There are things that happen in another realm (in the case of Man that would be the spiritual) on which we are truly dependent, but that we do not have the awareness or understanding to comprehend the struggle that is actually going on.

[davem]

I wonder where the talking badgers of the Adventures of Tom Bombadil fit in? I suppose this poem could be seen as a link between the world of traditional fairy tale & that of mythic history. Those two worlds seem to meet & blend in the Old Forest.

One thought did strike me- a 'connection' of sorts between The Hobbit & the story of Sigurd & Fafnir. Sigurd slays the dragon Fafnir & by consuming his heart comes ot understand the speech of birds. Bard, on the other hand, through his ability to understand the speech of a bird is able to kill Smaug - by shooting him through the heart.

I wonder also about Sam's words in reference to Bill, that if he statyed in Rivendell much longer he'd learn to speak. As Lalwende pointed out *about Ents, it was the Elves who taught them to speak. One wonders if they had equal facility in teaching animals speech...

(From Aldarion & Erendis: To Erendis they gave a pair of birds, grey, with golden beaks and feet...

'How shall I keep them?' said Erendis.

'Let them fly & be free,' answered the Eldar. 'For we have spoken to them & named you; and they will stay wherever you dwell.'

* Without once mentioning sanwe