{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3177", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3177, "subject": "Numerological Wolfe", "messages": 4, "voices": 2, "first": "2002-04-19T22:16:02+00:00", "last": "2002-04-22T17:01:45+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-04-19T22:16:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Numerological Wolfe", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I made a numerological reflection relevant to 5HC: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"666,\" the Number of the Beast, is \"the number of a man.\" Kaballistically,\n6 is a man and 3 is God; 666 is Man making a God of himself.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In Rev. 13 the number is six hundred, sixty, six, not three 6s. A \nlot of people are confused on this, simply because we say \"sixsixsix\"\nand the English could be read either way. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yeah. The Arabic numeral system simply wasn't around when John\nhad his vision. Still, I misdoubt whether the standard translations\n(like KJV's \"six hundred, three score and six\") are any better reflections\nof the original Gk than a simple 666. I frankly find it very unlikely that\nSt John in writing this down was _un_aware of the hexaplicity of the three\ncomponents of his number.\n\nI wasn't really familiar with the whole Solomon thing -- but I guess it\nworks in context.\n\nWhatever meaning the number may have had to St John -- I think that is an \nentirely different question from what it may have meant to Gene Wolfe in \nthe early-to-mid-'70s. And certainly it seems that much of the activity\nat 666 Saltimbanque is oriented toward man deifying himself. \n\nAnd, really, given \no the popular association of the number with a certain Caesar,\no the identity of GW's favorite fictional detective,\nand\no the family's \"real\" last name\nI find it extremely unlikely that GW would miss the opportunity to \nmake _that_ association...\n\nH'mmm. I have a couple of kind of separate things to say about 5HC. I'll\nmake them in a separate post or two." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2002-04-20T15:17:03+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Numerological Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 05:16 PM 4/19/2002, you wrote:\nI made a numerological reflection relevant to 5HC:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"666,\" the Number of the Beast, is \"the number of a man.\" Kaballistically,\n6 is a man and 3 is God; 666 is Man making a God of himself.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In Rev. 13 the number is six hundred, sixty, six, not three 6s. A\nlot of people are confused on this, simply because we say \"sixsixsix\"\nand the English could be read either way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, yeah. The Arabic numeral system simply wasn't around when John\nhad his vision. Still, I misdoubt whether the standard translations\n(like KJV's \"six hundred, three score and six\") are any better reflections\nof the original Gk than a simple 666. I frankly find it very unlikely that\nSt John in writing this down was _un_aware of the hexaplicity of the three\ncomponents of his number." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Not to disagree, but just to provide a bit more for anyone interested:\n The text of Rev. 13:18 is not \"hex, hex, hex,\" (6,6,6) but \n\"hexakosioi hexekonta hex\" (600,60,6). But of course you are right: Three \nsixes is significant, since man was made on the sixth day. Goliath is 6 \ncubits and a span high, and his spearhead weight 600 shekels (1 Sam. 17). \nNebuchadnezzar's idol in Daniel 3 has dimensions of 60x6 cubits. \nNumerologically, 666 is a climactic extension of this theme. Also, 666 is \nthe triangular of 36 (6x6). So, sixes abound in this number.\n What we see in all this, and climactically in 666, is man's \nattempt make himself god by his own bootstraps. He never gets to God's gift \nof sabbath (\"7\") -- God's elevation of him by grace into \"little godhood,\" \nas another line of posts has been discussing. He just keeps multiplying \nhimself over and over. This is pretty much a standard thematic \nunderstanding of these multiplied sixes, and of course it fits perfectly \nwith the first 5HC novella -- as you say: man deifying himself.\n I doubt if Wolfe made the connection to Solomon (though that's \nwhat any synagogue-trained 1st c. Jew hearing the passage would first think \nof), and I agree that Wolfe may have enjoyed thinking of Nero in this \nconnection, since that is a frequently encountered specific understanding \nof 666 as a code. That would be secondary, though. The multiplication of 6s \nnever getting to 7 is the more basic thematic link.\n\nNutria" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-04-22T16:23:49+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Numerological Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " What we see in all this, and climactically in 666, is\nman's attempt make himself god by his own bootstraps. He never\ngets to God's gift of sabbath (\"7\") -- God's elevation of him by\ngrace into \"little godhood,\" as another line of posts has been\ndiscussing. He just keeps multiplying himself over and over. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And now we see another significance of \"Number Five.\" By this \ngeneration (which probably isn't the fifth at all; \"that number is \neither far too small or too large\"), the Wolfes are not even able \nto make it as far as Number Six (\"I am not a prisoner...I am a free \nman!\"); they are no longer quite human..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2002-04-22T17:01:45+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Numerological Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And now we see another significance of \"Number Five.\" By this\ngeneration (which probably isn't the fifth at all; \"that number is\neither far too small or too large\"), the Wolfes are not even able\nto make it as far as Number Six (\"I am not a prisoner...I am a free\nman!\"); they are no longer quite human...\n\n--Blattid" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good thot. Either that, or that an evil No. 6 is coming someday, which is \nhow I've taken the last sentence.\n BTW, thematically this feature might be linked to Wolfe's story \n\"To the Seventh\" in *Stranger Travellers.* Of course, the seventh here \nrefers to chess, and when the pawn gets to the eighth after dying on the \nseventh, he becomes a Queen (the bride of Christ). Still, 6 as inadequate \nand stuck in time versus 7 as fulfilling and completing humanity -- the two \nstories make a nice complement. The one thing the \"Wolfes\" in 5HC refuse to \ndo is \"die\" and be truly transformed.\n\nNutria" } ] } ] }