Beorn

[Elmo]

Not quite like Tolkien's Elves - less 'spiritual'. There is a scene where an Elf woman appears & stays the night with one of the heroes & has a child by him, so the Elves are human sized & close enough to human kind to interbreed with them. However, they are proud & not forgiving of slights.

Unlike the Elves of the First Age, no?

[davem]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Unlike the Elves of the First Age, no?

Read the Saga & you'll see what I mean. There is an essential difference between the Icelandic Elves & Tolkien's which would take us a long way off topic.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Does Beorn 'not fit' with the Legendarium? I don't see any obvious reason that he shouldn't.

His height alone keeps him from fitting within the legendarium.

Good Mr BB has used textual evidence to peg Beorn at 12 feet. But according to the legendarium Tuor was the tallest man. No way was Tuor a dozen feet tall.

Kuru said it right-

I've always thought that Beorn danced on the margins of Tom Bombadilism

Beorn, like Bombadil, is difficult to make sense of.

How can he be just a man? When in Middle Earth do men turn into bears? If it's some sort of magic, wouldn't the men of Numenor, the most advanced men, be able to do it? Wouldn't Gondor have an army of giant bear-men? Or more likely, wouldn't Sauron?

Beorn doesn't make sense as a man within the legendarium. No way. The only way I can fit him into the legendarium is to theorize that he is descended from a human who wedded an Ainu who specialized in all things bear related.

[Lalwendë]

Been having a look into this and apparently berserkers were alleged to take on board the spirit forms of wolves or bears during battle - this is an aspect shared between Northern Scandinavian people and others of the Arctic, e.g. Siberian shamen. If Tolkien was making use of this concept he would not be the first - not only is it obviously found in the sagas but Pullman makes use of it too, plus it may the basis of Werewolf myths...

However there is something else to consider. Beorn after all is not a vicious man like a berserker. He reminds me of Gunnar in Njal's Saga - a gentle man who does not want to fight, but when roused is something of the Ultimate Fighter. Such figures take on almost mythical status in battle and the image of a ten/twelve foot tall Beorn is powerful. It is as though his height is a metaphor for his innate strength, rather like I see the 'wings' of the Balrog being metaphorical of its diabolical nature, or less controversially, Smith figures in mythology and folklore (such as Wayland) being seen as incredible magicians - to our eyes all they do is forge steel but to someone who does not understand what they do, they are magicians...

well it is quite clear that the hobbit was not originally intended to be a part of the legendarium so that is why beorn does not quite fit. Beorn is obviously not a man by the standards we know, he is probably some offshoot of men related to the giants of the mountains maybe. possibly even a maia.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

However there is something else to consider. Beorn after all is not a vicious man like a berserker. He reminds me of Gunnar in Njal's Saga - a gentle man who does not want to fight, but when roused is something of the Ultimate Fighter.

I'm not sure if the berserkers were vicious in the first place... just soldiers that got themself into a trance with some aids (mushrooms, alcohol or stuff like that) or just with some rituals. But anyhow Gunnar from Njall's saga is the very person that came into my mind as I hastily read through this thread. And knowing the prof's familiarity with the scandinavian legends it might have been a starting point - among the general idea of the berserkers.

But how does Beorn fit in with the Tolkien universe? That's a harder nut to crack. I kind of like this idea of "tombombadilism" (or him being a Maia or whatever) but that is arguable. Surely he would have had notes on that in his later years if that would have been the case. So maybe an earlier creation he didn't wish to include in his later world but couldn't undo him as the Hobbit had been published already?

In any case the silence about the beornings in general in the later works I find a bit troubling. Why did Tolkien bypass them if not for the reason that he disliked the ideas he had formed on them initially in his "children's book"?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm not sure if the berserkers were vicious in the first place... just soldiers that got themself into a trance with some aids (mushrooms, alcohol or stuff like that) or just with some rituals. But anyhow Gunnar from Njall's saga is the very person that came into my mind as I hastily read through this thread. And knowing the prof's familiarity with the scandinavian legends it might have been a starting point - among the general idea of the berserkers.

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

Other sources tell that they made their thrails eat these mushrooms and stuff and that they would then drink their urin in order to "Gå Berserker-gang" (walk berserker-walk). That is gross and therefor I like the stories about them doing it in a more spiritual way better. . .

But back to the topic. . .the problem with Beorn for me is that he has decendant who seem to get share of his powers and all that jazz, he seems to human like. He might have been a decndant of a Maia-Human thing or something of the sort, but I think that very thing that he dies before the war of the ring speaks for the argument that he him self was no maia.

May be a bit off topic, but berserkers used the fly agaric mushroom, amanitas muscaria as did many other cultures.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

The berserk thought that Grettir & the Farmer were stalling. He started to howl loudly & bite the edge of his shield. He put his shield in his mouth, spread his lips over the corner of it & acted like a savage. Grettir strode over to him & when he came alongside the berserk's horse he kicked the bottom of the shield up into his mouth so hard that his face ripped open & his jaws fell down to his chest. In a single action he grabbed the berserks helmet with his left hand & dashed him from his horse, & with his right hand he drew the short sword he was wearing & struck him on the neck, chopping off his head. When Snaekoll's companions saw this they fled in all directions. Grettir could not be bothered to chase them, for he could tell they were not at all brave.

or the swaggering but easily dispatched Berserkers in Hrolf Kraki's saga for instance, its clear that by the time of the Sagas they are simply thugs & trouble makers whose main role is to give the hero a bunch of bad guys to beat up.

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.