Does the takeover of the Ministry of Magic in the first chapters of Deathly Hallows include a passing swipe at the Catholic Church and the Vatican’s supposed complicity with Nazi Germany? I received a letter from a thoughtful reader who thinks this is a possibility. Let’s start with that letter and examine the evidence:
Hello John,
I’ve very much enjoyed following your work, although I’m not a signed-in blogger. A thought if you choose to respond to it. During Vold War II the Minister of Magic is Pius Thicknesse. Pius is a rather unusual name. Try this – Pius XII ” Hitler’s Pope.” Kind of fits – His Thickness(e) Pius XII. Anything linking to the number 12? Pius XII rather “thick” in not fully recognizing Hitler’s evil. I’ve followed the thread here on Deathly Hallows regarding Nazi Echoes but have not yet seen anything on this point.
My very best to you – keep up the excellent work.
Donn Allen
Before receiving this note I had read the name “Pius Thicknesse” as a throw-away swipe at politicians wearing religion on their sleeve and Culture Warriors who get sucked halo-deep into secular politics in the name of piety and do-gooding and holding-the-line against secular humanism.
But Pius may indeed be a specific reference to Pope Pius XII. This Pontiff was the leader of the Roman Catholic Church during WWII and the Cardinal who, before his elevation to the Papacy, negotiated one of the first treaties with Hitler’s Third Reich. Donn Allen’s suggestion merits some consideration, consequently, even if it gives the Catholic Unicorn Hunters and Harry Haters more grist for their mill. Though many of Ms. Rowling’s defenders biggest fans are Roman Catholic, we have little to no evidence that she has Catholic sympathies herself.
The little time I spend blog-hopping, it seems I wind up at Roman Catholic weBlogs that defend Harry Potter. Their opponents are the Star Chamber Catholics who see the boy wizard as the Herald of the Anti-Christ. Mark Shea’s Catholic and Enjoying It minces few words with the LifeSite crew; Sean Dailey’s Chestertonian fireworks at The Blue Boar Inn make Mark look moderate by comparison. I owe more debts to Sandra Miesel than I care to count for what she has shared with me about the history of witchcraft, fantasy literature and Puritanical critics she long ago tagged “Unicorn Hunters.” Regina Doman, from her 2005 essay on Harry Potter and Catholicism to her review of Deathly Hallows, has consistently shined the story-teller’s light into the blind-spots of my interpretations of the series. And did I mention Stratford Caldecott? Harry and Harry Hallowers like me do not lack Catholic friends, clearly, and friends of the first order. Harry Potter criticism from Roman Catholic readers is, as a rule, very good to excellent.
But back to the subject at hand. Does the name “Pius Thicknesse” in Deathly Hallows reflect Ms. Rowling’s belief that Pope Pius XII was, as several historians have asserted, “Hitler’s Pope”?
The speculative evidence for this remarkable idea can be summarized as follows:
(1) Much of the plot line of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows works as Harry’s resistance to Lord Voldemort paralleling Great Britain’s resistance to the Third Reich (see the HogPro thread on this subject if that parallel escaped you on first reading);
(2) “Pius Thicknesse,” Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, is placed under the Imperius Curse by Yaxley the Death Eater just prior to the opening of Deathly Hallows, which curse enables Voldemort to overthrow the Ministry of Magic soon after and to make puppet Pius his stand-in Minister of Magic; and
(3) It is commonly believed that Pope Pius XII, both as a Cardinal and as Pope, served Hitler’s interests more than that of the Catholic Church or those persecuted by the Nazis.
Ergo:
(4) The unusual name “Pius” for Voldemort’s duped and cursed Minister of Magic Pawn is a pointer to Pius XII, “Hitler’s Pope.”
Before we get into consideration of whether this was Ms. Rowling’s intention, I need to point out that this revisionist painting of Pius XII as a Nazi sympathizer is a disastrous and almost certainly calculated distortion of the historical record. Pius XII has been celebrated as one of the few world leaders of the time who did what was possible both to protect Jews in Nazi territories and to restrain zealot Croatian and Slovakian Catholics who worked in tandem with the SS to deport Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Gypsies to Nazi death camps. Hitler hated Pius XII because he understood this Pontiff was his political nemesis and spiritual antithesis. If Ms. Rowling is drawing a parallel, it is a very sad thing indeed.
I think, nonetheless, that the parallel between fictional and historical Pius-es is a possibility to be taken seriously, given the prevalence of this mistaken idea about Pius XII. I find it credible for three reasons:
(1) as mentioned, the name “Pius” is unusual enough to suggest it is a specific pointer like “Dolokhov” or “Lockhart” and the “Hitler’s Pope” book and theory received great circulation and attention, much more, unfortunately, than the refutation of same;
(2) the most esteemed and notable “critic” of the Harry Potter books in the eyes of the world has been Pope Benedict, whose letters written while Cardinal Ratzinger have been used by Culture Warrior Catholics to make him their Harry Hating hand-puppet; and
(3) Ms. Rowling is not a Roman Catholic, and, like other English fantasy writers of note, she may harbor anti-papist beliefs as a Scottish Protestant.
Was Ms. Rowling upset by the newspaper headlines “Pope Opposes Harry Potter” that were everywhere the week before Half-Blood Prince was published? The Vatican didn’t waste any of its spiritual or political capital of the time in saying the newly elected Pope did not oppose or take any position on the books. Could this have been taken by Ms. Rowling as a tacit endorsement from Rome of Catholic Potter Baiting?
A search of her interviews at the invaluable Accio Quote treasury reveals only one mention of the Pope, believe it or not, in the last ten years. It came in the January, 2006, issue of The Tatler:
The Pope allegedly condemned the books for their heretical magic: “I can remember reading about it and thinking surely there are more important things for him to worry about than my books – world peace, war in the Middle East…”
That disappointment with the Pope’s supposed disapproval, which could be read as her disbelief in the possibility, is a pretty thin reed on which to build an argument for a Pius parallel. If we are assuming that she believes Pius XII was a Nazi sympathizer only because of the prevalence of this misconception, I guess we have to allow that she might also have believed the headlines announcing the current Pope was no fan of hers. The Pope’s membership in the Hitler Youth as a young man, widely celebrated by his critics, might have made the synapse jumps necessary for her to create a Pope Pius XII/Bendict XVI resonant character that is a Death Eater collaborator, albeit as a puppet under the Imperius Curse.
Still, this is too much of a stretch for me to take seriously. One more piece to the “puzzle” is the last book of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia series, The Last Battle, Lewis, according to some critics, indulges in a subtle (?) attack in story form on the faith of Catholics. Shift the Ape drapes a Lion’s skin over a jackass and presents the donkey-Aslan as the real thing to witless believers. From the Wikipedia entry for Shift the Ape:
A. N. Wilson and John Goldthwaite[2] both suggest that Shift is intended as a type of the Catholic Church, in keeping with the traditional Protestant identification of the Pope with Antichrist. This identification is based on Shift’s claim that Aslan cannot be bothered with speaking to a lot of animals and that he, Shift, is hereafter Aslan’s sole mouthpiece. Similarly John J. Miller, writing for National Review, says: “I find it hard to see the ape Shift in The Last Battle, for example, as anything other than a satire of Roman Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular.” (Miller 2005) (GrenfellHunt 2005).
However, in Lewis’ other writings it is made clear that he had no special animus against Roman Catholicism[3] but detested theocracy in whatever form it might take.[4] In his Oxford History of English Literature in the Sixteenth Century[5] he endorses Milton’s view that Elizabethan Presbyterianism was just as guilty as Roman Catholicism of interposing a priestly mediator between man and God: for example, in their belief that the Bible should never be read out in churches but only “opened through preaching”. The ape’s claim that Aslan (God) is not bound by human standards of good and evil is also a Puritan rather than a Catholic trait.[6]
Oddly enough, the Ape named Shift doesn’t strike me as the Pope; I’ve always thought Puzzle the Donkey standing in for Aslan or as the Vicar of Christ in Narnia’s latter-days is the Pontiff cardboard cut-out. Those who foolishly believe in the faux-Lion despite all appearances and evidence, who lament that it was “as if the sun rose one day, and it was a black sun,” are the Belfast born and bred Protestant’s representatives of Catholics who trust more in Pope and Magisterium than in Christ. The Ape seems more the spirit of the age, namely, Darwinian naturalism, that speaks through the Donkey-Aslan.
Or so I thought the several times I have read this book aloud to my children. Quite a few notable Catholics (and Orthodox Christians, and Methodists, and others…) have wanted to baptize Lewis and say he was something he was not. Tolkien, once Lewis’ good friend, however, thought the Belfast boy remained an Irish Protestant to the end and always suspected his “Ulster-ior motives.” Admiring Lewis’ genius shouldn’t mean overlooking what he was or pretending Anglo-Catholic equates to Catholic.
So what?
Americans, I think, as a tribe are inclined to think “denominational differences” are silly matters. While the rest of the world take specific points of theological principle as life and death concerns, we are relatively ecumenical and dismiss the spiritually ardent as “fundamentalists” and “bible-thumpers.” The Public Square in the US is by no means a religion-free zone but we become uncomfortable quickly if the State/Church divide myth is not acknowledged as the de facto and de jure Social Gospel.
We may misunderstand, consequently, works of literature, art, or music created by artists with profoundly different beliefs. Lewis was deeply influenced by Catholic writers and artists, living and dead, and counted many Catholics among his friends and correspondents. He remained, however, a Protestant and anti-papist to his death. The boy was taken out of Belfast but a part of the Belfast street divisions between Protestants and Catholics never left the man.
And Ms. Rowling? I think it is possible, however lamentable, that Pius Thicknesse is a pointer to Pope Pius XII (“Hitler’s Pope”) and even to Pope Benedict XVI because of his brief membership in the Hitler Youth. The woman is a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland (Anglican Communion) rather than the Roman Catholic Church and she is a postmodern Christian at that; there is a gulf, I suspect, separating her and the once Cardinal Ratzinger’s church that is broader and deeper than between chummy American Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. There is some resemblance between Pius Thicknesse, cursed Minister puppet of Lord Voldemort, and Puzzle the Donkey, the Ape’s mouthpiece.
The parallel is possible but I rush to add, while the possibility cannot be eliminated short of a denial from the author, I do not think this connection is probable. My objection to the theory springs from Occam’s Razor, which as a law of succinctness can be stated as “we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof” or just “the simpler and more obvious, the better.” The parallel between the historical and fictional Pius-es is a very involved theory. Any simpler theory would be preferable.
And there is a simpler theory. “Pius Thicknesse” as Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement can be interpreted as something of a thick-headed, Dudley Dooright, Law-and-Order character whose public piety or pious persona is a function of his not being especially bright. This sort of a figure is a natural for the Voldemort puppet and Nazi collaborator, witting or unwitting.
Or Pius Thicknesse could be a caricature of the “Religious Right” and how Ms. Rowling feels about this conservative religio-political force in the UK and the US. Remember Aunt Marge! I doubt Ms. Rowling has many warm feelings for her Christian critics who use Harry as a litmus strip to test for orthodoxy in “family values.”
Both of these theories are as credible and much simpler than the point-to-point allegory suggested by my HogPro correspondent. I think, consequently, we are obliged to note that, while it is possible that Ms. Rowling is taking a swipe at the Papacy, past and present, with her choice of names for the Minister of Magic in Deathly Hallows, it is rather unlikely. Because prejudice is one of the primary evils of the Harry Potter novels, assuming Ms. Rowling shares the historic disdain of Scottish Protestants for “Papists” seems an unnecessary stretch.
I ask for your comments and correction.
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
The “Deathly Hallows” themselves are reminiscent of bishops vestments and their so-called vestibules of power . The “Invisibility Cloak” is much like the Bishop’s Cope. The Resurrection Stone (and it’s original location in a ring) is like the Bishop’s Ring. And the wand is akin to the crozier, or the staff carried by a bishop.
But a true Christian leader does not find power in those things, and yet so often for the institutional church those “trappings of power” become far more important than what is in the heart. Leaders will see cover under those “deathly hallows” rather than in the place God looks – the human heart.
Being an Episcopalian/Anglican whose denomination is in a global crisis that appears to be heading for schism – I read between the lines Rowlings possible criticisms of the institutional church – but I thought of my own, not the Roman Catholic Church. Episcopalians, like Roman Catholics, have many of the same trappings of power where the preservation of institution trumps the heart of the believer. We have bishops. They may begin with the best of intentions but are often sucked into the vortex of institutional power, especially when their own moral foundations are compromised or lost to the spirit of the age and self-preservation.
But criticism and satire do not necessarily mean hostility to the institution, especially when the criticism comes in the form of satire. In fact, some of the greatest satirists were reformers who sought recovery for the institution, not its demolition.
Institutionalists though, when faced with criticism, often feel threatened by the criticism as though the institution is the same as “the Church.” They seek to protect the institutional, finding their identity in it, rather than in Christ. I might venture to say that Rowling may have some criticisms of the institutionalism of the Church (or government), but not to destroy it (the Ministry of Magic recovers as we learn, it is not destroyed). I found it satirical, but I also found it strangely encouraging. I agreed with her. I just couldn’t believe what I was reading!
I will admit, though, that my thoughts were directed more toward my own “institutional” church and not toward the Roman Catholic Church. Jo Rowling is a Scottish Episcopalian, she too is in the Anglican Communion. I do not know how much she is aware of the crisis in the Communion, but her criticisms of the institutionalism (whether it is progressive or traditional) were extraordinary in their timing.
In fact, I am going to the meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops in New Orleans later this month and I’m taking my copy of Deathly Hallows with me. I expect that I will spend a lot of time out in the hall waiting to hear what the bishops decide to do for the future of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion (and I will be reporting on their deliberations at my blog) but while I wait for word, I intend to spend that time reading Deathly Hallows.
I never expected to find such spot-on criticism/satire that institutionalism does not make one a believer. And in fact, Harry is the Believer – the Seeker – for he recognizes that his power is not found in the institutional trappings of power (The Deathly Hallows), but in pursuing the healing and restoration of the soul.
ZR
I may be something of a “Pius Thicknesse” myself, but I saw no swipe at the Catholic Church in the name or position of its owner. As a Roman Catholic, I am sensitive to the efforts to trash Pius XII’s reputation and am happy to see that after several decades of calumny directed toward him, the truth of his actions (which were acknowledged extensively at the end of the war until a concerted effort by the Communists was launched using Hochhuth’s “Deputy” in the early 60s) that the record is vindicating him. I won’t go any further into a defense of Pius XII, since abler people than I have already done so. My reaction to the name was, “Here’s another great Dickensian name to go with all the others”. If I thought about it at all, it was that she was referring to the unreasonable and unreasoning critics across the religious spectrum, who can’t see beyond the prejudices they bring to the text to see anything other than what they wanted to see.
Signe
I would like to proffer a different take on the name.
‘Thicknesse’ sounds both like ‘thickheadedness’ (implying stupidity) and ‘thickneck’ (implying stubborness and/or brawn). Thus he thoughtlessly/stupidly enforces things. Pius literally (and originally) means ‘dutiful’ in Latin (it was through dutifully carrying out religious rituals that it came to mean ‘pious’ as we know it). If there is one thing an imperious curse makes someone, it is dutiful in carrying out the tasks he is ordered to do. Thus, Pius Thicknesse dutifully strongarms the Magical world into following Voldemort’s plan.
Just a thought before drawing twenty-odd costumes for Othello….
~Nzie
Nzie, I agree with you. I was going to bring up that Thicknesse had been imperiused and so was not responsible for his actions. I was surprised at the end of DH when it was stated (I think, don’t have the book with me) that he was one of the bad guys and would be punished. How was he any more responsible than poor Stan Shunpike?
Nevertheless, the name has import and I feel nzie nails it. PT was possibly an unctious plodder by nature, an eager Ministry server with a biddable nature, easily imperiused. He was certainly a helpless puppet after the curse. But at the beginning it seems to me we were told that when the DEs got PT, it was considered unfortunate by the white hats, as if he’d been a good guy. He’s really a mystery.
Or, perhaps JKR was taking a poke at “pious” George Bush (and perhaps Blair?) starting a war? Satirizing the “true believers” who lapped up Nazi beliefs? Muslim/religious extremists?
Since JKR has refrained from making fun of those of faith, I can’t see her framing an individual (Pius XII) who made tough (and maybe bad) choices in difficult times.
Uh oh, Fullatricks has just made a bad choice by trying to climb the curtains again…no ear scratches for her tonight.
P.S. nzie, I really enjoy your thoughtful comments. I gather from them that you’re a college student. You have a very fine and perceptive mind for someone so young.
I have heard both that Jo is a member of the Church of Scotland, which would mean she’s Presby, and that she’s a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which would mean she’s Anglican. Anyone have a definitive answer/source as to which it is?
I seem to recall that she grew up in England, not Scotland, not moving there until she was an adult, and that she went to a CofE school for a time as a child. All of which would mitigate against Scottish Calvinism being a hugely significant influence on her theological POV. Though, since IIRC she returned to the church as an adult after a time away, whatever church she’s come into might have more influence than the one she grew up in.
Also, FWIW, to paint w/ a hugely wide brush, Scottish Presbys are actually considerably more sacramental and liturgical than many of their American descendants. (Sunday services at Knox’s church in Edinburgh are absolutely indistinguishable from many Anglican services, save that the clergy wear Geneva gowns rather than cassocks or albs.) This may be relevant in that IMHO one needs to be able to appreciate a sacramental world view in order to understand the faith dimension in HP. Thus RCs, EOs and Anglicans have less problem “getting” Rowling’s Christianity than do free-church Protestants in the US South, who are usually Zwinglian in sacramentology. Again, generalizing hugely….
Please help, someone, who knows for sure what the actual facts are:
1) ZR says that Ms. Rowling is a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church (which is Anglican), not (as John believes) the Church of Scotland (which is Presbyterian). Is this indeed so? (I note that the church in Godric’s Hollow is almost certainly Anglican, that Ms Rowling was born and raised in England, and that she went to St Michael’s Church of England Primary School, whose Headmaster at the time is believed to be a model for Albus Dumbledore (so Wikipedia). So is it known for sure that the English- (and presumably Anglican-) born Ms. Rowling *is* now a Presbyterian?
It should be a known fact whether Ms Rowling is Anglican or Presbyterian. Anyone out there who knows for sure?
2) Re Pope Benedict having once been a member of Hitler Youth, wasn’t this “membership” automatic for all young Germans unfortunate to be born German in the days of the Third Reich? I believe young Joseph Ratzinger was not given a choice.
Ivan
Too slender a reed. Rowling tends to satirize institutions instead of making one-to-one correspence characters (with the possible exception of Tony Blair), and the church as institution has been conspicious by its absence. I don’t get the feel that she’s breaking that pattern to make a gratitutious swipe at the Catholic Church.
I saw Pius initially as a nod to those Harry-haters who base it on religious feeling, but that’s just from the name (which I don’t connect to the historical Pius; I figured it was used because it’s a recognized name while “pious” isn’t). The role he plays is that of bureaucrat who continues to make the machine go, to whom there’s almost something holy about just keeping your head down and doing what you’re told (the “banality of evil”, as it were.) Upon further review, I think more of the Germans of WWII who submitted as their defense their own version of the Imperius Curse: they were happy to follow orders and thus weren’t responsible for the evil they caused. To the extent we find Pius is punished, it may be Rowling’s rejection of that defense (but I would have to hear something from her to be more sure on that score; the text supports speculation but not surety.)
According to Wikipedia, not the most dependable or definitive of sources, Joanne Rowling belongs to the Church of Scotland rather than to the Scottish Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion.
If we assume this represents a change from the church in which she is supposed to have grown up and that this shift was made as a matter of belief rather than convenience (one majority church to another), what might such a change represent theologically and in her books? Is Ferret Brain on course or off the tracks?
John, thanks for your kind words on my post at SoG.
I’m no expert in the denominational distinctions we’re making here, and I know very little about the history of Pius XII’s interactions with Nazi-ism. My reading of Pius Thicknesse’s name was more in line with Nzie’s. Rowling is toying with the shortsighted pigheadedness of rigid dogma combined with a lack of critical thinking. If his character resonates with a real world analogue at all, then his character is jostling Blair and Bush and the public perception of the two as unthinking ideologues committed to a naive worldview. But, as dewyn noted above, Rowling’s MO is allusion and analogy, not allegory.
More to the point, Pius struck me as a possible foreshadow for Percy Weasley’s future self before he had his epiphany and returned to the Weasley fold.
I’ve always taken Pius to be Rowling’s tongue in cheek swipe at the religious right anti-Harry crowd and their ilk. Pious in their intention, “thick” in their (in)ability to see and understand clearly what’s right in front of their noses.
The connection to the WWII era pope is quite a stretch, IMO. In addition to needing some pretty elaborate and circuitous reasoning to get there – that just doesn’t seem to be the way Rowling writes.
I’m with Nzie and Karl. On first reading, my thought was “Pious Thickness”: a thick layer of respectability slathered over the DE agenda OR a well meaning/self-righteous but stupid (or “thick”) person.
Pius Thicknesse was not a reference to the Pope that entered my consciousness until I read this thread.
I took it more as reference to dutiful but thickheaded people in general – not intentionally bad or evil but also easily manipulated and swayed because of their limited view of what was “good”. This has reference to many other groups than religious ones, of course. I connected this character to Vernon, Petunia, and Dudley, but their equivalent in the wizarding world. In fact, I was struck by the whole MoM scene amongst the typical workers as “go along to get along” and “I’m here for my job to make money so I can have a life elsewhere”. In that milieu, Pius is sort of the “head boy” who plays well off Percy as noted above.
This I take to be JKR’s commentary on human nature that allows great evil to be perpetrated because of narrowmindedness about life in general and human responsibilities to others in particular. A narrative exhibition that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good persons to do nothing.
This would seem to be a criticism of western intelligentsia, if you will pardon my digression. If the wizarding world is a picture of the elite among the peoples of the planet (Westerners?), then we discover that the elite (Westerners) have the same faults and foibles and (sinful) nature as the vast mounds of humanity over whom they seek to be lords by virtue of the accident of birth and abilities and opportunities. In fact, the banality of the nature of evil is doubly emphasized by this ploy. Empowered to do something constructive with their talents among the talented, they ignore the obvious and just “get about their jobs”. They refuse to lead and thus enable the stampede to be directed by the very ones they are to oppose. The social and political commentary is just too obvious. And the fact that Pius’ name seems to throw it all off on the “religious” part of the populace is narrative misdirection of the highest order.
Can’t you hear the piously secular sniggering about the religious aspects?!
And all the while missing their portrayal because of a name? Secularists allege themselves to be the vanguard of the “new humanity” but tend to be just as incapable of responding effectively as those they allege incompetent on the basis of outmoded belief systems.
There are also the unavoidable associations with pious thickheaded souls who abate any positive value to HP because of their opposition on ostensibly religious grounds and who are a very stiffnecked crowd in their obstinancy and a bane upon those who appreciate literature on its own terms. But who could miss those associations, eh?
An excellent critique by JKR, but no reference to a Pope, IMHO.
Finally, I find the whole caricature-by-Lewis in Shift or Puzzle as specific to the Roman Catholic Church ludicrous. All apologies to my betters in literary appreciation, especially John, but I have been reading Lewis for decades beginning in college. I have never entertained the assignments mention above. I have read extensively in Lewis criticism for those same decades and never encountered this allegation before. I’ll check out the wiki references, but it’ll take some powerful suasions to get me to entertain the concept seriously. Same for the National Review and Miller’s comments. But my whole reading and re-reading and re-re-reading sensibility is strongly in rejection of those identifications.
I don’t think my comment went through. If it did, John, please just toss this. Or use the better of the two. Or combine odd sentences for fun.
First, through my reading, I’ve understood that membership in the Hitler Youth wasn’t mandatory; it was an elite group of those who fit the pure racial profile Hitler idealized–Aryan, strong, good-looking (based on looks, I’m not sure he would have qulaified for his own group as a kid). These kids represented Hitler’s Utopian future. So it was a cachet to belong. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Second, I feel it’s critical to remember that we knew nothing of Pius Thicknesse before he was Imperiused. Perhaps he represented the Harry Haters throughout the book who found it easier to close their eyes and fight against the truth rather than for it.
And, after all, Cornelius Fudge was Pius Thicknesse in spades. We got to see plenty of him and it wasn’t pretty. He wasn’t Imperiused, either! So perhaps the name represented an unctious, thick-headed, dangerously evil Ministry running the WizWorld.
I’m going to Imperius Luscious Badboy if he doesn’t cut it out…
Althought the Hitler Youth started as Arabella suggested, by the mid-30s, membership became mandatory:
The HJ was originally Munich-based only. In 1923, the organization had a little over one thousand members. In 1925, when the Nazi Party had been refounded, the membership grew to over 5,000. Five years later, national HJ membership stood at 25,000. By the end of 1932 (a few weeks before the Nazis came to power) it was at 107,956. At the end of 1933, the HJ had 2,300,000 members. Much of these increases came from the more or less forcible merger of other youth organizations with the HJ. (The sizable Evangelische Jugend, the Evangelical youth organisation of 600,000 members, was integrated on February 18, 1934).[1]
By December 1936, HJ membership stood at just over five million. That same month, HJ membership became mandatory, under the Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law. This legal obligation was re-affirmed in 1939 with the Jugenddienstpflicht and HJ membership was required even when it was opposed by the member’s parents. From then on, most of Germany’s teenagers belonged to the HJ. By 1940, it had eight million members. Later war figures are difficult to calculate, since massive conscription efforts and a general call-up of boys as young as ten years old meant that virtually every young male in Germany was, in some way, connected to the HJ.
–Wikipedia article on Hitler Youth
Signe
I’m with Karl.
I also took “Pius Thicknesse” as a synonym for Christian Harry Haters, whose mental thickness had them piously fighting on the wrong side of the war.
Taking Thicknesse as a stand-in for Pius the Pope would be the only time Rowling has taken aim at the institutional church, or AN institutional church and it seems rather too historical a target to merit that special mention. It seems to me that if you wanted to zing a church, you’d want to zing it for something it’s doing now. Satirists don’t usually level their guns at the scandals of half a century ago.
I believe J.K. Rowling was married in the Scottish Episcopal Church by the Rev Canon Prof J S Richardson. But if she attends the Church of Scotland, well, that’s quite interesting – the Church of Scotland has no bishops, unlike the Scottish Episcopal Church which does. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian – John Knox and all that.
She went to a Church of England school when she was young, but I’m not sure it was the happiest of her experiences. The former Archbishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church was pretty radical – much more in line theologically with the American Episcopal Church. In fact, the Scottish Episcopal Church is very much like the American Episcopal Church in theology and politics. It is very progressive. The same cannot be said for the Church of Scotland.
There are also some cultural differences between to the two churches, especially in relation to the Scots (and their relationships with the English, even to this day). These cultural differences are in addition to the theological and political differences between the two denominations.
The Scottish Episcopal Church has been very involved in progressive Scottish national politics – in fact, I think it was one of the sponsoring institutions to bring about the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Episcopal Church, from the witness of my friends in Scotland, is fairly burned out and no match for the descendants of John Knox. In fact, one of my friends attempted to go to the local Scottish Episcopal Church but she was a little late and the vicar had locked the front door, even though it was Sunday. His view was if you weren’t there on time, you should go somewhere else.
My guess is still the play is on the first name – Pius (said satirically) – and his “false piety” made him blind to the evil around him, even weakened him to be used by those he should be opposing. That certainly is a problem in the Church today.
ZR
Pius Thicknesse – a reference to Pius XII? That’s stretching. I agree with those posters who see the name as an allusion to fundamentalist Harry Haters, whose preachers and ministers seem to have `imperio’d’ them into believing the books are evil, and who aren’t thinking for themselves. The connection with a possible anti-papist attitude on the part of the Protestant Rowling looks far-fetched to me.
The ferret brain article is more challenging, though not all of the arguments it contains are irrefutable. To claim that the Sorting Hat is comparable to God electing those destined for salvation doesn’t make much sense, as Rowling has made it clear that students can influence the Hat’s decision and end up getting their way if they try. The author of the article acknowledges this, but instead of bringing up a counterargument he glosses it over. It is outright nonsense to equal being put into Slytherin with being unredeemable; too many characters disprove this.
The other arguments seem to hold a little more water (but maybe I’m saying this because they had already occurred to me before I read the article…) Doesn’t Dumbledore’s famous but often misquoted `It’s our choices that *show* who we are’ point towards a static or essentialist conception of character at the least, and possibly to an underlying notion of predestination?
And what’s going on with Voldemort? What does it mean in theological terms that he only has a choice to repent because he has taken Harry’s blood into his veins, and why is it a matter *of course* for Rowling that he doesn’t take that choice? Is this because he has been rejected `from eternity’, in other words, is not among the elect? It certainly looks that way to me, especially as we never see him making a choice between good and evil in his youth, before he sets foot on the road to destruction.
Whether the article is right in ascribing this to theological confusion in the author is difficult to say (though I think she did muddle up things a little by calling him a psychopath in one of her interviews). Struggling with your beliefs is not the same as being confused about them. I remember someone saying once that predestination was, among other things, a theological attempt to explain the mystery of why some people persist in committing evil. If that is the case, it could explain why Rowling has called her bad guy Tom *Riddle*.
Neat discussion. Lots of possibilities.
I think all of them have problems with the incongruity of Pius T. being placed under the Imperius curse, yet later imprisoned for his actions. I do remember reading that Pius was so punished, but I can’t currently find a reference for it. Could someone please post i?. My current guess is that Joanne R. just made a mistake in an interview; we’ll find something different (perhaps an retirment) once the encyclopedia gets published.
As for the name, well, I find that the reference to self-righteous and unyielding people is most likely.
Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement.
Bureaucrat. (Others have written on Ms. Rowling’s apparent dislike of bureaucracies.)
“Pius” (pious) in attitude; thick(headed) in discernment.
Easily controlled (Imperioused) by others.
Extending on what Karl and Helen wrote, I don’t see this as limited to the `religious right’ or only to Christian Harry-haters. It also applies to any who, in their self-righteousness, seek to impose their wills on others, especially with the force of law. This applies to bureaucrats in general: Pius T. was a bureaucrat. One could infer from that that a significant motivation of his was to preserve his turf and his job. So, from a bureaucratic standpoint, a certain amount of thickness is expected. Power, when combined with a sense of self-righteous superiority, can be a dangerous combination: dangerous to the lives and freedom of others. (An example from my own formerly fair city: one of our city councilors has pushed through a law making it a crime to sell a dog or cat without a $150 city license! Sell a dog, go to jail. Talk about controlled by others! Grrr. )
Other suggestions appear to have fatal flaws.
Pope Pius XII: No “thickness” there, and requiring quite a misreading of history. A little to remote in time, methinks.
George Bush & Tony Blair: Makes no sense at all. Each of these gents, rather than being `thick’ are men of intelligence and integrity fighting against the Voldemort’s of our world. Neither makes a show of piety, in any event. They are flawed humans, to be sure, and by no means always correct in their actions or assessments, but they each better resemble Kingsley Shacklebolt than Pius T.
Nazi `true believers’: I don’t see how. Pius T. wasn’t a “true believer” as such; at most he was a bit of a bureaucrat.
Muslim jihadists: these also are “true believer” types (heh). Perhaps, like the Nazis, not overly open to other views, but not “thick” in a Crabbe-and-Goyle sort of way.
In sum, while the immediate reference may be to “Christian Harry-haters”, the application seems to me to be broader than just that.
I don’t think Pope Pius XII is the template for Pius Thicknesse. I think it’s much more likely that it is just of way of saying he’s a bit bureaucratic. It’s very consistent with much of what we saw at the ministry before Voldemort took it over.
Apparently Pius was easier to control than someone like a Rufus Scrimgeour when the MOM fell totally into Voldemort’s hands. The Imperius curse could be fought off, but it wasn’t easy and not everyone could do it. The name Pius could be a reference to Harry haters as the MOM policy designated Harry as Undesireable No. 1 in the hunt for Harry. Harry’s friends on the Wizarding Wireless radio show Potterwatch noted that it wasn’t a good idea to throw “Support Harry Potter” parties. I thought all of that was a humorous throwback to the haters.
It was interesting reading the atheist blogger on God and Calvinism. I smiled to think that the H-P books bothered him. Reminded about the parable of the man born blind (John 9), Jesus was asked of his disciples if the man’s blindness was due to the sin of his own or parents. Jesus said it was neither.
Jesus healed the man, and God was glorified in this man’s life. The Pharisees kept on questioning and questioning how this man could be healed, finally asking the the man himself gaining the answer, “All I know is that I was blind and now I see.” I think this is part of the struggle to believe that JKR is talking about. How can God love us if calamity hits, or an illness strikes, or if Job-like experiences occur in our lives with no apparent reason? Many say from a human point of view, “How could God allow these things to happen?” “How could a loving God allow that?” Those questions are a struggle to believe, and seems to be Harry’s predicament in believing Dumbledore and the mission he was called to do; in fact that’s what the books are all about. People don’t understand that kind of love unless it is experienced in the life as a believer, and I’m glad to be counted in the company of the Redeemed for the glory of God.
I did not make any Catholic Church connection regarding Pius Thicknesse. It was, however, my favorite new character name in Deathly Hallows. I laughed out loud when I first read his name & that his position was Head of Law Enforcement. It seemed only too certain that he would soon become the new “imperiused” Minister of Magic.
I have always liked the name “Imperius” for the mind-controlling curse. I loved the not-so-subtle inference that overt piety combined with a thick head can leave your mind weak & subject to being imperiused. Not exactly the kinds of people who should have access to power but who, even in the “real world,” so often seem to have just that.
I agree with Mrs. Figg — Fudge certainly was a Pius Thicknesse himself! I wonder if P.T. served under Fudge as his Head of Magical Law Enforcement? (can’t remember the canon right at the moment). Seems like P.T. would have been a perfect original underling of Fudge’s!
I think the “Ferret” states something that was bothering me about the last book, but which I couldn’t articulate until I had read his essay, thanks to the link provided by John.
Sorry to everyone. I started to write my thoughts, and managed to press the submit button before I finished.
I have long been a fan of the Harry Potter books, but I had a special enjoyment of them due to the following circumstances. One of my sons, when a sophomore in high school, was diagnosed with leukemia. He had a long, hard 4 year battle, with many long hospital stays. One of the nurses, early in his treatment, commented that he looked a little like Harry Potter. Harry’s victories in the various books were an encouragement to him to keep fighting. He went into remission and on to college, where he graduated with a degree in electrical engineering this past June. He had his most recent checkup in the oncology department about 2 weeks ago, 8 years after his initial diagnosis, and is considered completely healed. (Thanks be to God).
He has read all the books and has continued to be a big fan. So I was surprised when I called him shortly after the last book was released to ask him how he liked it. My son said he was very much disappointed, because “there was no redemption.” He had expected Malfoy to be redeemed, and to see heroes emerge from all the houses, especially Slytherin. But essentially, it ended up with the same villains, and the same heroes, as before. I think the Ferret has a point,when he writes that essentially, the Gryffindor house is the Select group, the Slytherins are the Bad group, and everybody else from the other houses is less important. I realize, of course, that other houses are involved, and that Prof. Slughorn was on the right side, but I agree that there were no real changes among the students.
Below is all that we know, as far as I can tell (thanks to Accio Quote), about Rowling’s church affiliation. I think it backs up points made above by several people (esoterica1693, Ivan, ZoeRose) suggesting she could very well be Episcopalian and not Presbyterian (contrary to the Wikipedia article, referencing only one news story as it does for its claim).
It’s clear from her interviews that Rowling has been involved with some church to some degree over the past 13 or so years. One more recent article claims her to be an “Episcopalian”[1], yet several other stories describe her as “Presbyterian” and/or a member of the “Church of Scotland” (typically understood to be Scotland’s state church, which is Presbyterian). Did the reporters of the first story cited mistakenly assume the Church of Scotland to be linked to the Church of England? After all, a 1999 article reports that it was at a “Church of Scotland congregation” in Edingburgh that Rowling’s daughter Jessica was christened (i.e., baptized).[2] (For those who didn’t know, Rowling has lived in Scotland since December of 1994 when she and her daughter moved to Edinburgh in order to be closer to her sister.) In actuality, this article only raises another question, for it uses the word “christen” to describe the sacrament, something that I don’t believe is very common in Presbyterian circles but is if you’re Anglican (however, I could be wrong here. esoterica1693 has pointed out that Scottish Presbyterians are much more sacramental than their American descendents, so they may use the same language).
Looking back to Rowling’s youth, all I’ve found is a 2003 story largely dealing with her childhood, which points out that she was a student at several different Church of England schools during these years.[3] Should this lead us to think there is a greater possibility of an Anglican/Episcopalian connection in the later years? Perhaps, but just as equally perhaps not. There’s no definitive evidence that she attended the same church as the one she went to school for, and on top of that, she very well may have left one communion to go to another as an adult.
Then there’s the “J.K. Rowling and Neil Murray Marriage Profile” in the marriage section of About.com, stating that “Joanne Rowling and Dr. Neil Murray were married on December 26, 2001, in the library at their home in Perthshire, Scotland” in “a private 20-minute ceremony” led by “minister, J.S. Richardson of St. Columbia’s Episcopal Church in Edinburgh.”[4]
In light of all of this, it finally needs to be said that the Scottish Episcopal Church is still sometimes called the “Episcopal Church of Scotland” or “Church of Scotland” (its original name as the established church of Scotland, until it was officially replaced by the Presbyterian Church in 1689), which remains part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. I think this clarification of an otherwise equivocal term helps to make sense of the confusion with some stories labeling her “Presbyterian” and others “Episcopalian”. However, all of the evidence (what little there is) suggests to me that Rowling is almost certainly Episcopalian (and Anglican). (And on a much lesser note, her being Anglican/Episcopalian also helps me make sense of her familiarity and/or interest in people like Chesterton and Belloc, although I’m sure some Presbyterians like these guys too, especially ones on the British Isles.)
All of that being said, John, I really think you should consider calling Rowling “Episcopalian” in the updated version of your “Looking for God in Harry Potter”, as well as whatever other books you’ve previously called her Presbyterian in, or otherwise stay agnostic on the matter.
I apologize if this post ran a little long, but I just wanted to help in trying to get the “facts” straight.
NOTES
1. Geordie Greig, ‘There would be so much to tell her…’, Tatler Magazine, 10 January 2006.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0110-tatler-grieg.html
2. Linton Weeks, “Charmed, I’m Sure,” The Washington Post, 20 October 1999.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-post-weeks.htm
3. Stephen Mcginty, “The J.K. Rowling Story,” The Scotsman, 16, 17, 18 June 2003.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0616-scotsman-mcginty.html
4. “J.K. Rowling and Neil Murray Marriage Profile,” About.com: Marriage
http://marriage.about.com/od/thearts/p/jkrowling.htm
Given the many striking parallels between Deathly Hallows and the rise of the Third Reich, it is entirely possible that JKR intended Pius Thicknesse to be a parody of Pope Pius XII. I sincerely hope this is not the case; it might put another weapon into the hands of my well-meaning fellow Catholics who already have raised objections to the Potter series. In addition, such a representation would be historically inaccurate, as you have so astutely pointed out, John. The myth of “Hitler’s Pope” is a modern one; no one at the time made any such claim, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. According to the research of Israeli consul Pinchas E. Lapide, documented in his 1967 book entitled “Three Popes and the Jews,” the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,00 Jews from the Nazis. And a New York Times editorial from Dec. 25, 1941 states the following: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism… he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of Christian peace.”
Of course, none of this excuses sins of commission and sins of omission committed by individual Catholics and those of any faith, at the time of the Holocaust and today. I’m sure we’re all aware that it’s generally easier, and much less taxing, to identify and judge the sins of the past than those of the present time, and the sins of others rather than our own.
Let’s hope that the character of Pius Thicknesse represents not a jab at Pope Pius XII, but instead a critique of ideologues and bureaucrats, religious and secular, past and present, who are blinded by those age-old character defects, pride and prejudice.
Post of the week, Chris!
I’m not sure we have a definitive answer about Ms. Rowling’s church affiliation but you’ve clarified how little is known and the contradictory evidence as well as the sources of confusion. Who knew we knew so little about this woman? We don’t even know what faith community to which she belongs. What a hoot.
Thank you again, Chris. Until I hear otherwise and with conclusive evidence of some kind, I will refer to Ms. Rowling as “Episcopalian or belonging to the Episcopal Church of Scotland.
John, grateful for the charitably spirited correction
Does she not have an agent? Would not a question concerning her church affiliation (if any) be one appropriate to ask her agent, especially in preparing a biographical summary for a book being written? Unless she’s told him to avoid the topic, it should be a matter of public record, no?
I thought Jo was baptized in one church, but married in another, so I assumed she had changed churches at some point. Very mysterious.
As for Pius, it’s possible he was a slap at the Catholic Pope of the same name, but as a Catholic, it didn’t bother me for two reasons.
1. You can’t prove it was meant that way unless Jo says that’s what she was aiming at, and I can’t see her doing that.
2. It flew right over most people’s heads. You can’t insult someone if practically no one understands the insult.
It’s a great theory that cannot be confirmed, like so many other Potter theories.
I just wanted to correct a typo in my previous post. I meant to say that Pinchas Lapide had documented 860,000 Jews saved under Pius XII, not 860,00, which is, of course, a nonexistent number. This is such an important issue to me that I wanted to be sure the facts were laid out accurately!
I still think the historical Pius is too obscure for contemporary readers and I just don’t think Jo would pick on him. Really, I must confess (but don’t tell the kitties) that I am myself Pius Thicknesse more times than I’d wish; such is the plight of fallen humanity. I think Jo has cast a wide net for all self-righteous stubborn numbskulls…with room for plenty of fish, including this one.
Flako wants some tuna treats…
A Brit friend of mine who was discussing this with me said in the present day, “thick” means stupid, but in the slang of the 40′s, it meant you were closely alligned with someone. Can anyone else confirm that, or want to take a crack at choosing which meaning Jo would have been aiming for, if indeed she did mean it? Both kind of fit.
it’s like the phrase ‘thick as thieves.’ — technically, I’d say both work. and he certainly was ‘in thick’ with the Death Eater crowd, willingly or no.
and thanks much to Arabella for her kind words.
~Nzie
A comment on the allegedly strong influence of Calvinism on Ms Rowling’s religious worldview (as suggested by “Ferret Brain”):
“Calvinism” here is short-hand for Calvin’s doctrine of “double predestination” – that God, in his Wisdom, not only predestines some people (the “elect”) to salvation, but also predestines others to eternal damnation, and there’s nothing the latter can do about it. (Understandably, non-Calvinist Christians are appalled at this notion, which, both logically and intellectually, denies free will or “choice” to individuals – to say nothing of how it depicts a loving God.)
To be brief as possible, I simply do not see this doctrine in Harry Potter at all. Free will and choice are crucial in the series. (I believe that Ferret Brain reads too much into Dumbledore’s words “of course” when applied to bad choices made by bad people. Some people *choose* to follow evil: it is a conscious decision – though of course people exhibiting the personality characteristics preferred and encouraged by Slytherin House are likely to result in making egocentric, narcissistic choices, resulting in a rather unlovely House. But redemption *is* possible there too.
I believe that Ms Rowling’s refutation of Calvinism is stated very clearly in the chapter “Horcruxes” in Half-Blood Prince, especially in its last four pages, where Dumbledore discusses Sybill Trelawny’s Prophecy with Harry. The whole passage is too long to quote here (it’s on pages 509-512 in the American edition), but it is thoroughly anti-Calvinist. I’ll quote just the beginning, in the hope it will spur you all to look up the whole, very important passage:
Dumbledore: “Harry, never forget that what the prophecy says is only significant because Voldemort made it so. I told you this at the end of last year. Voldemort singled you out as the person who would be most dangerous to him – and in doing so, he *made* you the person who would be most dangerous to him!”
“But it comes to the same – ”
“No, it doesn’t!” said Dumbledore, sounding impatient now. Pointing at Harry with his black, withered hand, he said, “You are setting too much store by the prophecy!”
“But,” spluttered Harry, “but you said the prophecy means – ”
“If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not!”
SO PLEASE: READ THE REST OF MS ROWLING’S THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THIS CHAPTER!! SHE IS *NO* CALVINIST!
I think it’s a huge stretch to have “Pius Thicknesse” be Pope Pius… I took the comment as a bit of a swipe at all those who are “piously thick” (not a swipe at piety itself).
I’m also a Catholic who is a bit sensitive to some of the statements made (erroneously, or with half truth) about Pope Pius XII, but I got no connection between Pope Pius and Pius Thicknesse at all.
John – This is for you: I can’t figure out how to send it to you directly, but know you would love seeing it. Post it anywhere or nowhere, as you like. It just appeared in the Rector’s Chronicle of St Thomas Church, New York City – one of the largest and most influential Episcopal Churches in the US. The rector is the Rev Andrew Craig Mead. Here it is:
HARRY POTTER: THE YEAR’S AND THE DECADE’S BEST
The book of the year is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final volume of JK Rowling’s series which I think can only be called a masterpiece. Her books are the literary triumph of the past decade. It is bizarre that some Christians have denounced Harry Potter for wizardry and even Satanism. This censure is rubbish; it is hard to believe these critics have actually read the books. The series stands with the fiction (and magic and wizardry, and morals and theology) of CS Lewis, Charles Williams and JRR Tolkien. Harry Potter is a hero equal to (perhaps stronger than) Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter’s themes are based solidly on catholic Christian theology and ethics: the fall, the freedom of the will and responsibility, the need to confront and resist evil, the value and dignity of every person, the immortality of the soul, and even resurrection. At the center of everything is the triumphant, redemptive power of self-giving, sacrificial love – which is the secret of Harry Potter’s survival, maturation, and eventual crisis and life’s climax. One senses the profound influence, whether acknowledged or not, of the old Church of England culture in Rowling’s monumental work. I recommend it to all. Having read the whole series over the past eight years, I am starting it again. While on Monhegan, I saw three teenagers, two girls and a boy, sitting at a picnic bench; one, the older girl, was reading out loud to the other two. I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I approached them and said, “I know what you’re reading.” They grinned. I saw they were about a hundred pages into Deathly Hallows. I was almost finished, so I said, “I don’t want to spoil it for you, except to say that it’s awesome.” Rowling’s achievement, recognized by countless millions of young people who have taken to reading her the old fashioned way, is indeed awesome. Adults do well to read Harry Potter for themselves. One feels improved by knowing the hero and his friends.
When I read the name “Pius Thicknesse,” I was reminded of individuals (regardless of denominational affiliation) who covet religiosity without foundational understanding and do not have a true faith relationship with Christ . Thicknesse was a stepping stone towards infiltrating the Ministry of Magic, no? Likewise, by allowing the world to obscure our focus to “know what we know and believe by faith,” Christians also fall prey to being “thick” and “dulled into blind obedience” to worldly beliefs contrary to Scripture.
Perhaps this is not the venue for such a discussion, but I thought the tie-in with LV’s presence in the Ministry of Magic via control of Thicknesse quite an eye-opener and thought-provoking.
I am arriving late into this discussion, but find it very interesting, inded.
And allow me to say that we should all remember that Joanne Rowling is a very intelligent and very knowledgeable lady. We should not easily assume she would be an easy victim to prejudice in her view on both pope Pius XII and pope Benedictius XVI.
We should also remember that she is an excellent latinist. Which means that the word «pius» in her mind in not primarily a name of some pope, but a latin word with such meanings as: «pious», «godfearing», «clean», «conscientious», «just», «devoted to the gods», «sacred» (and more interhuman and secular:) «faithful», «friendly», «a good relative», «loving the homeland» and even «motherly» …
Which subsequently means that the first name of Mister Thickhead is not necessarily carrying a religiously meant message at all.
If she really wanted to strike back at the religious Harrty-haters, I think she would have been able to do so with a much heavier hand. But I also think she is herself a very pious lady, so she doesn’t stricke back at all. She is following the Sermon on the Mount in that respect.
And if she really meant the pope, she would have investigated the best historical sources first, as thoroghly as she investiaged alchemism. Can any of you believe Hermione would have struck at the pope or at the ultraprotestants? Hermione would have been as modest as in her theological conversation with Luna’s father!
Odd Sverre Hove
Bergen. Norway
I have a different viewpoint on Mr Thicknesse, I believe that Lady Rowling followed her usual pattern of using a classical reference for a given name, and the name of an historical person (often an author) for the surname, the whole construct being descriptive of the individual or their philosophy in some fashion, to wit:
Pius: Latin–meaning dutiful or acting out of a sense of duty.
Thicknesse: Captain Phillip Thicknesse, English soldier, Governor of Landguard Fort , author, friend of Gainsborough and eccentric par excellence.
c.f. http://www.landguard.com/thicknes.htm for a description of his lamentable lack of skill at governance. A skill which, in fact, saw him twice Court Marshaled in the space of three years for excessive zeal in the performance of his perceived “duty”. At the end of which time “…He was subsequently informed by the War Office that in their view he was unfit to command and that he should not reside at the Fort. In 1766 Thicknesse resigned his position….” [from link cited.]
This caricature of positive virtue turning to glaring vice when emphasized to the detriment of other virtues is to me an example of Lady Rowling at her best. As is her genius at discovering historical names whose sound indicates the personality trait being portrayed by the character in question.
I wish to add two Lutheran interpretations of the name Pius Thicknesse, not because I believe in them, but because I think they are at least as possible as the «papist» interpretation. (My own belief may be read above: I think she ment the latin meaning of «pius», not the religious meaning).
Number one: Pius = Lutheran Pietist Berit Kjos & Co. Arguments:
a) Joanne Rowling knows the history before Enlightenment. She read lots of historical alchemism. She probably read the anonymous book from 1614 about the Societas Roseae Crucis, which is believed to have been written by Lutheran theologian Johan Valentin Andreae. He belongs to the 17th century Lutheran Orthodoxy and wrote several theological books. When everybody misunderstood his novel about the Rosean Cross Society, he simply shut up and told nobody that he (anonymously) authored it only as a novel and not as a conspiration theory. (This whole story may have inspired the «Society of Believers in the Deathly Hallows» of Mr. Lovegood in HP7.)
b) Aften the 17th century Lutheran Orthodoxy came the 18th century Lutheran Pietism. The first book introdusing the new directon had the title «Pia Desideria» = «Pious Wishes». (The form «pia» is probably plural neutrum of «pius».). The historical pietists had this very subjectiv focus on the warm, devoted society of believers (Societas Pietatis). (In my father’s old rural parish of Western Norway an 18th century pietist parson visited every house in his parish and wrote a complete «Registry of Souls», with name, age, profession, knowledge in cathecism and Bible, and a general Christian caracterization added to every name, like this one on a servant maid: «very pious and devoted».)
c) I don’t think the historical pietists would generally reject the reading of novels. One of their bishops even wrote a novel himself (in the tradition following John Bunyan). But they would warn strongly against reading bad novels. And their descendants of the 21st century, like American Lutheran Berit Kjos, may have narrowed that thought down into a general, loud and clear, NO to novel reading. (I am presently in discussion with some local Norwegian old pietists who reject Harry Potter simply because it is a novel/ bad novel/ occult novel … . I like, by the way, to stress that Berit Kjos is American, so as not to focus too strongly on the fact that she is also of Norwegian roots. The name Kjos is very Norwegian.)
Number two: Pius = Deutsche Christen = Christian German Nazis. Argument:
When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, there was a strong Lutheran tradition of theological Government Loyalty. Like this: «Romans 13:1-6 tells us to be obedient to every Government. Hitler is the present ruler. So we have to obey him whatsoever …». Other Lutherans would argue that Acts 5:29 tells us to obey God more than humans. But the group called Deutsche Christen made the duty to obey Hitler absolute and identified it as a particular sort of piety.
They did not command the majority in German Lutheranism. But German Lutheranism did not on the other hand produce any sort of strong theological anti-nazism like the Norwegian Lutheran anti-nazi confessional Document «The Foundation of the Church» from 1942.
Now, as I wrote above yesterday, I don’t believe in any of these interpretations. But I have tried to argu them as strongly as possible to show their power as alternatives to the Pius = Pope-interpretation.
Odd Sverre Hove
Bergen, Norway
I’m a little confused. Is Rowling a member of the Episcopal Church or the Church of Scotland? Posters here have said that she’s in the Episcopal Church, but the Harry Potter Lexicon says that she attends the Church of Scotland, and so does Wikipedia. Which is it?
Church of Scotland
JKR has said in several interviews that she attends the Church of Scotland [WEB LINK]. Since she gave her daughter Jessica a copy of Jessica Mitford’s WEB LINK – amazon.comHons and Rebels for her “christening” gift, it may be inferred that Jessica was baptized in the Church of Scotland after JKR returned to the United Kingdom when Jessica was only three months old. One article explicitly says that Jessica Rowling was christened in an Edinburgh congregation of the Church of Scotland, though a specific church was not cited (WP1).
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/muggle/encyc/muggle-c.html#church_of_scotland
Reading some of the suggestions (on various web sources) that imply Pius Thicknesse was Pope Pius, further indicates to me that if folks go looking for something, they’ll find it, whether it’s there or not.
My Mums family name is Thicknesse, and I am wondering where JK Rowling go this name from? It is a name exclusive to our family, so I am perplexed how she plucked this surname out of thin air?
PS – RE: John ABaptist, Captain Philip Thicknesse was an ancestor of mine also. Interesting that she chose this name, I’d love to know why.
After reading this article linked below that was a feature story in The Jerusalem Post about Pius XII’s involvement with the Ustachi war crimes in Croatia, maybe we should re-open this discussion. If the Catholics make him a saint, the hundreds of thousands murdered in Croatian death camps will die another death.
Mass grave of history: Vatican’s WWII identity crisis
That article makes the linkage believable and likely, IMHO. With her work at Amnesty, Int’l, JK Rowling may have had enough information and access to make the connection. Her fondness for names and their significances in the text certainly suggest this is a valid connection.
Given the unsubtle allusions to fascism and WW2 that are common to the entire series, I think the papal symbolism of the name “Pius” is unlikely to be accidental, and thought so when I first read the book:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.harry-potter/browse_thread/thread/789d60c063847ac4/11f61c7d092b7a02#11f61c7d092b7a02
I differ with your wholesale dismissal of the “Hitler’s Pope” thesis: on the other hand, I also disagree with a premise you and Rowling (and most other folks) seem to have in common, which is that anyone who fought on the side of the Axis during the war can only have been motivated by evil. The situation in Europe was much more complicated; millions of people and whole nations were boxed between Hitler and the equally evil Stalin, and who they fought for largely depended on who was more likely to plunder, starve and depopulate their own country. (Poland, of course, was raped by both at the same time, and then sequentially.)
If Rowling’s intention in the series was to create a realistic WW2 allegory, as a lover of history I have to say it was a spectacular failure. Yes, Voldemort and the Death Eaters are plausible stand-ins for fascist leaders. But the real war record of the Allies is nothing like Harry and his friends, or the Order. It was more comparable to Barty Crouch Jr. on his worst day, to the tenth power. And that’s the Western allies, I’m not even counting Stalin into the mix.
Sorry, that last should’ve read “Barty Crouch, Sr.”–you probably guessed that.
Does the fact that Philip Thicknesse of the 18th century had a long career in the covert world of ciphers and codes (publishing a book on the subject in 1772) have anything to do with it.
He being a Jesuit, in fact ?
Must be sheer coincidence, of course.
That’s the first “Thicknesse” historical source for the name that I find credible, but, as you say, it seems a stretch from your thumbnail description to the finale’s Thicknesse.
{ 3 trackbacks }