Subject: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:01:52 +0000

Emerging from the murky    mists of the Internet,
composing on computers    their provident remarks,
James and Jeff   have jointly written:

> > ... as Dan'l  mentioned, from some Roman Catholic perspectives
> > the atonement of the Son is "eternal" so it could "happen" in
> > time more than once.

I should clarify my point here ... it is _not_ that it could happen
more than once in time; it is that the spatiotemporally unique event
could be eternally present to many, any, or all points of spacetime.
(Hey, how often do you get to use relatvisitic terminology in a 
christological discussion?) What I mean is, ignoring the question of
other universes, in _this_ universe, we (the Roman Catholic church, 
and I am pretty sure the Orthodox churches also) believe that in the
sacrifice of the Mass, we are not repeating the sacrifice of Golgotha
but participating in it, being present with Christ at that eternally
unique moment.

(If this is still a bit vague, forgive me; I'm trying _not_ to turn 
this into a theology list, so I'm making non-Lupine theological remarks
as brief as possible.)

> > If this was not in Wolfe's mind, then I doubt if we are supposed to 
> press the problem of a repeated crucifixion.
> 
> Whay can't this just be regarded as allegorical? The crucifixion
> would not be repeated so much as represented, it avoids all
> problems with time-binding statements and promises attributed to
> G-d, doesn't make a liar out of the translator, and doesn't
> require the Book to travel half a universe backward, get translated,
> then come 1 1/2 forward to be published. 

Okay, applying the above principle to the "Books" I think we need
to look at it with two different heads.

We can regard the references to the "theoanthropos," etc., either as 
"allegorical of" Christ or simply descriptive of Him. Matters not: the 
point is that from this perspective, Wolfe is describing stuff which 
we are clearly intended to recognize as in some way referring to Christ.

But in trying to decipher the proposed internal reality of the books, 
the universe of the discourse, we need to take a different tack and 
ask whether the Theoanthropos, the man enlightened and possessed by
the Outsider "is" Christ? Now, assuming (as I do assume) that Wolfe
is not playing us false in claiming that he intends this as a previous 
iteration of the universe from Big Bang to Grand Gnab; and assuming
equally that he, like myself and most Christians, regard the Incarnation
and Sacrifice as a unique event, then either the Theoanthropos is not
God, or the person we call Christ is not God. 

A simple and, I think, elegant resolution, which is consistent with
the text: in many universes, possibly in many worlds in a single
universe, Man or some other sentient race has Fallen. In one and only
one of these universes, the second Person of the Trinity became 
incarnate and allowed Himself to be sacrificed to reconcile these 
sentient races to the Godhead. In many other times-and-places, however,
the Godhead "enlightened and possessed" a person to perform acts that,
in the sense of the Mass but more so, are united with and copresent 
with the unique Incarnation and Sacrifice. For a person who knows only
of these events, belief in them is essentially belief in the unique 
event.

God is, after all, a torturer.

Then seeking to solve    philosophical problems,
of chronic recurrence    and Christian belief,
to the light came Roy Lackey,    and limned these brave words:

> In addition to the objections raised by others, there are all 
> those stories in the Brown Book, clearly recognizable to students
> of Classical mythology as founded on Earth's mythology. 

Well, that could be dismissed as mythic resonance, hero with a 
thousand faces type stuff, the idea that these archetypes are 
eternal. Blablablah. But this:

> It also contains a direct quote from Genesis, and another from
> Marlowe's FAUSTUS. No. No. No. Urth is in our Earth's far future.

...is just a wee tad more difficult to dismiss. It _is_ hard to 
imagine that in a simple repetition of the repeated Big Bang/Grand
Gnab variety, such details would be repeated. Perhaps, though, we
can suppose that Wolfe is borrowing a page from Nietzsche and 
considering it all as a species of "eternal recurrence"? Or that 
the Hieros, seeking to guide the recreation of the species that 
created their predecessors, do so with the kind of obsessive 
accuracy that actually does result in such recurrence? 

The short of it is, though, that I disagree, because I think 
putting Urth in a past cycle seems to me to make sense, while 
admitting that I don't have an easy answer to such problems.

> Facts aside, as well as theological difficulties, the notion of
> Severian, turning water into wine, being baptized, dying and being
> resurrected, a world savior, etc., in a previous iteration of
> creation, makes him the prototype for Jesus. Kind of cheapens the
> whole Holy Spectacle, doesn't it? Putting the cart before the horse.

Ummm ... no more and no less than do the Jesus-parallels you find 
when you look at (say) Moses, Samson, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha.
Almost all of Christ's miracles and many of the other events of His
life are "previewed" in one or more of these characters. It doesn't
seem particularly more difficult to assume that Severian also figures
Christ without being Him.

> Not to mention it plays hell with Nick Gevers' idea of placing 5HC
> in the SUN universe. A separate creation with an Earth, complete
> with Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and New York City, DAVID COPPERFIELD,
> and Catholic saints (all mentioned in the text), stretches credulity
> past all endurance.

Well, if you can swallow or could have swallowed quotes from Genesis
and Marlowe, the rest is not only not harder but in fact necessary 
-- I mean, it would actually be harder (for me at least) to accept the 
presence of such quotes, and then to be told that Ireland, Scotland, 
Wales, New York, and _David Copperfield_ were _not_ present in that 
universe. At least if they're present, the whole is consistent.

A final correction    to the "facts" used by Crush:

> But in my heart of hearts I believe Wolfe concocted this
> explanation to rescue himself from having to constantly justify
> theologically everything in the BOTNS. I DO recall that he
> denied Severian is Christ. He said he was a "Christ figure", but
> that's merely a literary term.

Actually, he went a step further than your memory, Crush -- he 
actually denies that Severian, or any of his protagonists, are
"Christ figures," and insists that they are rather "Christian
figures." I believe that the distinction is made fairly clearly
in the interview Wolfe gave to James Jordan, to which a link was
posted in this group within the last day or so.

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:56:19 +0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
> christological discussion?) 

Umm, Boethieus, *De Consolatione Philosophae* . . .  

    hartshorn

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:24:56 +0000

Ah! Yes. Here's the quote:
JJ: The holy slaves [Heirodules], Famulimus or one of them tells Severian
that he is the center of his race, the savior of his race. That is such
Christlike language you can see why interpreters would say well Severian is
a Christ figure. But is there a Christ figure in the book, or is he simply
for this universe?
GW: In so far as there is a Christ figure it is Severian. That doesn't mean
he has to be identified with Christ. He is in a position similar to that of
Christ. But really it is a different position because Christ really is both
God and man. Severian is not. Severian is a Christian rather than a Christ.
But he is been taken as the representative of humanity by whom humanity is
to be judged. This I think is what has happened perhaps with the actual
human Jesus. He is or was is as fully human as you or I and we are saved by
Him. By the fact that he passed. That the corruption did not destroy Him. I
think that St. Paul is absolutely correct when he says that Jesus was
tempted in all the ways that we are tempted. I think that Jesus was tempted
to commit murder or any other sin that you want to name just as the rest of
us are. And the difference is that He did not sin.
-- Crush

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:ddanehy at siebel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:02 AM
To: 'urth at urth.net'
Subject: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:51:12 +0000

I suppose this is a question of interpretation... To me, the "in so
far as there is a Christ figure" seems to me to be a way of saying
that there really isn't, but if you have to find one, Severian would
be it.

> From: James Wynn [mailto:crushtv at HotPOP.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:25 PM
> To: urth at urth.net
> Subject: RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt
> 
> 
> --Blattid

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:30:22 +0000

> James and Jeff   have jointly written:
[snip]
> God is, after all, a torturer.

So in every universe, there is a figure who is regarded as a sacrificed
God-become-man, but only one of these universes has it right?  In that case,
how do we know that we're the lucky ones?

What occurred to me when I first read Wolfe's past-universe comment was that
the Theoanthropos could be an anticipated future figure, rather than a past
figure.  Is there anything in the books which rules this out?

> accuracy that actually does result in such recurrence?

If that's the case, then presumably Severian and his story would recur too,
rendering the whole question academic.

> putting Urth in a past cycle seems to me to make sense,

Why?  I don't see a single advantage to it, aside from partially answering
the question "How did we get Sev's story?" which, after all, arises with
every SF story set in the future.

--Adam

--

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at hotpop.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:31:17 +0000

I agree. Actually, I think the operative sentence here is "Severian is a
Christian rather than a Christ." Although, to me for some reason, saying
Severian is a Christian is a more jarring statement than saying he's a
Christ.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [mailto:ddanehy at siebel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 5:51 PM
To: 'urth at urth.net'
Subject: RE: (urth) The Saga of the Urth Mailing List: An Excerpt

Crush:

--

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:24:38 +0000

Adam done wrote:

> So in every universe, there is a figure who is regarded as a 
> sacrificed God-become-man, but only one of these universes has
> it right? In that case, how do we know that we're the lucky ones?

Through faith, of course. 8*)

No, you see ... the point is that by participation, we're all right,
even though it only happens the once. Don't think in time, think in
eternity.

Or (for the Gaiman/Pratchett fans amongst us) think ineffability.

> What occurred to me when I first read Wolfe's past-universe 
> comment was that the Theoanthropos could be an anticipated
> future figure, rather than a past figure.  Is there anything
> in the books which rules this out?

Nope. And the nature of such prophecies is often to confuse past
and future. 

This idea would seem to support the whole "cyclic" thing, though,
wouldn't it?

> > ... Perhaps, though, we
> If that's the case, then presumably Severian and his story 
> would recur too, rendering the whole question academic.

Yep. I have no problem with this. After all, he himself is aware
that there was at least one prevous Severian.

> Why?  I don't see a single advantage to it, aside from  partially
> answering the question "How did we get Sev's story?" which, after
> all, arises with every SF story set in the future.

True: the primary difference being that most SF writers simply
ignore the question, where Wolfe, at least as far back as PEACE
and 5HC, has made a point of including the provenance of the 
story -- the motives and reliability of the narrator, the time 
at which the story is actually written -- an intrinsic part of
his texts.

Where have you been, my blue-eyed son?

--