{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3715", "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": 3715, "subject": "Janus, Juturna and the reconciliation with Ocean", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2002-12-24T03:56:35+00:00", "last": "2002-12-24T06:06:33+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "abollen at internode.on.net" }, "date": "2002-12-24T03:56:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Janus, Juturna and the reconciliation with Ocean", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nIMHO, there is never a problem of not having enough clues; the problem is,\nrather, that the given set of clues can produce a nearly infinite number\nof\ninternally consistent hypotheses." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snippety]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The second possibility is to, as a reader, come up with a reading of the\ntext that is as aesthetically pleasing (to you) as you can. In this sense\nwe\nare in some way pushing each other to come up with more beautiful\ninterpretations in consistency, form, and symmetry among other things -\nand\nin this context, what the author *meant* has little if anything to do with\nmatters. One can look for the simplest explanation, but depending on your\ntaste this won't always be the best." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I can't speak for anyone else, but I tend to look at things from the\nsecond\nperspective, which lends itself well to tolerance of many different\ninterpretations." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Me too! Wolfe places demands on readers to do much of the story-telling\nthemselves; I like this, and I'm quite happy not to have a a \"definitive\"\nauctorial reading available. (On the other hand, if Wolfe *did* intend\ndefinitive readings for all the various narrative points under\ndiscussion, then he obviously failed to give enough information. I think\nenough smart people have looked closely enough at the text, for long enough,\nto warrant such an assertion.)\n\nLooking for the \"simplest\" explanation is rarely the best way to approach\nWolfe. The explanation with the greatest \"poetic meaning\" is probably the\nmost appropriate, as was said of Robert Graves. I agree with Crush on this,\nI think: it is fruitful to approach Wolfe with the same \"analeptic\" mode of\nenquiry that Graves brought to myths. Concretely, for Graves it was always\nappropriate to ask questions such as \"What song did the sirens sing?\"; with\nWolfe, I believe, one is expected to ask questions such as, \"What song does\nSeawrack sing?\", and to formulate an answer for oneself. I also agree with\nCrush, I think, in believing that Graves was probably one of Wolfe's\nspecific inspirations, or at least a source of imagery and themes - but even\nif that's not actually true, Wolfe allows at least enough narrative space,\nfor one to enjoyably approach the text from that direction.\n\nAnyway, my idosyncratic reading goes like this:\n\nThe powers in the sea are one of the strongest links between New Sun and\nShort Sun/Short Sun, but they remain deeply mysterious. We are given to\nunderstand that they are inimical, wishing to extend their empire to the\nland (on Urth), and a strong component of the forces arrayed against the New\nSun. (Juturna, the undine who saved Severian at the very beginning of the\ncycle, tells us in UOTNS that the powers wished only to \"tame\" humanity, but\nsurely there is little difference between \"taming\" and \"enslaving\".)\n\nAnd yet both Severian and SilkHorn are beloved in one way or another by\nthese powers. It is valid to ask the question, \"Why?\", and expect to find an\nanswer. These powers are not bound completely by time, so the answer need\nnot be.\n\nI think SilkHorn performed a reconciliation with these powers, by his grace\ntowards their acolyte, Scylla; and possibly by the action of the Mother and\nthe Vanishing People. Through this reconciliation, a new\nrelationship between man and Ocean is established: respect, but do not\nworship (as SilkHorn puts it, I believe in his wedding sermon or at any rate\ntowards the end of RTTW) - in contrast to the old choices, worship or\nabominate.\n\nI see in\nthis a serious effort by Wolfe to answer Graves' call for abandonment of\nsolar, male dominated theology in favor of a return to a worship of the\nMother and her Ocean; No, says Wolfe, but neither is she unclean or\nhorrific.\n\nDually, one must suppose a similar shift by the powers: respect humans, and\ndo not enslave them.\n\nWith this reconciliation, Blue's future is made more secure, and I believe\nalso that Ushas is spared. For with the universal flood, surely Abaia would\notherwise be free to dominate the world, and enslave the new race of humans.\nFor me, this remains a major unsolved mystery at the end of the UOTNS; and I\nthink that a major strand running through Short Sun/Long Sun is the\nresolution of this mystery. SilkHorn's \"respect but do not worship\"\nstatement *must* be a new development over the theological context of BOTNS,\nI think. If the powers remain effectively inimical, as they remain\nthroughout BOTNS, then surely \"resist, and do not worship\" would be the\nappropriate slogan.\n\nPerhaps the iteration presented in New Sun is not to be thought of as the\nfinal refinement of Severian? Perhaps SilkHorn has \"changed the story\", so\nthat we start again, perhaps with a melded Sev/SilkHorn, and reach a\nconclusion graced with a New Sun, but also with mankind and Ocean\nreconciled?\n\nOr perhaps we might think of the \"man and woman deposited by a certain ship\nof the caogens\" at the end UOTNS as being SilkHorn and Seawrack (very\nflimsy, I admit)?\n\nThere are specific connections between Severian and SilkHorn pointing both\nto a deep identiication of the two, on some level, and also to this\nreconciliation.\n\nThe connection between Sev and SilkHorn is signified (inter alia) by their\nconnection through Janus. Both Severian and SilkHorn are types of Janus.\nJanus also signifies the reconciliation, because and Janus in at least one\naccount was married to Juturna, the goddess of springs, fountains and pools.\nIt seems clear to me that Janus and hiis connection to Juturna were on\nWolfe's mind; specifically, from at least the time of the writing of UOTNS.\nFor I can think of no other reason for the undine to take the name of such\nan obscure water goddess.\n\nAs to Janus:\n\n- First, Quadrifons. The god of doors, crosswords, \"and much else\", as RTTW\nputs it. He is clearly Janus. The earliest depictions of Janus have four\nfaces - Janus Quadrions. The Olavine scene in RTTW makes the identification\nvery clear. She carries the key of Janus (part of his standard regalia,\nalong with a sceptre). Passing through the door, one passes beneath Janus'\noak. Janus, from at least the time of Fraser, has been recognized as an oak\ngod: his name a form of Dianus, and he is a \"rustic Jupiter\", as Graves puts\nit. The pools beyond on the door are to me undoubtedly Juturna's. (I do not\ndiscount also the cherub/sphinx connotations in his lion/eagle\nsignifications, but see these as \"syncretic\" to the Janus signification.)\n- Both SilkHorn and Severian are \"two faced\" in the sense they are two\npersonalities in one. Note that Janus was often depicted with a man's face\nand a woman's, which does well for Severian.\n- Apart rom his role as god of doorways, Janus was also a \"culture hero\" -\nintroducing agriculture, money and (something else?). He inaugurated the\nGolden Age. He resonates with the Odin/Mercury/Gwydion \"culture hero\" aspect\nwhich is very clear in SilkHorn - grain from the sky, giving law to\nprimitive communities, inaugurating a new religious dispensation etc - and\nalso in much of the \"earlier\" life of Severian as Conciliator. He was the\ngod of new beginnings, and he marked the transitions between old and new in\ndevelopment of civilizations. As a form of Jupiter, the supreme god, he\ntherefore seems well fitted to be a god of whom SilkHorn and Sev are in some\nsense \"avatars\" or representatives.\n- Severian also carries Janus' great key (in Thrax). And \"Terminus Est\" -\nglossed as \"This is the line of division\" - is an appropriate motto for\nJanus in his marking of transitions between old & new.\n- Quadrifons is especially holy, and his name especially \"magical\", perhaps\nbecause he is dimly remembered as (the god of) the Conciliator.\n- \"Quadrifons\", rather than \"Bifrons\", in accordance somehow with the\ngeneral leitmotif of doublings in New Sun/Short Sun; and perhaps speaking\ndirectly to an amalgamation of the two \"doubles\", Sev and SilkHorn?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2002-12-24T06:06:33+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Janus, Juturna and the reconciliation with Ocean", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just a couple notes on different subjects, but at least on something less \ngeneral than before:\n\nI agree that Graves is very helpful in trying to understand Wolfe's work; of \ncourse, I also agree with someone else who posted that attempts to jam Wolfe \ninto a... Graves-ian framework, aren't going to work. Comparisons tend to be \nfruitful, though.\n\nThere are also qabbalistic references here and there in his work. I only \nknew enough, at the time, to make some general inferences which have \nprobably been rehashed here 20 times. However, by coincidence I picked up a \ncommentary of the Sefer Yetzirah (for non-Wolfe-related reasons), and when I \nfinish it I'm hoping those pieces will fall into place.\n\nAlso, w.r.t. Abaia and the undersea entities... I felt that their function \nin the story was largely allegorical- to the point that they may partially \n(or even entirely) be the invention of Severian (as an author, and aware of \nthe devices of authors) to illustrate a point. Where he uses them, I find \nthat nearly always the water they are submerged under is time/history, and \nthe large entities like Abaia could be compared to the influence of \nlong-dead nations and cultures, and possibly even dominant *ideas*, cast \naside but reaching out to extend their largely subconscious influence on the \npresent. One of the most obvious instances (if any are needed, though I \nsuspect everyone's gone well over this by now) is the defeat of Baldanders \nand the potential of what he could have been: he goes back under the waters, \nswallowed by time.\n\nNot to say that this is a universal theme applied to all segments in the \nstory, it's just a sub-story alongside the story, I suppose. But I find it \nan interesting consequence that, from this point of view, the cycle must \nnecessarily end with a flood.\n\nFrom this way of looking at things, it would follow that while Abaia & co. \nachieve victory at the end of a cycle in a sense, they nonetheless are \nvanquished at that instant where the end of the old cycle gives way to the \nbeginning of the new (though they may be reborn). I am unable to produce any \ntextual evidence whether such an extinction did/did not occur, but I would \nbe interested if anyone knows.\n\nApologies, by the way, if I have spent a great deal of time re-hashing what \neveryone has taken for granted/dismissed a long time ago; I haven't seen it \nin the archives, but I also haven't read them from beginning to end either. \nI've been babbling on far too much of late.\n\nChris" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew wrote:\nLooking for the \"simplest\" explanation is rarely the best way to approach\nWolfe. The explanation with the greatest \"poetic meaning\" is probably the\nmost appropriate, as was said of Robert Graves. I agree with Crush on this,\nI think: it is fruitful to approach Wolfe with the same \"analeptic\" mode of\nenquiry that Graves brought to myths." } ] } ] }