Talk:Smaug

Tolkien's "philological jest"

@Chiswick Chap: As far as I can tell, the "jest" is simply that Tolkien took the past tense of a verb meaning "to squeeze through a hole" and used it as the name of a dragon. Tom Shippey does not suggest otherwise in the cited sources: he simply notes that smaug could also be interpreted as an ON form of the OE adjective smeog(an), which meant "penetrating", in both literal and figurative senses. He mentions the wyrm spell only in passing and does not suggest that Tolkien took direct inspiration from it, which is what the article currently implies. The part about "crafty dragons" seems to be OR, since Shippey glosses wyrm as "worm". Zacwill (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

We need to be very careful about interpreting anything that Tolkien says, as he often gave different replies to different people according to the context of their argument; and he often changed his mind. Since we know there was a "jest" here, we can be certain that there was something subtle and amusing to a learned philologist: and that there was at least one real-world (medieval) referent for this. Beyond that, any conclusions are risky, and any limitations like "he simply notes" are doubtful: Tolkien was capable of sounding simple and being subtle, or of saying only half of what he thought, and there are many examples of his demonstrably doing exactly that. We should therefore report impartially both what he wrote and what the scholars have said about it. Much the same goes for Shippey, who is also a philologist; it isn't safe to limit him to "in passing" or anything else, as his thought is wide-ranging and he's as fond of witty allusions as Tolkien was. It also isn't any good picking on one word like wyrm and ignoring the rest of his quite detailed discussion: Shippey explicitly mentions "subtle, crafty" (p. 102) in the immediate context of his discussion of Smaug's intelligence, so this is a direct report of Shippey's analysis here (and nothing to do with his gloss on wyrm). Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the extent of what Shippey's book says about the name Smaug:

[Smaug's] name is another 'asterisk word', being the past tense *smaug of a Germanic verb *smugan, 'to squeeze through a hole', as Tolkien said in his 1938 Observer letter; also the Old Norse equivalent of an Old English magic word found in a spell wið sméogan wyrme, 'against the penetrating worm'. But he has a mental sense as well as a physical one, since O.E. sméagan also means 'to inquire into' and in adjective form 'subtle, crafty'. All round it is appropriate that Smaug should have the most sophisticated intelligence in The Hobbit.

It's not clear where you got statements like critics have explored what that jest might have been and wid smeogan wyrme [...] could also be translated "against a crafty dragon". There's also some conflation of OE words going on. Smugan and smeagan are two different verbs; only the former has the past tense smeah. Zacwill (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

To move things forward, I suggest we rename the section "Name" (since that's what it's really about) and strip it down somewhat. How would this sound?

In a letter published in The Observer in 1938, Tolkien wrote, "The dragon bears as name—a pseudonym—the past tense of the primitive Germanic verb smúgan, to squeeze through a hole: a low philological jest." Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey has also linked the name to the Old English word smeog (of which the Norse form would be smaug), meaning both "penetrating" and "subtle, crafty". The Old English word occurs for example in the 11th-century leechbook Lacnunga, which includes a spell to be used wid smeogan wyrme ("against penetrating worm"). Noting the dual meaning of smeog, Shippey writes, "It is appropriate that Smaug should have the most sophisticated intelligence in The Hobbit." The name being Norse in form, he compares it to the names of the dwarves, which Tolkien drew from the Völuspá.

Zacwill (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we'd need to "strip down" anything in the reliably cited text, nor why the ambiguous and vague heading "Name" would be in any way an improvement on the existing "Old English spell". The presence of both smugan and smeágan in the discussion is due to Shippey, and the words are explicitly noted as close in Bosworth's dictionary (as well as implicitly in Shippey). Shippey uses the connection to argue that Tolkien was hinting at a dragon who both crept and was crafty, i.e. it's central and essential to his discussion. I've split the entries in the table so we have a row for each verb, and added citations to both Bosworth and Shippey to make this clear and explicit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Because the section as it stands is borderline OR. You talk about the "critics" (plural) who have "explored what [Tolkien's] jest might have been", but then you cite only Shippey, who never says anything about a "jest" – he simply offers an alternative interpretation to the one Tolkien gave in his Observer letter. You then use Shippey as a citation for the claim that wid smeogan wyrme could also be translated "against a crafty dragon", despite the fact that Shippey never says this. Zacwill (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The "low philological jest" is Tolkien's own phrase, from Letter 25. Certainly Shippey has taken that seriously, and he names both smugan and smeágan on page 102, in the paragraph that discusses Smaug, and says that the latter in adjectival form means "subtle, crafty". Then, as quoted in the existing text, Shippey then immediately says that Smaug has the most sophisticated intelligence of any character in the book. I think it's quite fair to read that as "crafty". On other scholars, we also have the quotation in [15] Pettit 2002, which I've left in the citation, but you are convincing me that we actually need it explicitly in the main text as it makes the connection between the Lacnunga spell and Smaug's character explicit: "Tolkien's knowledge of Old English charms and remedies is also shown by his use of Lacnunga's term smeah wyrm 'penetrating worm.' This contributed to his conception of Smaug in The Hobbit; see Shippey". Since Pettit agrees with Shippey here, he is not advancing a different thesis (and nor is any other scholar, presumably for the simple reason that Shippey seems to be right), so "critics" is not exactly wrong but not very plural either. I'll call it "Shippey" for now, and will think about whether to move Pettit from note to main text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it seems clear from the above that Pettit should be explicitly in the main text, so we have both scholars in full view, so I've done that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think the section is muddled and poorly written. Its very heading is wrong – calling it "Old English spell" implies that Tolkien definitely took the name from Lacnunga, but this is just one theory, a guess of Shippey's that was taken up by Pettit. We can certainly mention this theory, but we should not give it undue weight. Zacwill (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section in line with my earlier suggestion, with the addition of Pettit. The rewrite presents essentially the same material but in a far more coherent and sensible way. Zacwill (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That's tantamount to editwarring, given that this is an ongoing discussion and that you know your point of view is opposed. I'll look at your text and consider what to do, but I'm not happy with this turn of events: reversion to the status quo ante would be completely in order before we continue this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

First of all, two small points which I hope will be uncontentious. There is no good reason to promote an item of scholarly analysis to be a top-level chapter, especially not at the top of the article. Whatever else the section is, it's just a part of 'Analysis', and there's no special reason to consider it the most important part of that chapter, let alone a stand-alone chapter item (indeed, given your thoughts about weight, promoting it to chapter-level seems surprising). Secondly, "Name" is somewhat vague and even ambiguous, so I've boldly adjusted it to "Tolkien's choice of the name 'Smaug'" which is at once clear, descriptive, and neutral about his sources (if any). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The main change appears at first blush to be the deletion of the table and the 'further' link:

Further information: Philology and Middle-earth

"A low philological jest"

Old English	Old Norse	Plain meaning	Alternatively
smugan	smjúga past tense smaug	"to creep, to squeeze through a hole"
smeágan		"to consider, ponder, examine, inquire into, discuss, search"	(in adjectival form) "crafty, subtle"
wyrm		"worm"	"lizard, reptile, dragon"
Lacnunga, spell (on line 3) wid smeogan wyrme		[Book of] Remedies "against a penetrating worm"

The link would seem to me to be quite uncontentious, so I'm a bit surprised to see it removed; there is no obvious reason for its removal, but good reason for its presence, namely (as for all 'further' links), that more discussion of the topic, here, Tolkien's use of his professional knowledge of philology in his Middle-earth writings, may be of interest to readers wanting to know more.

The deletion of the table is unexplained; if (for the sake of argument) we agree that the rewritten text is acceptable, this in no way justifies or requires that the table be removed. I'd suggest we put the table back, but moved to the end of the section. The table performs multiple functions not performed by the text (new or old), namely that it illustrates the Lacnunga spell and its surface meaning, and it indicates the Old English and Old Norse words and their meanings in a form which makes comparing them easy for readers. These are powerful advantages, and there seems no reason to forgo them, specially as no reason whatever has been given for the table's deletion, and none of the comments made today appear to apply to it. Everything in it is verifiable: there are no editorial opinions present. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There are several problems with the table. For one thing, it includes the Old English verb smugan, which is not actually mentioned in any of the sources; Tolkien refers rather to its "primitive Germanic" antecedent. For another, it conflates the verb smeagan with the adjective smeag (although in fairness, Shippey does this as well).

Whether Shippey is "conflating" verb and adjective I'd rather doubt, as he is very familiar with Germanic grammar; but the table says in terms "in adjectival form", per the source. I'm happy to clarify when we're dealing with verbs, if the term "tense" isn't unambiguous enough; there's no reason not to be as clear as possible so I'll do that now.

It also glosses wyrm as "lizard, reptile, dragon", something which (as I noted previously) the sources do not do.

This is the plain Old English dictionary meaning, I'll cite it now. Actually not sure how the citation disappeared but no matter.

Finally, is it really necessary to include an image of a worm-filled intestine in the article?

Yes, I'd say so, it makes plain what Lacnunga was talking about. Readers in the western world will be less familiar than their Anglo-Saxon ancestors (or people from the tropics) with "penetrating worms", so the image has a definite explanatory function, illuminating the text.

I don't have a strong opinion on the other issues you raised. It's very normal for articles of this kind to include a separate section on the subject's name and its etymology (see e.g. Gollum), but the content of the section is more important than its placement. I don't see how "Name" is in any way ambiguous (this is Smaug's article; the section is naturally going to be discussing Smaug's name), but again, this is a minor issue. The wikilink is fine. Zacwill (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, so that bit is sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)