Talk:High Priest Not to Be Described

Original Research
The conjecture about The High Priest's identity seems to lack verifiability, and so it has been tagged as original research. Throughout Wikipedia entries concerning the Cthulhu mythos, there is frequently speculation that any remotely mysterious being might be Nyarlathotep. For example, "Whisperer in the Darkness" also features an entity whose ultimately nature is only vaguely described, and likewise comments are edited in to suggest The Crawling Chaos is under the mask. This seems akin to romanticization more than anything--that is to stay, the desire to see patterns, symmetry, and grander meanings than the evidence suggests. Moreover, the references to Hastur seem utterly whimsical. They are both masked, but that alone makes for a large leap of conjecture in a universe that's populated by things that have difficulty approximating the form of men. SteveG700 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Cthulhu Mythos is highly allusive to other characters and references in related fiction; and this is because, their real-world authors were influenced by the same near-contemporaries, frequently paid hommage to one another in their own works, or scattered in-jokes throughout works otherwise only mildly related.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Observations
According to The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, the proper name is spelled "High Priest Not to Be Described"; so the title is correct.

Also, in the same book, I found a reference under "High Priest Not to Be Described" which lends support to the argument that the High Priest may be related to the "King in Yellow":

"[Lovecraft developed this character before reading Robert W. Chambers' collection The King in Yellow.]"

Harms, Daniel. The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, 2nd ed. (Chaosium, Inc., 1998).

Gate2Valusia 02:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Connection to Hastur and the moon-beasts
Before reading DQoUK I'd heard a lot of talk about the Priest being connected to Hastur somehow, but now it seems pretty clear that he(it)'s a moon-beast. The adjectives used to describe certain elements (flute, paws) are practically identical to those used to describe the moon-beasts, which is pretty characteristic of the way Lovecraft relates identical things. Theories concerning Hastur may be appropriate if Lovecraft had left the priest's identity vague or unknown, but as it is IMO there's not much room for speculation. 70.81.180.42


 * There are even those who claim that the High Priest is Nyarlathotep! I personally think that "he" is a moon-beast; which makes sense since the moon-beasts are connected with the "Men of Leng" and the monastery is on the plateau. (And besides, if Nyarlathotep is a shape-shifter, why would he need a mask? Furthermore, Nyarlathotep certainly doesn't appear overly shy about revealing himself&mdash;consider the fanfare surrounding his appearance at the end of Dream-Quest).
 * Speaking of Hastur, Lovecraft himself never actually said that Hastur was a physical being; he may have intended for Hastur to refer to a place! August Derleth apparently got hold of Hastur and turned him (it?) into a deity (in fact, he had originally considered calling Lovecraft's mythology the Hastur Mythos!&mdash;a notion which Lovecraft quickly shot down when he heard it). -,-~ R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not speak of the Priest,for there are things witch men may never understand and the being of the Priest is one such.New Babylon


 * Is the Priest = Hastur one of Derleth's ideas? IIRC, Derleth said Hastur was Chambers' King in Yellow. Since the Priest wears yellow, and appears to be wearing a mask (one of the scenes in The King in Yellow features a horrified courtier realising the King isn't wearing a mask; that's what he looks like), I can see how people might think they fit together. 92.8.114.156 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Lovecraft mentions Hastur, but never develops the idea to a point where you can decisively say that Hastur is a thing, rather than a place. Derleth's the one that makes it clear he is a being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.64.1 (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory
Recent modifications to the following section make it sound contradictory: See below for recent changes. RlyehRising 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC) "Although the identity of the high priest is never established in The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, the following passage (which appears below the passage quoted above) gives a hint: This colloquy went on for some time, and to Carter there was something sickeningly familiar in the sound of that flute and the stench of the malodorous place. It made him think of a frightful red-litten city and of the revolting procession that once filed through it; of that, and of an awful climb through lunar countryside beyond..."Since the moon is inhabited by pale, flute-playing toad creatures, and since the High Priest Not to be Described also communicates by playing the flute, he may simply be one of the lunar toad creatures and a servant of Nyarlathotep, the crawling chaos which consistently opposes Randolph Carter throughout the story. However, the sheer horror of Carter's reaction when he approaches the High Priest in the Yellow Mask suggests that the latter is a far more powerful and significant being, perhaps an incarnation of Nyarlathotep itself. After a lengthy defense to demonstrate that the high-priest may be a moon-beast, the final sentence throws away the entire argument by asserting that the high-priest is Nyarlathotep. This view itself already appeared in the section's first paragraph. Is this a veiled (perhaps unintentional) attempt to violate WP:NPOV? -,-~ R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence referred to above was added by a different contributor from the rest of the paragraph. Hence, if they appear contradictory, it is probably because they are the opinions of two different people. As the contributor of everything before the word "However", I would say that Randolph Carter's reaction to the priest does not necessarily indicate that it is anything other than a moonbeast. I was only unsure of how to proceed in a battle of edits with another contributor. - April 5, 2006 The preceeding unsigned comment by 170.248.94.221


 * I suspected as much; but I decided to approach this as objectively as possible &mdash; assessing the text exactly as it appears. However, since the issue has not been resolved, I went ahead and changed the wording, putting the "moon-beast" argument first (as it can be substantiated by the actual text) and leaving the "Nyarlathotep" assertion as the final word. I hope this solution will be acceptable to both editors. -,-~ R 'lyeh R isin g  ~-,- 03:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The solution is acceptable to me. - April 6, 2006