Ents are not Trees

[Rivvy Elf]

Hroom hrum, I've seen enough misinformation online on Reddit, other forums, and in real life that ents are trees. A rather hasty assumption from pre-conceived notions, the movies, and a lack of close reading into linguistics and the words from Fangorn himself, I fear.

The primary source I will use for this is... Fangorn himself, in the Two Towers. He is a reliable primary source as he is, in fact, an ent. Not just an ent, but one of the eldest. His words, therefore, carry very heavy weight.

Exhibit #1: "[...] for the Ents loved the great trees; and the wild woods, and the slopes of the high hills; and they drank of the mountain-streams, and ate only such fruit as the trees let fall in their path." -Two Towers, Treebeard chapter, page 46 of the online pdf I'm using.

I hope this doesn't become a balrog wing thing because then one could argue that the drinking of mountain-streams also is a metaphor. Treebeard is not a hasty person and would surely not misspeak and would clarify if "fruit" meant something vernacularly different. So Ents eat fruit. Please please do not turn this into Balrog wing argument. I'm begging you.

The counterargument I accept would be an example of a fruit-eating tree from the ground. It has to be something akin to eating, like a Venus flytrap tree. If it's absorbing nutrients, then Treebeard would've used a similar term to absorb, I'm pretty sure.

Exhibit #2: The term Tree-ish. Does one call a stone "rocky?" Does one call a stone "stony?" Then does one call a Tree, Tree-ish? Ents are not trees based on that analogy. I'll say that exhibit #2 is weaker evidence than exhibit #1 but that's how I read it when I read the term "Tree-ish."

Exhibit #3: Ents are Tree Shepherds. Are sheep shepherds sheep? Can they wear sheep skin? Yes, shepherds can wear sheep skin. But did people in Tolkien's time think there was a possibility that sheep shepherds could be sheep? If not, then a Tree shepherd is not a tree. Fangorn would've used a different analogy to describe it if that were the case.

Feel free to post your counterarguments, agreements, comments, and questions in this thread. Hopefully, this does not become a controversial debate topic.

[Lail]

thank you. that's all I have to say for now but the Ents are trees thing bugs me.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

What about the Huorns? Are they trees?

[Rivvy Elf]

@Chrysophylax Dives I'll instinctively say yes. In the same chapter, Treebeard talks about trees that become more and more "Ent-ish." He directly clarifies that some of them are bad, but their wood itself isn't bad. I'm assuming those and huorns are one and the same. The same linguistic rule applies here.

Very hard to tell the difference between a Huorn and a regular tree because, at the end of Helm's Deep, most are confused about how all of a sudden a forest showed up that wasn't there a day or two ago. Going off of memory there.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

thank you Rivvy Elf.

I assume Entwives are also not trees, but Old Man Willow is?

(By the by, i was reading your comments on @Saranna's paper and wish you would post more in Lore. I don't know the Silmarillion material in anything like the way i do the two Hobbit stories and would love to read more of your wider perspective.)

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Tolkien Gateway publishes this clearly on Ents and Huorns with his inspirations with some footnotes. Old Man Willows seems to me also likely an Ent gone treeish, he casts spells and can hear Bombadil's song. Sorry futher for my meager research. - Aiks


1. Ents were 14-foot tall creatures like humanoid trees with very thick skin resembling tree bark. They resembled the trees that they shepherded. An individual Ent more or less resembled the specific species of tree that they typically guarded or honored, to the point of the personality one might expect from that tree.[6] Thus they varied in height and size, colouring, and in number of fingers and toes. For example, Quickbeam guarded rowan trees and thus looked very much like a rowan.

There were trees that were awake or half-awake, and some were entish and Ents could awake or talk with some of them. Treebeard aroused some Huorns to destroy Isengard.[16]

Ents were dwelling in Ent-houses and were nourished by Ent-draughts. They were immortal (although they could be damaged or killed with sufficient force) and along with it, they were deliberate and slow in thought, decision and action. Their slow, long-winded language reflected this; of other languages they preferred Quenya, which they also spoke in an agglutinating, long-winded way like Entish.

However, once aroused, they possessed great strength, which resembled the age-long action of trees accelerated, crushing rocks and moving earth in seconds.[6] Though susceptible to pain, their thick skin made them very difficult to harm with metal weapons (they are much more vulnerable to fire). Treebeard boasted that they were much more powerful than Trolls, which Morgoth supposedly made as imitations of the Ents (he compares this with how Orcs were an imitation of Elves).

The length of an ent-stride was about 4 feet. With about 2.2 strides per second, an Ent could cover a speed of about 6 miles per hour[17]

[6]Robert Foster, The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, entry "Ents"
[16] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, "Flotsam and Jetsam"
[17] Tolkien's calculations in Marquette paper MSS 4/2/19


2. Huorns were creatures much like Ents, although they do not appear to have been truly sentient. Huorns had great power and could wrap themselves in shadow. When angry, they were able to move with great speed. The Huorns further had voices, as they could speak with the Ents. When no Ents looked after them, the Huorns were "queer and wild", a threat to the Free peoples.[1]

[1]J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, "Flotsam and Jetsam"


3. Old Man Willow, also known as the Great Willow, was a willow tree in the Old Forest that stood near the Withywindle. He might have been an Ent who had become tree-like, or possibly a Huorn, as the Old Forest was originally part of the same primordial forest as Fangorn. The Great Willow was evil-hearted and from it much of the Forest's hatred of walking things came.[1] Despite his power, Tom Bombadil, who called him Old grey Willow-man, had power over him, and checked the evil as much as he could, or was willing. On 26 September T.A. 3018[2] Old Man Willow cast a spell on the Hobbits, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, causing them to feel sleepy. Merry and Pippin leaned against the trunk and fell asleep, while Frodo sat on a root to dangle his feet in the water, before also falling asleep. The tree trapped Merry and Pippin in cracks in the trunk, and tipped Frodo into the stream. Sam managed to fight off the spell and rescued Frodo from the stream. Together they attempted to save Merry and Pippin by lighting a fire at the tree's base, but this only served to infuriate Old Man Willow, who threatened to kill the trapped hobbits. They were saved by the timely arrival of Tom Bombadil who knew "the tune for him".[1]

[1]J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, "The Old Forest"
[2] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Appendix B, "The Great Years"


**********

At several points, Tolkien specifically stated that the Ents were a spontaneous invention while writing Treebeard (chapter), without any recollection of previous thought or premeditation.[29][30][4] In another point, Tolkien admitted that the Ents perhaps had a remote influence from the animate trees of the Fairy Land in George MacDonald's Phantastes.[31] Whilst in a letter to W.H. Auden, Tolkien notes that they were perhaps borne from his own frustration with Shakespeare's Macbeth: "Their part in the story is due, I think, to my bitter disappointment and disgust from schooldays with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of 'Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill'"[32] - From Tolkien Gateway on Ents.

[29] J.R.R. Tolkien; Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien (eds.), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 162, (dated 18 April 1955)
[30] J.R.R. Tolkien; Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien (eds.), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 180, (dated 14 January 1956)
[4]J.R.R. Tolkien; Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien (eds.), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 247, (dated 20 September 1963)
[31]J.R.R. Tolkien, "Letter to L.M. Cutts" (letter), Sotheby's English Literature, History, Fine Bindings, Private Press Books, Children's Books, Illustrated Books and Drawings 10 July 2003
[32] J.R.R. Tolkien; Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien (eds.), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 163, (dated 7 June 1955)

[Rivvy Elf]

@Chrysophylax Dives

Thank you for the compliment! I appreciate it and it means a lot because your posts are quite informative and thought provoking.

That would be dramatic if the real reason why the Entwives left the Ents was that the Ents ate fruit? What a twist that would be! But I'll assume that they are not trees because this brings up entire ethical quandaries with the analogical reasoning that Treebeard uses with sheep and shepherds. Pretty sure Tolkien would've been against analogies remotely close to bestiality.

As for Old Man Willow. Fangorn implicitly disagrees with the notion that Old Man Willow is an ent, @Aikári Salmarinian. In the "Treebeard" chapter of the Two Towers, here is the passage I'll use as support:

"He was immensely interested in everything: in the Black Riders, in Elrond, and Rivendell, in the Old Forest, and Tom Bombadil, in the Mines of Moria, and in Lothlorien and Galadriel. He made them describe the Shire and its country over and over again. He said an odd thing at this point. 'You never see any, hm, any Ents round there do you?' he asked. 'Well, not Ents, Entwives I should really say.' "

If Fangorn thought Old Man Willow was an ent, he would not have phrased the "You never see any, hm, any Ents round there do you?" He would have surely mentioned something. Even perhaps muttered something about possibly visiting the Old Forest to directly ask Old Man Willow about any Entwives. He also is familiar with the Old Forest as earlier...

"And then there are some trees in the valleys under the mountains, sound as a bell, and bad right through. That sort of thing seems to spread. There used to be some very dangerous parts in this country. There are still some very black patches.'
'Like the Old Forest away to the north, do you mean?' asked Merry.
'Aye, aye, something like, but much worse.' "

To clarify, Merry and Pippin tell Treebeard about their adventures in the Old Forest after this conversation

So Old Man Willow probably is one of those trees that were becoming bad and entish.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hmmm. I thought I was clear on all this at the start of this thread. But now I am not so sure. My basic question is this: should/could we call Old Man Willow a Huorn?

What Aiks gives (from Tolkien Gateway?) is ambiguous and so not a satisfactory stopping point:

He might have been an Ent who had become tree-like, or possibly a Huorn, as the Old Forest was originally part of the same primordial forest as Fangorn.

So we are to imagine the army of Huorns as a mass of Old Man Willows? That does not sit right to me. Old Man Willow seems as singular as Bombadil. He holds all the Old Forest in his sway. Just as Treebeard is not Bombadil so I feel Willowman is not a Huorn.

On the Ents more generally, from what I know, I'll add a couple of points to what Aiks gives above:

At several points, Tolkien specifically stated that the Ents were a spontaneous invention while writing Treebeard (chapter), without any recollection of previous thought or premeditation.[29][30][4] In another point, Tolkien admitted that the Ents perhaps had a remote influence from the animate trees of the Fairy Land in George MacDonald's Phantastes.[31] Whilst in a letter to W.H. Auden, Tolkien notes that they were perhaps borne from his own frustration with Shakespeare's Macbeth: "Their part in the story is due, I think, to my bitter disappointment and disgust from schooldays with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of 'Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill'"[32] - From Tolkien Gateway on Ents.

So etymology the Ents are the 'eotenas' of Beowulf, who have a curious relationship with the 'gīgantas':

Þanon untȳdras ealle onwöcon,
eotenas ond ylfe ond orcnēās,
swylce gīgantas, þā wið Gode wunnon
lange þrāge; hë him ðæs lean forgeald. [Klaeber, lines 106-114]

Of him all evil broods were born, ogres and goblins and haunting shapes of hell, and the giants too, that long time warred with God – for that he gave them their reward. (Tolkien’s translation, Beowulf T&C 16)

The eotenas and the giants appear to be the same at other points in the poem, but eotenas is Old English while gīgantas is from Latin scripture (Genesis 6). The connections are mysterious but point to the idea of a race of mighty giants who did mighty work but have now perished from the face of the Earth. The Anglo-Saxons looked on the Roman ruins of the British Isles - constructions that they did not have the means to replicate themselves - as the work of the giants of old.

From this etymological perspective LotR draws a distinction between the ancient mighty ones who built the great works of stone, who are the sea-kings of old, the Numenorean exiles of the days of Elendil, on the one hand, and the Ents on the other - who turn out to have nothing to do with making towers and other ancient stonework, but rather the making of them into a ruin - which they literally do in Isengard (though they cannot harm Orthanc). I think the image of the roots of trees digging into ancient stone steps as nature gradually reduces an ancient building to ruin has something to do with Tolkien's imagination of the Ents.

And switching tack completely, in the early drafts of LotR we find Gandalf in Rivendell apologizing to Frodo for failing to turn up at Bag-end:

I was caught in Fangorn and spent many weary days as a prisoner of the Giant Treebeard (Shadow 363).

Note that we have Fangorn and Treebeard but no Ent. Treebeard is a (bad) Giant, so recognizably like the eotenas of Beowulf. It seems like here we have a first step to the imagination that we know, but that when the word actually pops out into use the conception is almost the opposite. I'd almost suspect that the pivot was the name 'Treebeard' - originally the proper name of a Giant but prompting Tolkien to connects the eotenas with trees!

This, by the way, or variations on it, is what we see again and again in these early drafts. It is really mind-blowing trying to fathom it.

And @Rivvy Elf - in this post you see what I know, or at least have read. Don't be fooled on the Beowulf, I am not Anglo-Saxon scholar and find Old English almost as hard to read as French. What you see above is simply the fruit of years of careful reading of Tolkien's various writings on Beowulf, followed by years of careful reading of the early drafts of both The Hobbit and LotR. These are my areas of 'expertise,' if you will. And the other side of that coin is that I really appreciate reading your wider Silmarillion speculations because the only thing I am sure about in these other writings of Tolkien is I that I don't understand, nor even really have a good feel for them.

I write what (I think) I know about but I come to this site to read others who know what I don't know about.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Chrys: I know it is a bit of ambiguous site to use, but that is why I added the copied footnotes in my post. But it is accepted to use for facts in RPG. I am no scholar either on Anglo-Saxon or German content. And like you I am learning from others along the way. I use quite often their footnotes to find the information back in the books. Thanks for your points in the argument, they are enlightening to me.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hi Aiks, I use Tolkien Gateway all the time - it seems the best of the Wikis. I was not criticizing your usage, just adding to what you reported.

[Silky Gooseness]

@Chrysophylax Dives it is so interesting that you brought up eotenas . I hadn’t really made the linguistic link before but it now seems to me that this is cognate with jötunn of Norse mythology, and from the same root comes the English Ettin, from whence we have the Ettenmoors: the Troll-fells.

I say interesting because the jötunn are “giants”, but some are benign, and some are monstrous, but all are broadly the same race. And if the word from whence sprung “ent” is also translated across to “troll”, which I don’t think linguistically happens with the other minion peoples, I’m not really sure where it’s going but… it’s interesting.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

it now seems to me that this is cognate with jötunn of Norse mythology, and from the same root comes the English Ettin, from whence we have the Ettenmoors: the Troll-fells.

Yes, I think so. The connection of Ents and Trolls is stated by Treebeard:

Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves.

But the jötunn side of things also shows how tangled everything is. For example, it connects the Ents indirectly with the story of Ingeld and Freawaru and the burning of Heorot, which is one of the stones in the background of Beowulf. At least the connection is drawn for us by Tolkien in 'On Fairy-stories' when he contrasts this story of love that crosses two warring tribes - Danish princess and Heathobard king - with the later tale told in Old Icelandic of how Frey falls in love with Gerðr, daughter of Gymir the jötunn.

In addition, there is a whole other controversy about the 'eotenas' in relation to the Fight at Finnesburg, because some scholars read giants but Tolkien here insists that there are no giants or monsters at all but only Jutes.

And to make matters even worse, as i noted above, the Anglo-Saxon author of Beowulf evidently sees a parallel between the 'eotenas' of ancient northern story and the 'nephalim' or giants of the Book of Genesis, who, to be blunt, are obscure in the extreme, although, as the old poet saw, bound up (somehow) in the story of the Flood. So now we have deluges of biblical proportions and love between enemies, both human and other. And somehow we end up with Treebeard and the Ents!

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Just came upon this which touches on some of the above, in Michael Drout's edition of Tolkien's 'Beowulf and the Critics' (p.66). This is Tolkien writing in 1933.

Thus though the passages in Beowulf concerning the giants and their war with God (1689-1693 and 113-114) are certainly related directly (as are the names of Cain and Abel) to Scripture; especially Genesis chapter vi, they cannot nonetheless be dissasociated from the giants of northern mythology, the ever encircling foes of Asgard - just as the undoubted reference to Cain connects him with eoten and ylfe, the álfar and jötnar of Norse mythology.

Edited: Drout's edition contains two versions of the material, from 1933 and 1935, much is word for word the same and certain oddities of the above passage in version A disappear in version B, so i ammended accordingly. to be honest, i think Drout misread Genesis vi for Genesis ii on version A, at least he gives Genesis vi in version B and this chapter makes more sense.

[Silky Gooseness]

Thanks for that reference - I hadn’t seen that before!

[Chrysophylax Dives]

This Ents thread has got a niggle in my mind about the Entwives and the love of Frey and Gerðr. Is Gerðr an Entwife? Maybe the Entwives went off to Valinor or something?

Edit: came back to edit the quote from 1933/35, which points to the chief thesis of the famous 1936 lecture at the British Academy, 'Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics.' Basically, in my opinion, if a key is ever to unlock Tolkien's imagination, it is to be found in this quote - the idea of a moment of 'fusion' when the newly converted Anglo-Saxons as it were saw two worlds at once, still telling the old stories of a now ancient homeland, embedded in an ancient mythology, while perceiving also a glimpse of eternity beyond the walls of the world, so that the old battle within them is with the foes of God. Tolkien saw this and proclaims that it is therefore obvious why Cain and Abel are the only two proper names from Scripture that are mentioned in Beowulf. I have no clear idea why he says this.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hroom hrum,
Feel free to post your counterarguments, agreements, comments, and questions in this thread. Hopefully, this does not become a controversial debate topic.

So nobody is arguing that Ents are Trees. Apparently, we all agree that Ents are not Trees. But can we also agree that Ents and Trees are kin? That they have a family resemblance because of some genealogical romance in a shared ancient history?

[Elenhir]

But can we also agree that Ents and Trees are kin? That they have a family resemblance because of some genealogical romance in a shared ancient history?

No. In manner of flesh and form, Ents are trolls cosplaying as trees. They are to trees as goths are to vampires. Or that old meme about how pet owners look like their dogs.

[Saranna]

Chrysophylax Dives wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 11:23 am
But can we also agree that Ents and Trees are kin? That they have a family resemblance because of some genealogical romance in a shared ancient history?

I can see no reason not to agree with that.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Chrysophylax Dives it is so interesting that you brought up eotenas . I hadn’t really made the linguistic link before but it now seems to me that this is cognate with jötunn of Norse mythology, and from the same root comes the English Ettin, from whence we have the Ettenmoors: the Troll-fells.

I say interesting because the jötunn are “giants”, but some are benign, and some are monstrous, but all are broadly the same race. And if the word from whence sprung “ent” is also translated across to “troll”, which I don’t think linguistically happens with the other minion peoples, I’m not really sure where it’s going but… it’s interesting.

Sounds a bit like humans, to me. This one is worth keeping an eye on, i say. Here from 'On Translating Beowulf'.

Old English (or Anglo-Saxon) is not a very difficult language... But the idiom and diction of Old English verse is not easy. Its manner and conventions, and its metre, are unlike those of modern English verse. Also it is preserved fragmentarily and by chance, and has only in recent times been redeciphered and interpreted, without the aid of any tradition or gloss: for in England, unlike Iceland, the old Northern poetic tradition was at length completely broken and buried.

As a result many words and phrases are met rarely or only once. There are many words only found in Beowulf. An example is eoten 'giant' 112, etc. This word, we may believe on other evidence, was well known, though actually it is only recorded in its Anglo-Saxon form in Beowulf, because this poem alone has survived of the oral and written matter dealing with such legends.

Here are lines 107-114 (emphasis mine):

in Caines cynne þone cwealm gewræc
éce drihten þæs þe hé Ábel slóg·
ne gefeah hé þaére faéhðe ac hé hine feor forwræc
metod for þý máne mancynne fram·
þanon untýdras ealle onwócon
eotenas ond ylfe ond orcnéäs
swylce gígantas þá wið gode wunnon
lange þráge· hé him ðæs léan forgeald.

So, this is of Cain and his necromantic brood. The gígantas are the Latin giants of Scripture (nephalim in Hebrew). orcnéäs = Barrow-wights (says Tolkien).

But look at the eotenas and ylfe - ents and elves. The Anglo-Saxon deemed the Elves monsters, children of Cain. So when considering the ambiguous place of Ents and giants in all this, worth considering also that Tolkien spent a lifetime correcting the Anglo-Saxon poet on the elves too.

[Silky Gooseness]

Interesting to see orcnéäs for Barrow-wights when it seems so strongly cognate with Orcs. But Tolkien does flit around a bit species-wise as well, I suppose: Gandalf is originally a Dwarf’s name, right?

[Chrysophylax Dives]

You gotta be careful how you work me. I have five children at home - to be fair, two are being put to work to look after two, but it is still a headache and i need this hole in the head of a holiday to end - Sunday they all flee back to school and such. You did not need to know any of that, but....

"orcnéäs for Barrow-wights when it seems so strongly cognate with Orcs" --> if you wish i can copy and paste relevant passages from 2014 commentary.

Gandalf = Dwarf's name, right? Were i back in my old 'watch-out-for-admin-cunning' mode i would flee this trap. you open up the Icelandic texts... and so you open up the heart of the English learning about their lost tradition, which they did in the later 19th century and on from the one living source, Iceland.

Tldr: most of Hobbit Dwarf names are from the Voluspa. In the first drafts, Gandalf is the name of the chief Dwarf. Chief dwarf soon enough = Thorin, and Gandalf = wizard (prior name: Bladorthin). The change is obviously made, as Tom Shippey long ago pointed out, from philological inspection of the proper name - 'gand' = staff and 'alf= elf. So somehow one of the Dwarves in this odd catalogue of the Dwarves is actually an Elf with a staff - or maybe simply a wizard.

Now, ideally i'd like to charge for information like that. Obviously, i am not going to do so here on the plaza, where i get free room and board (breakfast bit lacking on the bacon, i might say). But please take into consideration that i am not only here to answer hippy-trippy wood-elf questions. I am trying to finish my book.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hroom hrum, I've seen enough misinformation online on Reddit, other forums, and in real life that ents are trees. A rather hasty assumption from pre-conceived notions, the movies, and a lack of close reading into linguistics and the words from Fangorn himself, I fear.

Feel free to post your counterarguments, agreements, comments, and questions in this thread. Hopefully, this does not become a controversial debate topic.

Right. I am not making my own case. Rather i bear witness - in my rank and title - to some old plaza minion's misconception on the deal with Trees and Ents. Right?

If so, could we organize a meeting for discussion as to whether this should be rectified in the interest of canon or maintained out of a decayed sense of old plaza identity? Please.

[Rivvy Elf]

@Chrysophylax Dives ?

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Well, i am an Ent. Yes?

Not by proper name. By proper name i am a dragon. But by plaza-species or whatever u call it, i am an Ent.

Recently, following a regrettable icarus nightmare, i advanced my rank from seedling (or whatever is written in as a label onto my being that i had no choice in but meekly accepted, as do i nearly all plaza rulings and ways however damned stupid they might appear), well, when i got promoted to the next rank, then, i, a common Ent, became:

A Tree

Look above. It says so on the label. So if you are serious that the distinction between Ents and Trees matters then i am at present the victim of an identity mislabelling. which may explain much, and might do permanent harm to me. So i think it matters very much to establish, collectively, as the plaza, or nuplaza or whatever it is, not merely your initial Lore question, but also:

What harm is being done by an Ent (myself) being a Tree (me)? And also, who is doing the harm? And who is suffering?

These questions i ask not just academically. They are at the root of my plaza identity.

[Rivvy Elf]

Technically you are a resident of Fangorn forest by the old plaza kingdom classification. Trees live in Fangorn do they not?

Entings are baby ents by the way, not seedlings