Biblical and Theological Commentary on "The Qenya Lexicon"

(avg. read time: 5–10 mins.)

Today, we address one of the more obscure texts of Tolkien’s fictional oeuvre. Between 1915 or 1916 and 1919 or 1920, a period that overlaps with Tolkien’s development of his earliest stories in his legendarium, he developed some early foundational principles of his language of Quenya. His notes have been preserved in the twelfth issue of Parma Eldalamberon and they appear under the title of “The Qenya Lexicon.” Since this issue is now out of print, you can find it here.

As the name itself suggests, the text does not present Quenya in its most developed form, but it does provide an important set of building blocks for the language, including glosses of thousands of words. For a broader review that links it to Tolkien’s other works, see here. The phonology portion will doubtlessly be arcane or for Tolkien fans who are not particularly interested in linguistics, and the lexicon itself assumes some background in the field, so the work as a whole is obviously recommended more for fans with linguistic interests.

So what is there that is of interest to our focus in this series? In the lexicon portion at least, more than you might think. As Tolkien made clear multiple times, the setting for his mythology is an imaginary past era of our own world. This is also made evident in numerous entries in the lexicon that identify Primary World entities, such as Africa, Orion, February, Oxford, and so on. This is also made clear in some theologically pertinent terms, which show that Tolkien was thinking theologically on some level from the beginning of his sub-creation.

The first pertinent word that arises, although it is less directly Christian in character, is “alkar-, alkarin temple, shrine” (30). Tolkien would later say of the Third Age in Letter #153 (after he wrote LOTR):

There are thus no temples or ‘churches’ or fanes in this ‘world’ among ‘good’ peoples. They had little or no ‘religion’ in the sense of worship. For help they may call on a Vala (as Elbereth), as a Catholic might on a Saint, though no doubt knowing in theory as well as he that the power of the Vala was limited and derivative. But this is a ‘primitive age’: and these folk may be said to view the Valar as children view their parents or immediate adult superiors, and though they know they are subjects of the King he does not live in their country nor have there any dwelling. I do not think Hobbits practised any form of worship or prayer (unless through exceptional contact with Elves). The Númenóreans (and others of that branch of Humanity, that fought against Morgoth, even if they elected to remain in Middle-earth and did not go to Númenor: such as the Rohirrim) were pure monotheists. But there was no temple in Númenor (until Sauron introduced the cult of Morgoth). The top of the Mountain, the Meneltarma or Pillar of Heaven, was dedicated to Eru, the One, and there at any time privately, and at certain times publicly, God was invoked, praised, and adored: an imitation of the Valar and the Mountain of Aman. But Númenor fell and was destroyed and the Mountain engulfed, and there was no substitute. Among the exiles, remnants of the Faithful who had not adopted the false religion nor taken part in the rebellion, religion as divine worship (though perhaps not as philosophy and metaphysics) seems to have played a small part; though a glimpse of it is caught in Faramir’s remark on ‘grace at meat’.

But early on, at least, he developed terminology for referring to temples or shrines for the purpose of his stories. He had even developed terms for referring to monks (i-air anūre, anustar, anuon) and monasteries (anusta; 31). The same applies to terms for nuns (i-aira qinde/qinne, qindelis, qindestin) and convents (qindesta; 77). Likewise, he referred to “aimo saint (m.)” and “aire saint (f.)” (34). Along these same lines, he developed terminology for referring to martyrs: “perpere- [perpēre-.] intensive of pere-, especially = endure to end, suffer great anguish. ‘perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.’ ‘We indeed endure things but the martyrs endured and to the end.’ Proverb also mer perilme etc. … ‘aimaktur perperienta’ is a common saying if anyone is grumbling or ‘martyring’ themselves” (73). Such terms would ultimately not find use in the later developments when Tolkien was clearer about the implications of his setting. Yet the fact that he included such entities in his lexicon showed that they were features that shaped his imagination even in his twenties.

Another set of terms that ultimately found no use in his later stories were also significant for how they could be used to refer to one of the key events of the gospel and the symbols developed therefrom. These include words for “crucifixion” ((ana)tarwesta; 31), “crucify” (tarwesta; 89), and “cross, Crucifix” (tarwe; 89). It is similarly unsurprising, then, that he would have terminological equivalents for “Christian missionary” (eyandl) and “gospel” (evandilyon), which are not far removed as equivalents of the Greek whence come designations of evangelists and the gospel (36).

A certain note appended to a word that is not itself of significance to our study is worth mention here. When referring to Eldamar, he speaks of it as the place of the “fairies,” which at this point he used as an alternative reference to the Elves (2, 35, 36, 42, 48, 54, 85, 91, 94). It is thus noteworthy that in this early phase of his mythology, he says of the “fairies” that they “came to teach men song and holiness” (35). I think Austin Freeman is on the mark when he says, “Recalling that Elves symbolize artistry, creativity, and a delight in the world, we might say that Tolkien sees a re-infusion of these traits as important to the sanctification process, which is not merely a painful endurance of suffering but a growth toward receptivity to the joy and holiness of God, which shines through all of creation.”¹ In Tolkien’s larger mythology, not all of which made it into the published Silmarillion, this clearly included the knowledge that helped them develop their theology of Eru Ilúvatar and what marks of religion they associated with their faith in him, as we have explored elsewhere (particularly in commentaries on The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion). Such elements of sanctification as they passed on to them to help them achieve the purpose for which God created them (for which they are set apart and by which they are made whole, to combine senses of “holy”) were meant as preparation for the Men to replace Elves/fairies on the plane of history. Thus, Tolkien similarly said of the renunciation and suffering of Frodo and Arwen that they both “were parts of a plan for the regeneration of the state of Men” (Letter #246).

When it comes to the matter of “magic,” as I have discussed elsewhere, Tolkien remarked on issues of distinguishing between uses of magic (also see here). While there was difficulty in conveying this in his English works, he initially had an idea of using different terms for each kind of use. On the one hand, we see reference to “felu bad magic” (38). On the other hand, we see reference to “kuru magic, wizardry (of the good magic)” (49). Likewise, in Letter #155, he attempted to expound on a terminological distinction in Greek as an analogy for his story, even though it was not an exact match for his thinking. And in the end, he did not rely on terminological distinctions in using magic in his work.

Moreover, he makes further connections with his Catholic worldview. While the terms “listea, listevoite full of grace” are not necessarily theological descriptors, it is easy to see how they could be used in that context, especially in frequent application to Mary (55). The same applies to the surrounding terms related to “blessed” or “blessing” (54–55), as well as to “rū (= rue.) steadfastness, faith, trustiness” (80), in line with what we have observed about faith terminology in several places. More directly connected are the notions of “manimo Holy soul” and “manimuine Purgatory” (58). The traditional “omnis” that describe God also appear here: “omohēre, omotūre, ontūre omnipotence,” “omanaste omnipresence,” and “omotengwe, omotunto omniscience” (70).

The most significant of the terms in this lexicon for our purposes are those linked with the Holy Trinity. The first of these alphabetically is “Atar (-d) a more solemn word [than atta, a child’s word for “father”] = father. Usually to 1st Person of the Blessed Trinity” (33). Thus, Eru is called “Ilúvatar,” which at various stages of development in this language meant “Sky-father” (as another way of saying “Heavenly Father”) and then “Father of All/All-Father.” Consistent with the former meaning is the later entry, “Ilūvalar (d) the name of Enu among Men. Heavenly Father” (42). As such, Tolkien’s intention of mythologically identifying Ilúvatar and God (or more specifically, the Father), which he also made clear elsewhere, was present from the beginning.

This component of the name is also present in Ainatar, which Tolkien glosses simply as “God” (34). The term is a combination of “ainu” and “Atar.” We have seen, especially in the commentary on The Silmarillion how the Ainur are portrayed in more fully developed versions of Tolkien’s mythology, but from the beginning the prominent Ainur in his story, particularly the Valar, were often supposed to be alternative versions of pagan gods and goddesses, albeit as ones presented in a Judeo-Christian framework of being created by and subservient to the one God. And so he presents the glosses here as “ainu a pagan god; aini a pagan goddess” (34). The note that follows the section of glosses further clarifies, “‘a pagan god’ and ‘a pagan goddess’ mean that which a pagan would term a god and a goddess” (34; cf. 99).

The root of ENU is possibly linked with a sense of “origin,” and so it is compared to the root ENE from which the equivalent “devise” (enye) is composed (35). Thus, we are given this gloss for the proper word Enu, “God Almighty, the creator who dwells without the world” (35). The name Enu would eventually become Eru, “the One” to signify both his aseity and how he is the One from whom all others come. While Ilúvatar is rightly referred to as Eru, one might think of the latter term as applying to the entire Godhead as well. Similarly, most often when the Bible references “God,” and it is not about the Godhead, it usually refers to the Father, the fount of divinity. That is not to say there are not times when Jesus/the Son and the Holy Spirit are referred to in this fashion, but it simply does not happen as often as with the First Person of the Trinity. (See various posts here, especially the series on Revelation.)

This is consistent with what we see about the Son later in the lexicon. Tolkien writes of, “ION (form of Yon.) mystic name of God. 2nd Person of Blessed Trinity” (43). The other word noted here is the equivalent of “son.” As a note on this page mentions, another definition given elsewhere is “mystic name of Enu” (43).

Finally, there is also a linguistic space carved out for the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has often been linked to the Secret Fire or Flame Imperishable (as noted in the aforementioned commentary on The Silmarillion; cf. here). One of the supports for that association, which also shows that it was present practically from the beginning, is this early lexicon, as Tolkien writes, “Sā Fire, especially in temples. etc. A mystic name identified with Holy Ghost” (81).

1. Austin M. Freeman, Tolkien Dogmatics: Theology Through Mythology with the Maker of Middle-earth (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2022), 299.