Beornings

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I thought Tolkien knew EVERYTHING!?!?!??

Well maybe he did know that then!
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]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

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]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Beorn's hereditary ability of skin changing

Why do you believe it is hereditary?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Maerbenn

Why do you believe it is hereditary?

Because he passed it on to his descendents.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

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....*

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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

Originally Posted by Valandil

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]

Originally Posted by Olmer

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]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

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]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

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 for more accurate and reliable information.

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

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

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]

Originally Posted by Olmer

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]

Originally Posted by Olmer

...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]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Heh, I like the way you said that. I may quote you on that (in other instances than just now).

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Er, ditto.

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.

[random]I need a new signature quote.[/random]

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Olmer

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]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

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]

Originally Posted by ItalianLegolas

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!