Writing | History | Books
What has Tolkien got against Wolves?
Me Tolkien Nonsense
Tolkien numbered wolves amongst creatures that were inherently evil, but why? Most of the other “evil” creatures are more understandable. Spiders, for example. Ungoliant in the Silmarillion, the spiders of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, and Shelob in Lord of the Rings were negative portrayals, but in truth it is difficult to really like spiders so that is understandable. The Nazgul have their winged steeds: “A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, lingering in forgotten mountains cold beneath the Moon, outstayed their day, and in hideous eyrie bred this last untimely brood, apt to evil.” What Tolkien had against Pterosaurs is also questionable, but possibly less easily answered. Also there are bats, vampire bats to be specific, which shelter the goblin army as they march to the Battle of the Five armies. Bats are generally easier to like than spiders, but still, these are vampire bats.
And then there are the wolves.
The wolf, Canis lupus, was widespread in the Northern Hemisphere, represented by a number of subspecies. For much of that range they are the largest carnivore. Our best friends, dogs, are domesticated wolves. The exact date of their integration into human society is complicated by the fact that a dog will look like a wolf until domestication leaves archaeological evidence. At the moment estimates range from 15,000 to 30,000 years ago.
Hence humans have a complicated history with wolves, rather like the Norse god Odin, who had wolf friends yet was killed by a wolf.
When we look at Indigenous cultures, the wolf is typically recognised as a kindred spirit, an intelligent and caring animal, loyal to its pack. The Secret History of the Mongols records that the Mongolian people consider themselves as being descended from a wolf.
In the legends of the ancient world we have Aesop’s “the boy who cried wolf” in which the human is the problem and the wolf is simply doing what is natural to it, which is typical of Aesop. Wolves aren't necessarily wicked or cruel, they just need to eat. Similarly the Roman myth of Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf provides a very positive perception of wolves. Wolves were sacred to Mars, the god of War, and across the Indo-European region the attributes of the wolf is that of the warrior.
In all these ancient cultures we are typically dealing with flocks being tended by shepherds wandering across the landscape in what may be termed “common” land. The population of Europe more than doubled between 1000 and 1500, and grew even faster afterwards. As density grew through the Medieval period conflicts grew between agricultural use and free-range livestock use. “Enclosure” of “Common” lands increased and in 1604 there is the first “Enclosure Act” in England, making it state policy to put up fences.
The growing use of fences to enclose livestock across Europe meant that when wolves did manage to get into a herd of livestock, the prey animals did not have their usual resort of running away. Rather than just taking enough to eat, the wolves killed everything in a phenomenon known as “surplus killing,” first defined by Hans Kruuk in 1972.
Many species are known to practice surplus killing. Although it may appear wasteful, studies have shown that predators will return to the site and also “cache” kills by burying them, returning later to feed. Surplus killing is thought to be rare in wolves with regard to wild prey, but common with domestic prey.
So due to increasing enclosures medieval Europeans were witness to what in their eyes looked like wolves being “greedy,” “thoughtless,” and “cruel,” attributes humans recognised in themselves.
Werewolves also became a prevalent belief in Europe. Lycanthropy had existed in the ancient world, but had no especially negative connotations. However the perception of greed, thoughtlessness, and cruelty, all significant human attributions, made it natural for a new kind of wolf-man to exist.
So in medieval European myth the “Big bad wolf” became predominant, or as Merry puts it, “old bogey-stories … about goblins and wolves and things of that sort”. One of the most popular of tales that saw variations throughout the period involves Isengrim the greedy and stupid wolf and Reynard the wily fox. Tolkien actually named the oldest son of the Old Took Isengrim and he succeeded Gerontius as Thane.
Medieval Christian Europeans would often cite the teachings of Jesus who often used the pastoral flock as a metaphor for his people. As the “enemy” of the “flock” wolves were demonised. However, the negative attributes of greed, thoughtlessness, and cruelty were not derived from Biblical attributions which on the whole are positive, and so must have another rationale.
So I suspect it was this medieval tradition that influenced Tolkien to make wolves a villain of his work. Smaug’s description of “I have eaten his people like a wolf among sheep” in reference to the people of Dale in reality refers to a wolf amongst sheep in a pen.
Tolkien at times calls his wolves “wargs.” In The Hobbit “wolf” and “warg” become interchangeable, although he specifically says that their language is “Warg.” The use of “wolf” is far more common in Lord of the Rings, indeed it is the name of one of Farmer Maggot’s dogs! Tolkien may have been trying to create some distance between the wolves of his writings and real wolves with use of the term warg. Tolkien referred to “warg” as being “a name for this particular brand of demonic wolf” in a letter to a Mr. Wolfe. In the letter he also says warg “is an old word for wolf, which also had the sense of an outlaw or hunted criminal.”
So although it seems fair to hypothesise that Tolkien’s initial take on the wolf was influenced by rapacious and wicked fairy tale wolves, he also wanted to distinguish his fairy-tale wolves, the Wargs, from the wolf as found in nature.
