Beowulf’s name translates to “bee-wolf”. The name is an artistic euphemism, meaning bear.
Many heroes in Norse sagas are given similar kennings which indirectly mean bear. But why?
Beetlejuice.
The Indo-European word for bear was *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. In Greek this became “arktos”; In Latin, “ursus”.
Our word “arctic” is derived from the Greek “arktos”, implying lands suitable only to the bears. A land for beasts, not man.
Most European languages have a word relating to the Latin “ursus”. Italian, “orso”. Spanish, “oso”, etc.
Curiously, the Northern Germanic languages developed starkly different words: German bär, Norse bjørn, and English bear.
The English word means something like “brown one”.
The people of Northern Europe created crafty euphemisms to avoid calling bears by their actual (more ancient) name. These cultures held a belief that bears understood their real name, and would be summoned by it.
While the Norse and Germanics clearly feared these furry terrors, they also admired them. Bears embodied strength, courage, valor, and wisdom.
Naturally, they wanted their sons to possess the qualities they saw in these awesome stewards of the North.
They crafted clever kennings to endow their sons with the attributes of bears, while still paying them their due respect and caution.
For example, in Hrolf Kraki’s Saga there is an entire family of “Bear people”:
A Prince named Bjørn (meaning Bear) loves a woman named Bera (she-bear) who bears a son named Bothvar (little bear).
Bjørn is cursed to become a bear daily, while Bothvar goes on to become a renowned hero.
In fact, like Beowulf, Bjørn saves a Danish hall from a monster (in this case essentially a dragon) which brought destruction every Yule.
Such motifs where a warrior associated with a bear performs tremendous feats of heroism became a common archetype.
Of course some Norse were also known to be Berserkers, men who channeled the spirit of the bear into their fighting, often wearing bear or wolf pelts into battle. In the sagas these men are often portrayed as abandoning all reason for animalistic rage.
Other warriors in Norse literature partially take on berserker-like qualities, without becoming one themselves.
For example in Grettir’s Saga a man named Bjørn insults our hero by throwing his cloak into a bear’s den.
Grettir defeats the bear, foreshadowing his triumph of Bjørn. He brings back the paw of the bear, a trophy similar to one typically taken by a Berserker.
Yet Grettir is no Berserk, and he frequently kills the loathsome and criminal berserkers he encounters.
Grettir then shows a bear warrior aligned with Beowulf and Bothvar. They are men endowed with traits of bears but retaining the wit and virtue of men. Unlike a berserker, they are not prone to mindless frenzy but display the cunning and strength of the “brown one”.
It’s not hard to squint at this and see the beginnings of chivalry emerging from these northern cultures. Beowulf represents one evolution between traditional Norse heroes and later Arthurian Legends with the baptism of the bear man.
*correction: it is Bothvar that saves the Danish hall.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s no secret that Tolkien disliked Shakespeare and drama more broadly. He loved myth so deeply that Shakespeare’s more politically grounded plays irritated him.
Macbeth particularly it seems.
Tolkien took particular issue with the Scottish play because of the dramatized myth presented by the Weird Sisters. In his essay “On Fairy-Stories” he noted that in drama “disbelief had not so much to be suspended as hanged, drawn and quartered.”
He goes on to say he finds the sisters “intolerable” in Macbeth and points to it as a prime example of why drama is destructive of fantasy:
“To be dissolved, or degraded, is the likely fate of fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare.
Herod heavily questioned the Lord. “But he answered him nothing.”
“And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.”
But still, he had the composure to remain silent. With dignity he withstood them and exposed their pettiness.
“And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him”
Was this a display of weakness or strong defiance in the face of naked corruption? Does his self control and aristocratic composure not inherently condemn the pretend prince Herod? He refused to legitimize them.
Coriolanus was especially popular. An American lawyer, Jonathan Sewall, wrote an epilogue to the play which was performed for troops in anew Hampshire.
The epilogue clearly tries to connect the American rebels with Coriolanus:
“But a majestic Roman, great and good,
Driv’n by his country’s base ingratitude,
…To arm for those he long in arms had brav’d,
And stab that nation he oft had sav’d.”
While Adam’s is clearly a believer in the US Republic, he’s not blind to possible failings. He is worried about outside influence by flattery, fraud, violence, or intrigue.
He calls foreign influence the “angel of destruction to elective governments”. (1/5)
He admits the possibility that the nation may be governed “not by choice of the American people”, if vigilance fails.
Adams seems to have foreign nations in mind, but in our day there is no shortage of knaves that could fit this bill. (2/5)
In his “Thoughts on Government”, he points to how important the ongoing moral education of the citizenry is:
“Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that to a humane and generous mind, (3/5)