Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth

Queen of Heaven in Christianity

It seems a little strange that the section doesn't link to the "Queen of Heaven" article, which is almost entirely about the Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism (Tolkien was a Catholic)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You could just have linked it, a very small change, but I'll do it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that the info in the Queen of Heaven article might require more than "a very small change" to this article... What evidence is there that Tolkien knew anything about pagan associations, beyond the Bible verses in the book of Jeremiah, chapters 7 and 44 (see Queen of Heaven (antiquity)#Hebrew Bible references)? While he almost certainly was familiar with the Catholic practice. AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

J.R.R. Tolkien received a basic Classical-language education (something which was hard to avoid for boys with a scholarly inclination in his generation in the U.K.), but he was far more interested in Germanic mythology and folklore than in Greco-Roman. The "null hypothesis" (as scientists would say), is that he got the Queen of Heaven references from Roman Catholic practices. Anyone who claims that he got it from Mediterranean mythology needs to show that Tolkien had some significant interest in Mediterranean mythology. I'm skeptical about this, and certainly no evidence for it is presented on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Scepticism is welcome. The section does not make any assertion about where Tolkien "got it from", and he would certainly have sniffed at any such analysis. All it does is to cite multiple reliable sources to point out that there is an association, using words like "can equally be likened to". The connection between Elbereth and Eärendil's star, the morning/evening star (Venus) is not in doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

First off, there is no requirement that Wikipedia article talk page headers be "NPOV", so your header manipulations were unnecessary. It's perfectly legitimate to allege a problem on an article talk page, and then people will discuss this to decide whether or not there is a problem, and if so, what should be done about it.

Second, the fact that something references the planet Venus does not mean that it has any relevant connection to the Roman goddess Venus (much less her syncretized counterparts, Aphrodite in Greek mythology and Astarte in Syrian/Phoenician).

Third, the people you cite as sources for a pagan connection in the Queen of Heaven section may be very distinguished literary scholars, but if they only speculate as to how Tolkien might have been influenced by pagan mythologies, but don't present any real concrete evidence that he actually was influenced by pagan mythologies, then it's far from clear that the distinction of their literary scholarship entitles them to any position on this article.

Fourth, as I said before, the default assumption is that the material in Tolkien derives from the very well-developed practice of calling the Virgin Mary the "Queen of Heaven" in Roman Catholicism (as detailed at length in the relevant Wikipedia article). Given Tolkien's sincere Catholicism and lack of much interest in Mediterranean mythologies, explanations of pagan influence should therefore only be invoked if there is something which cannot easily be explained from Catholic influence. No evidence is presented on the article that there's anything in Tolkien which specifically requires pagan influence (not just Catholic influence) in this area.

Finally, it's very noticeable that the other paganism influence examples on the article are about vague generalized overall structures of mythology, or are specific to Germanic mythology and folklore (which Tolkien was very interested in). The Queen of Heaven thing is the only claimed influence from a specific non-Germanic mythology, which is not necessarily a problem in itself, but could be a problem when combined with other things I've mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be coming from some very particular personal place here, which is your right, but it's very difficult to see that it has the slightest bearing on the article, or indeed on Wikipedia. The article is soundly based on the scholarship that exists, i.e. on the reliable sources. That is *all* that an article is allowed to be based on, per Wikipedia's core policies. The section does not contain speculation, scholarly or otherwise, and it is wholly wrong of you to imply that it does. Talk, for instance, of "not necessarily a problem in itself, but could be a problem when combined with other things" is basically just disguised editorialising, an attempt to get your personal point of view into the article, overriding what the scholars have actually said on the matter: and that really is utterly unacceptable.

One other thing: you keep talking about influence, but that is not the subject of this article. There is no doubt that Tolkien was influenced by Norse mythology, but this article is about the (aspects of) paganism actually present in his writings. It is not a "sources" or "influences" article. If you keep trying to read it as such, you will only become confused, as that isn't what it's about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ON THE ARTICLE RIGHT NOW that the "Queen of Heaven" stuff in Tolkien's writings has any valid relationship to anything pagan, and there are indications from Tolkien's life which cast doubt on the idea that it had any real relationship to anything pagan. If the scholars you cite presented valid evidence that the Queen of Heaven did have some relationship to something pagan, then you should put such evidence on the article, properly cited. If they did not present such evidence, then they were merely speculating, no matter how elevated their literary scholarly reputation is. If this article isn't about influences, then what's it supposed to be about -- accidental parallelisms?? (That sure doesn't make sense to me.) The idea that having a "Queen of Heaven" in your system automatically makes it non-monotheistic is a Protestant point of view, and probably would not occur to most Catholics, so it could be considered sectarian to have this as an unquestioned assumption in the article (which is one of several potential concerns that I have about this article section)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I notice that the grounds of your lengthy and increasingly heated argumentation (no shouting, please, it's rude) are constantly shifting. The article is about paganism in Middle-earth, not influences, not parallelisms, just the thing itself. On "considered sectarian", no, the article, and for that matter this editor, is studiously neutral, favouring no sect, Christian or pagan; and there is no entity which your phrase "your system" can denote: there isn't one, beyond reporting on what has been reliably written about the subject, even-handedly. On whether any scholar is "speculating", that is nor for editors to say (that would be WP:OR directly, and the same for your remarks about Protestantism, etc), but is for other scholars to state or to refute. Which brings us back to what we should be doing, which is checking the sources. The first scholar cited on "Elbereth, the Elves' 'Queen of the Stars'" is Patrick Curry. He writes (page 112–113) that "these things often have other and far older lineages than just their relatively recent Christian versions". Let's see what he writes on page 114:

Then there is the matter of Eärendil. An Old English poem in the Exeter Book includes these words: 'Oh, Eärendel, brightest of angels, sent to men above Middle-earth' (or alternatively, 'sent from God to men'). Tolkien brought this passage to the attention of Clyde Kilby, describing them as 'Cynewulf's words from which ultimately sprang the whole of my mythology'. Kilby then asks rhetorically of Tolkien's mythology, 'can we then any longer doubt its profound Christian associations?' Well, we must certainly admit 'associations', but they are far from exclusive ones. For whereas Eärendel was originally simply 'the old name of a star or planet', Tolkien specifies it as the Morning and Evening Star, the brightest 'star' in the heavens — namely, Venus.

The associations surrounding Elbereth, Tolkien's fictional goddess of feminine compassion, point the same way. Her name translates as 'Star-lady' (alternatively, Elentari = 'Queen of the Stars' or Varda = 'Lofty'). Through the millennia-old identification of the planet and the goddess, Elbereth's antecedents as pagan Aphrodite-Venus are again just as precise and powerful as those of the Christian Virgin Mary, and considerably older. Indeed, they are those of Mary herself, honoured as the Queen of the Heavens, and already ancient when Lucretius (c. 99–55 BC) praised Venus, in words that any Elf would have found perfectly acceptable — 'Thou alone, O goddess, rulest over the totality of nature; without thee nothing comes to the heavenly shores of light, nothing is joyful, nothing lovable'.

Curry thus argues, from evidence, that a) Tolkien knew the material had Christian associations; b) the Queen of the Stars/Heavens is associated both with Venus and with Mary; and c) the Mary tradition is itself in line with the older goddess tradition. I've added direct attribution to Curry to make it clear that these are his views, and clarified the statement of his argument. Curry may be viewed as a pagan-favouring scholar; Stratford Caldecott was openly Catholic, and he too connects the hymn to Elbereth ("A Elbereth Gilthoniel") to the Marian hymn "Hail Queen of Heaven, the Ocean Star", as reported and cited in the article. This is thus agreed across the sectarian divide; and the opinions stated are not editorial. The section does not go beyond the sources, and they are reliable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Should "Despite J. R. R. Tolkien's assertion that The Lord of the Rings was a fundamentally Christian work" be removed from the lead?

Why should Christian works be expected not to mention paganism? Apokrif (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The remark sets the author and the work in context, setting up the reader's (and scholars' such as Hutton's) interest in the topic. If Tolkien had not been a devout Christian, and if he had not stated in terms that the book was fundamentally Christian, the paganism would have been no more remarkable than the taken-for-granted setting of, say, Conan the Barbarian. The point in Tolkien's case is that the "barbarians" are sensitive and virtuous, their morality constantly in view. To address your question directly, it's not that Christian works should not mention paganism, but it is definitely remarkable that one should focus intensively on paganism and (apparently) not look at Christianity at all. The scholarly conclusion, if we're allowed to do a bit of paraphrasing, is that the Christianity emerges through the interactions of the pagans with the "powers that be", and the scholars have (rightly, I think) been very interested in Tolkien's careful concealment of the Christianity, coupled with the extremely detailed working-out of the virtue of the good pagans and their moral struggles. The phrase is thus, to say the least, integral to the article; it's the article's raison d'etre. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Tolkien's work isn't pagan in substance or intention. It's fundamentally Catholic. It's super weird that this article exists at all. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The matters do not stand in opposition to each other. Tolkien was a Catholic; he was also a scholar expert in Medieval language and literature, and one expression of that was to make convincing pagan characters. It may help to point out that since the Third Age of Middle-earth was imagined to be in the distant past, long before the time of Christ, Tolkien could not put mentions of Christ into his Middle-earth writings. Instead, he carefully avoided almost any explicit mention of religion at all. That does not mean that Christianity does not shine through the writings for those who can spot the clues. I've put a note on your talk page about making comments on Wikipedia talk pages: I'll just note here that discussion here should be purely technical for the purposes of improving the article, and that it's forbidden to introduce personal views of any kind. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple explicit references to Christ in Tolkien's legendarium (IE, the Athrabeth). It is extremely ingenuous to try and claim that there are no mentions of Christ or Christianity in Tolkien's legendarium. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've been through a set of IP edits that have recently been made to this article. I have checked them individually to see if any of the changes were correct and necessary, and almost nothing was; even where the changes could have been correct if they had been cited to reliable sources, which they weren't, they were variously misleading, off-topic, or simply unnecessary. Other edits were pure editorializing, and have been reverted. I've also restored reliably-cited content; the removal of such materials when an editor simply does not agree or like them is unacceptable, basically indistinguishable from vandalism, not an ideal state of affairs. I realize having gone through the whole time-consuming exercise that I could have achieved quite a similar result by a single reversion, but at least I've added some more sources (Tolkien himself, as it happens) to prove that the original was correct as it stood. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is this article here?

What is the encyclopedic basis for this article? Does is derive from the subject matter of a book? Or maybe from any of Tolkien's correspondence? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the questions. I'm not sure why you'd ask, but if you imagine I've invented it as I secretly practise exciting rituals with goats, shamans, and virgins under the full moon, then I have to disabuse you: nothing like that. Instead, this is just one of a dozen or two major themes that scholars have puzzled over in Tolkien's writings. Maybe we'd better say that in the article.

You will see from the article's citations that multiple Tolkien scholars have devoted substantial effort to the analysis of what they see as Pagan themes in Tolkien's Middle-earth fiction. The list of reliable secondary sources includes 27 books and journal articles from 24 scholars, which is certainly more than sufficient coverage to meet the GNG criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The question that has interested many of them is the seeming contradiction between's Tolkien's devout Catholicism (and his assertion that The Lord of the Rings was a fundamentally Christian work, see the thread above) and the many strands of Paganism evident in his created mythology; this is discussed in detail in the article. I do hope this answers your questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

It seems like the person who wrote this article has a personal vendetta against Catholicism. Super weird. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What an extraordinary thing to say; couldn't be further from the truth. It might help to know that I also wrote Christianity in Middle-earth, among many others. Tolkien was a complex, well-read, and extremely intellectual author, and he made use of a wide range of sources and themes. This is just one of them, and the article is just one of many Wikipedia articles on his work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but you are making up these subject matters. I fail to see the encyclopedic value, if not notability. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No I'm not. The article is reliably sourced. Major Tolkien scholars like Tom Shippey have discussed the paganism and the other themes in Middle-earth at length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources to push an agenda or a narrative, especially one which is defamatory, offensive and factually incorrect, is not what Wikipedia should be about. It actually pretty scary that an article like this which promotes anti-Catholic bias has been allowed to persist as an article for this long. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The correct process if one feels an article fails WP:GNG is to go throw the the deletion process. It is not to make attack comments on the motivations of the contributors GimliDotNet (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue here isn't notability. It's that there is an article which defames the character of its subject (in this case by suggesting that a devout Catholic wasn't actually a Catholic, but was secretly a pagan). 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and your comments are hovering on the border between abuse and excess zeal or bias: rudeness is not permitted, and nor are Personal Attacks. I'll issue a formal warning now. I suggest you stop at once before you get permanently blocked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This article makes multiple attempts to downplay the fundamental Catholic character of Tolkien's work, which is evident from reading it, as well as evident from the author's own comments. Anti-catholic bias is apparently allowed Wikipedia though, which is extremely frightening. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wholly mistaken both on the facts and on your interpretation of my comments. I suggest we stop discussing anything now as it is becoming wholly unproductive. I'd appreciate it if you stopped editing until a consensus (with other editors) is reached. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As I see it, you are just making stuff up and introduce subjects that are not actually sourced in Tolkien's work, while trying to WP:OWN the article and its Talk page. This article is almost exclusively your own WP:SYNTH. There is no such thing as a "Tolkien scholar", as if that were some academic or otherwise sourced credential. And yes, I am well aware Tom Shippey's expertise. Heck, before my own clash with the Tolkien Estate twenty years ago, I could have counted as a Tolkien expert. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep up the personal attacks and you'll end up an WP:ANI. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I am stating the facts of the history of this article. There is no personal attack here. This article is clearly WP:SYNTH, which is an issue that needs to be addressed. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You accused the editor of making stuff up and claiming ownership of the article. You don't like the article, propose it for deletion. Don't attack the editor. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

All in good time. I am seeking advice. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have suggested multiple changes for the article and they are all shot down by Chiswick Chap, who appears to be the original creator of many of these controversial articles. I don't know if they are interpreting suggestions for the articles to be changed as "personal attacks" or what's going on. It just kind of seems maybe Chiswick Chap needs to be more willing to see their own contributions altered. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you have not suggested “multiple” improvements to the article. You have made spurious claims about anti-catholic bias on Wikipedia, and have attempted to remove any non-Christian related themes from Tolkiens work across a number of articles. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a bold and very serious accusation. Which "non-Christian related themes" have attempted to remove? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You attempt to remove a cited passage here purely because you "disagree" with it here -> [1]

Here -> [2] you attempt to inject your view that the Valar are catholic based angels, without citing your sources. I could go on, but there's no point really as your edit history doesn't fill me with confidence that you actually care about wikipedia guidence. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because it is uncited and a factual incorrect statement. Tolkien referred to the Valar as "angelic beings" and scholars have pointed out the similarities between Tolkien's Powers and the Powers of Catholic angelology. I care about getting the facts right. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. You removed the citation as part of the edit. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a lie. Tolkien did refer to the Valar as "angelic beings" and there is a group of Catholic angels called "the Powers". Please don't accuse me of lying. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You said

I removed it because it is uncited and a factual incorrect statement.

That is a lie. It was cited. You deleted the citation. Your edit history is there for all to see. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys, you're talking past each other, on two separate matters; each of you may well be correct on one of them, but not the other. Read it through again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am going to remove this page from my watch list. I really cannot be bothered with dishonest, bad faith editors. It's not worth my sanity. If they want to remove any mention of non-catholic references from Tolkien articles let them. Wikipedia will be a worse place for it but I've given up caring. GimliDotNet (talk) GimliDotNet (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)