Subject: (urth) More on Frog and Fish

From: Andrew Mason <andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:19:51 +0000

.
James Wynn wrote:

> Except that his name, "Spring Wind", makes no sense as a designation for
> Mars.

It makes perfect sense to me. 'March winds' is a well-established
phrase, enshrined  in  a nursery rhyme.

And a garbled retelling the Romulus tale is kind of lame and
> unimaginative. And, well, there's really nothing Wolfean about that
> reading. I contend, Wolfe just _would not do_ what you are saying he
> did. Even a Freshman writer wouldn't do something as lame as that.
>

That depends what you think he's doing with it. I don't suppose he's
just saying 'Here's a garbled retelling of the Romulus tale'. The
myths which are incorporated into the story are there for a purpose.
Dr Talos later says, in connection with _Frankenstein_, that events
can have a backward influence, so that stories from the past reflect
the future. I think the Romulus and Mowgli stories are to be seen as
pointing to Severian. Not only was he brought up by 'wolves' and
became a ruler, but his mother, it seems, was a virgin priestess, and
he had a twin.  Also as a baby he was carried in a basket. (It's not
clear why that would be important, but Wolfe seems to think it is - he
mentions baskets repeatedly.)  On the face of it, he's a better fit
for Frog than Ymar was. But of course the story isn't a record of his
life; it's a myth that looks forward to him.

We know that _Wonders of Urth and Sky_ incorporates material from our
own time, and earlier; it contains direct quotations from Genesis and
from Marlowe. Jonas recognises the Theseus story as a source, and is
able to clarify a puzzling point in 'The Student and his Son' by
reference to it. In the light of that it seems reasonable to try to
interpret 'Frog' in the light of stories extant now; and in fact
almost everything in it can be so explained. The bits that don't fit
Romulus can be explained by reference to Mowgli, and the bits that
don't fit Mowgli can be explained by reference to Romulus. If events
closer to Severian's time have been incorporated into it, it's not
clear what difference they can have made. Either Ymar's life
recapitulated that of Romulus in amazing detail, with an interlude in
which it was more like that of Mowgli, or the myths have actually
corrupted the way the story is told, in which case we can't use it to
find out the truth about Ymar. This is even more true of Spring Wind,
whose life seems to follow that of Mars in every detail.

By the way, it occurs to me that there is a source for 'Fish', other
than its being a neat counterpart to 'Frog'. It comes at the end, 'The
Plowing of the Fish'. . The author has linked the burying of a victim
under the foundations of a city with the ploughing of literal fish
into the fields,. as the Pilgirm Father did on the advice of the
historical Squanto.

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 23:35:26 +0000

>Andrew Mason: it seems reasonable to try to
>don't fit Mowgli can be explained by reference to Romulus.
 
I agree with this approach for many of WOlfe's mysteries. We have a story 
with many gaps left unexplained but we are provided with multiple source
materials. Where one source does not explain, another can often be found
which does. Where mythology fails, the Bible may step in, etc.

>I think the Romulus and Mowgli stories are to be seen as
 
Great insight, Andrew. Perhaps Severian should be considered the foremost
subject of the myth. Still, especially with UotNS, there is much to suggest
Ymar can be considered as a "little" or "first" version of Severian. And, 
as I noted in another post, the Tale of the Boy Called Frog is told to a
character named Little Severian. The legends are said to reverberate both 
forward and backward in the corridors of time.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 02:21:43 +0000

> life; it's a myth that looks forward to him.

This was actually my first assumption. I was motivated to make it work. 
But we know more about Severian than anyone else in the book, yet beyond 
very broad outlines (in some cases), he doesn't seem to map or be 
mappable. The whole bit about the Butcher and the wolves...and just 
can't see how to force him into it. And there are elements that don't 
really seem to work at all. Even after Urth of the New Sun, the 
end-story doesn't look like Severian at all. That flood would be hard to 
miss.

J.

---

From: Andrew Mason <andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 20:06:41 +0000

> end-story doesn't look like Severian at all. That flood would be hard to

But I don't think the myth has to be applicable in every detail. The
myths which are applied to Jesus don't fit him in every detail;
_Frankenstein_ doesn't fit Baldanders in every detail (though, come to
think of it, his backward influence may explain why so many people
confuse the creator with the monster). The story follows the myths so
closely (counting _The Jungle Book_ as a myth, as it will be by then),
 that I don't think it can apply in detail to any future person,
unless his life bore an incredibly close resemblance to the myths. So
the connection must be looser. (That doesn't rule out there being some
hidden connections as well as the obvious ones. I don't know what,
though.)

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 19:32:36 +0000

> Andrew Mason:
> I'm not sure why June is OK for Juno, but March is not OK for Mars.
> (We're asking what a redactor of the myth might think. What
> associations the name might have outside the story, what symbolic
> value Wolfe might give it, is another question.)

Because the "redactors" are not sloppy. That's the beauty of what Wolfe 
has done here. It is possible to imagine an intelligent scholar 
translating Juno as "Early Summer" and Rhea Silvia as "woodland bird" or 
Bird of the Woods. The name for the bird was chosen from the name of the 
goddess.
"March Winds" is possibly a fine stand-in for Zephyr. But the word March 
is a direct translation of 'Mars'. Mars is not associated with the 
_winds_ that arise during that time period. The object is different for 
each one. Do you see that one of these things is not like the others?

> Regarding the evidence of dates: every bit of it can be answered.
> Severian may be wrong about the date of the Conciliator. Cyriaca may
> be wrong about the book - she's certainly wrong about some things. (I
> was wrong, in any case, to say she says the book was several chiliads
> old; she says no one has looked at it for a chiliad, though that
> implies it's considerably earlier than that.) A lot of early autarchs
> may have had short reigns, which allowed the mountains to be carved
> quickly. (It's the number of autarchs, rather than the time it takes
> to carve a mountain, which is the problem.)

Why should we assume that only autarchs carved their forms into 
mountains? I don't believe it is said so. Isn't that something any 
authority would do if he had the means?

> Thus, Wolfe was able to
> make Typhon just a chiliad earlier without direct contradiction - its
> not as if he had made Typhon say 'I was born five thousand eight
> hundred and forty-three years ago'. But a lot of people get the feel
> of a much earlier Typhon - all the bits of evidence seem naturally to
> point to it.  and are confused when, in_Short Sun_, the gap seems to
> be much shorter.

At the time, I had the feeling that Ymar's history was quite distant as 
well.  I found the date of 1000 years since Ymar to be quite jarring.

>> James Wynn:
> confuse the creator with the monster).

This not the same as either of those. Those are merely references (one 
of them uniquely declared as a reference). This is more -- or at least 
quite different. Wolfe didn't have anyone retell the story of 
Frankenstein badly. Because that would be stupid. By the same token, I 
just don't believe Wolfe would tell this story as you say he is. This is 
like Severian finding the Lunar Landing portrait with Rudisen. He 
doesn't recognize the character (at least not at the time), but _we_ are 
expected to divine *some* of its meaning from details in the story. This 
is a story told in intricate detail in the characters are merely 
thrice-removed in narration. The story must be able to fit in every 
detail or explain why it doesn't. For example, I recognize that Typhon's 
mother's name was not "June " or "Juno" or anything like it. The same is 
true for "Bird of the Woods". Those name were applied to those 
characters BECAUSE the compilers didn't have their actual names and 
believed, wrongly, that the story Romulus was an alternated telling of 
the same story--because the stories ARE so similar.

> The story follows the myths so
> closely (counting_The Jungle Book_  as a myth, as it will be by then),
> unless his life bore an incredibly close resemblance to the myths.

I keep using people who equate Jesus with Dionysus or Mithras. 
Additionally, the other dying gods who St. Justin argued against 
equating with Jesus in the 2nd century. Wolfe's opinion is not like 
Justin's. It's closer to CS Lewis'. Wolfe believes that the myths come 
to us from an eternal pattern and, presumably, he believes Jesus is the 
fulfillment of that pattern. That we are hard-wired to detect that 
eternal pattern because it is "real".  Lee mentions Alexander. Alexander 
and King Arthur were real people whose deeds were seen as fitting that 
pattern as well, and therefore Alexander became a character of myth, and 
Arthur of legend.

By the same token, the high-points of the story birth of Frog was, based 
on evidence, close enough to the story of Romulus that an intellectually 
honest scholar could conclude they were the same. It's the same 
situation as the Frankenstein analogy (which might or might not be 
genuine; I mean, how much could Dr. Talos be expected to know about 
temporal ESP, after all).

> Is that relevant, though? The gap the characters are trying to
> determine is between Rigoglio's departure (Typhon's time) and his
> return (Severian's time) - both on Urth. What the Rajan's home time
> is, on Blue, is another issue.

Is it necessary that the period at which Rigoglio dies be the same as 
the one where they meet Severian? Aren't those separate trips?

J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110530/18087fee/attachment.htm>

---

From: Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:12:01 +0000

[I can't interleaf my response due to the formatting.]

I think you are over-interpreting here with regard to the name - or half the name - of Spring Wind..  Why do any scholars need to be involved at all?  Somebody could have written down the story just as it had evolved to when he heard it.  Bird of the Woods and Spring Wind might have got their names separately at any time during its evolution.  Stories about talking wolves carrying knives do not have the air of a serious scholarly effort to uncover historical facts.  Instead, I think, some scholar of a chiliad or two ago wrote it down along with all the other collected legends, just as it was told to him.  

Mars might have become Spring Wind in various ways.  The wind is actually mentioned in the story as having two interpretations.  Perhaps Wolfe added that because the real reason he put it in was that he wanted a not-easily recognisable alternate name for Mars, but Spring was simply too short and obviously symbolic.  

Bird of the Wood and Early Summer sound like real names, personalised and non-symbolic.  Summer for a woman might not be too bad (perhaps because it is used in our culture today, though it is recent), but Spring for a man would instantly raise the question of what it means, and Wolfe wants that question to be secondary to the actual story of the people concerned.  (As with everything else in his stories.)

On the separate matter of Rigoglio, I think you are right that there were separate visits, but surely there is every indication that the visits were to the same time period?

- Gerry Quinn

  From: James Wynn 
Andrew Mason:

  Because the "redactors" are not sloppy. That's the beauty of what Wolfe has done here. It is possible to imagine an intelligent scholar translating Juno as "Early Summer" and Rhea Silvia as "woodland bird" or Bird of the Woods. The name for the bird was chosen from the name of the goddess.
  "March Winds" is possibly a fine stand-in for Zephyr. But the word March is a direct translation of 'Mars'. Mars is not associated with the _winds_ that arise during that time period. The object is different for each one. Do you see that one of these things is not like the others?

[--]Is that relevant, though? The gap the characters are trying to
determine is between Rigoglio's departure (Typhon's time) and his
return (Severian's time) - both on Urth. What the Rajan's home time
is, on Blue, is another issue.
  Is it necessary that the period at which Rigoglio dies be the same as the one where they meet Severian? Aren't those separate trips?

  J.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Urth Mailing List
  To post, write urth at urth.net
  Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110530/25e5b51c/attachment.htm>

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:28:53 +0000

On 5/30/2011 3:12 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> I think you are over-interpreting here with regard to the name - or 
> half the name - of Spring Wind..  Why do any scholars need to be 
> involved at all?  Somebody could have written down the story just as 
> it had evolved to when he heard it.

There aren't any scholars. There is author. A very good one. He's shown 
his skill with this sort of thing in the other two names. There's none 
of that skill on display in your interpretation of the name or story.

J

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110530/0cada3e7/attachment.htm>

---

From: Gerry Quinn <gerryq at indigo.ie>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 23:13:56 +0000

There aren't any scholars. There is author. A very good one. He's shown his skill with this sort of thing in the other two names. There's none of that skill on display in your interpretation of the name or story.

I don't understand how you draw that conclusion.  Somebody collected a bunch of old legends a chiliad or three before Severian's time.  From our vantage in prehistory, we can easily see the main sources of these tales (presumably neither ordinary people nor scholars of late Urth would have).  The names may have been acquired at any time in the past, for any reason.  

Rumpelstiltskin means something like 'poltergeist', which does not really fit the Grimm's story at all.  Wikipedia doesn't tell me if the Grimms used the name because it sounded good, or because that name was traditional.  Similar stories exist with different names.  You can't place so great a stake on such a trivial thing, in my opinion.

And I don't see what's so especially masterful about the name Bird of the Wood.  At some time 'Rhea' was grossly misinterpreted.  Perhaps out of a half-understanding of Latin, perhaps for fun [in truth, it's a typically Wolfean joke, and that is its real origin, a joke directed to the reader of BotNS by the 'translator' rather than the apparent author], perhaps because it sounded good.  It's possible that the name originated with the person who finally wrote down the story in Severian's book, but it is at least as likely that the substitution happened long long ago at the hands of some unknown Homer.

Your thesis that the writer mistook the story (whose roots we know) for a story about the deeds of Typhon does not ring true to me.  It's just an ancient story, I believe.  Spring Wind is Mars, maybe with some random accretions but nothing that obviously comes from Typhon.  Somehow over chiliads of retelling, the story of Romulus and Remus became associated with the story of The Jungle Book.  Some names got changed in various ways.  

If another story conflates the Monitor and the Minotaur, can we really say that names mean anything?

I don't agree with you aesthethically about what you see as deficiencies in the name 'Spring Wind', and I also don't agree that Wolfe needed to embed any secret history of Urth in it.  [I do see a possible secret history in the way the animals are seen as carrying hand weapons, just as the people in the antechamber imagined them.  But I don't set too much store by this; Wolfe simply doesn't give us enough to go on to draw such conclusions.]

- Gerry Quinn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110531/226ee697/attachment.htm>

---

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:48:27 +0000

On 5/30/2011 3:32 PM, James Wynn wrote:
> Wolfe believes that the myths come to us from an eternal pattern and, 
> presumably, he believes Jesus is the fulfillment of that pattern. That 
> we are hard-wired to detect that eternal pattern because it is 
> "real".  Lee mentions Alexander. Alexander and King Arthur were real 
> people whose deeds were seen as fitting that pattern as well, and 
> therefore Alexander became a character of myth, and Arthur of legend.

This is am excellent summary of Wolfe's attitude toward myth. Literally, 
to Wolfe, the story of Jesus/Christ is The Greatest Story Ever Told.

You mention green and blue and I'd be interested in your ideas there 
too. I just read mantis's great essay on why bears and wolves and cats 
keep appearing too, and maybe they are related. Although his ideas 
sometimes seem about to run off into areas that your theory above does 
not predict; that is, I think Wolfe is more purposeful than mantis suggests.

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110531-0, 05/31/2011
Tested on: 5/31/2011 7:48:28 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:46:58 +0000

>James Wynn:  Wolfe believes that the myths come to us from an eternal pattern and, 
> "real".
 
>David Stockhoff: This is am excellent summary of Wolfe's attitude toward myth. Literally, 

I agree. I think this is a great way to look at Wolfe's work. My own leaning is to 
attribute the Campbellian monomyth as a function of human psychology, culture and society.
While clearly wolfe recognizes that, as a religious man, he is also likely to see a higher,
spiritual basis for the monomyth pattern that goes beyond humanity.

---

From: Stanislaus B. <sbocian at poczta.fm>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:01:04 +0000

Campbell's Monomyth is a distorted version of the mythical world-view. 
He tries to reduce all myths to one myth - and this is his own invention.

The mythical worldview is that there is one superior world of gods - the 
True World, and the Secondary World in which we live. The true patterns 
from the True World are repeated many times in the Secondary World - but 
each time they are distorted by the matter and accidents, so the 
repetitions are never exact. For that reason Poetry is more true than 
History.

Aristotle, Poetics:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html

"Part IX

It is, moreover, evident from what has been said, that it is not the
function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen-
what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity.
The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose.
The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still
be a species of history, with meter no less than without it. The true
difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may
happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing
than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the
particular. By the universal I mean how a person of a certain type
on occasion speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity;
and it is this universality at which poetry aims in the names she
attaches to the personages. The particular is- for example- what Alcibiades
did or suffered."

Or to quote the Fragment of Saga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B6gubrot_af_Nokkrum
http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/Fragment.htm
"It happened that one night, as the king was sleeping on the poop-deck 
of his ship, that he dreamt that a great dragon flew out of the sea, 
sparks from it soaring into the sky like sparks from a forge, lighting 
up all the lands around it. And after it flew all the birds he thought 
there were in the Northlands. Next he saw a great cloud come up from the 
north, and he sees that it brings with it such great rain and gales that 
he thought all woods and all land would be washed away in the water that 
rained down. There was thunder and lightning with it. And when that 
great dragon flew from the sea onto the land, there came at him the rain 
and the storm and such great darkness that in a moment he could see 
neither the dragon nor the birds, though he heard a great din of the 
thunder and the storm, and it all went south and west over the land, and 
engulfed the whole of his realm. And he thought he looked towards the 
ships then, and they were nothing but whales now, all of them, and they 
swim out to sea.

And then he awoke and called to him his foster father Hord and tells him 
his dream and asks him to interpret it. Hord declares himself too old to 
know how to understand dreams. He was stood on a rock under the head of 
the pier while the king lay on the poop-deck, lifting the edges of the 
tent, as they spoke.

The king was in a foul mood and said, “Come aboard, Hord, and interpret 
my dream.”

Hord said he couldn’t come aboard, “but your dream needs no 
interpreting. You can see for yourself what it means, and most likely it 
won’t be long before there’s a change of rulers in Sweden and Denmark. 
And now the greed of the grave is on you, the hunger that betokens a 
man’s end, with this thought of yours to subjugate all the realms, but 
what you don’t know is that the outcome will be your death, and your 
enemies will have your kingdom.”

The king said, “Come here and speak your prophesies of doom!”

Hord said, “Here will I stand and from here speak them.”

The king said, “Who was Halfdan the Brave among the Aesir?”

Hord replies, “He was Baldr among the Aesir, and all the gods wept, not 
like you.”

“You speak well,” said the king. “Come here and tell me your tidings.”

Hord replies, “Here will I stand and from here tell them.”

The king asks, “Who was Hroerek among the Aesir?”

Hord replies, “He was Hoenir who was the most scared of the Aesir, 
though he was bad to you.”

“Who was Helgi the Bold among the Aesir,” says he king.

Hord replies, “He was Hermod who had the best of courage, and no good to 
you.”

The king asked, “Who was Gudrod among the Aesir?”

Hord replies, “He was Heimdall, who was the most foolish of the Aesir, 
though he was bad to you.”

The king said, “Who am I among the Aesir?”

Hord replies, “You must be the serpent that’s worst in the world, the 
one they call the Midgard Serpent.”

The king answers, very angry, “If you pronounce my doom, then let me 
tell you you’ll live no longer, for I know you where you stand, you big 
boggart. [1] So get you to the Midgard Serpent, and let’s see which of 
us is best when push comes to shove.”

Then the king sprang from the poop-deck, and he was so angry that he 
sprang out through the bottom edge of the tent. Hord dropped from the 
rock and plunged into the sea, and that was the last the watchmen aboard 
the king’s ship saw of either of them."

> spiritual basis for the monomyth pattern that goes beyond humanity. 		 	   		

----------------------------------------------------------------
Doladuj telefon przez Internet!
Sprawdz >> http://linkint.pl/f29ba

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:16:57 +0000

>Stanislaus B: The mythical worldview is that there is one superior world of gods
> - the True World, and the Secondary World in which we live. The true patterns 
>repetitions are never exact. For that reason Poetry is more true than History.
 
This sentiment claws to the heart of the Sun Series for me, especially BotNS. 
 
It may be that Wolfe considers the problem of which world to consider "superior" 
and "True" to be relativistic. That is, from a religious/mythological perspective,
the world of God(s) is the true one and our human world is a shadowy created 
reflection of that true world. While from a humanistic/scientific view, our world 
is the real one and the stories of God and gods is a shadowy reflection of our 
reality.

The circularity Wolfe gives humans and Hierogrammates in BotNS suggests to me he 
considers both perspectives to have equal footing and validity.

---

From: David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:26:26 +0000

Yes. Wolfe would be a pretty bad engineer if he believed our physical 
laws to be mere shadows of the True Laws that rule a higher existence. 
(Consider how you would feel if your doctor told you that.) Or so I 
would think.

In fact, one might argue that to even attempt to "realistically" depict 
a "higher" universe is to bring it down to our level to begin with, 
putting them on a par with one another. The Celtic/pagan otherworld is a 
far more useful fictional mode than the Christian, however much they 
have in common. So this "equal validity" is crucial to Wolfe's fiction 
in more than one way.

On 6/14/2011 8:16 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 110614-0, 06/14/2011
> Tested on: 6/14/2011 8:17:59 AM

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110614-0, 06/14/2011
Tested on: 6/14/2011 8:26:26 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

---

From: Stanislaus B. <sbocian at poczta.fm>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:36:34 +0000

Engineering is a rather interesting discipline. It must take into 
account both perspectives:
- it absolutely depends on the Platonic world of mathematical formulas, 
which order the behaviour of the matter,
- but it also must take into account that matter doesn't follow 
perfectly the patterns. Parts are designed with tolerances - how far can 
they diverge from standard; machines wear out in predictable and 
unpredictable ways. Chaotic matter disturbs the perfect mechanism of 
celestial wheels

But it is true that the default Western worldview puts much more trust 
into the superior patterns than.did Greeks and Romans. For them, the 
material world was irreparably corrupt; the reflections of the perfect 
heavenly system were rare, and were more often than not stifled by 
random chaos of matter. For us, everything goes according to 
mathematical patterns, and even random and chaotic events are ruled by 
the rules of probabililty, quantum waves etc.

But there is also a third worldview - also perfectly known to Wolfe, who 
indeed explained it best. It is the eastern worldview, according to 
which reality is not an imperfect reflection of the perfect original - 
but one which resembles it in large extent, but a random concatenation 
of unconnected factors, mostly having to do with emotions, which hides 
the true reality. It is the worldview of Buddhism, and also of the most 
part of the modern philosophy. In it, the true reality is unknowable 
(transcendental, to Kant), and the scientific rules of the universe 
which we can learn are only artefact of our own mind - and have nothing 
to do with things in themselves.

This worldview, as I said, is popular in modern philosophy, for various 
reasons - it is both absolutely sceptic, because it holds that true 
reality is absolutely unknowable, and it also in effect identifies 
humanity - represented by philosophers - with God. Since everything we 
can know and experience are creations of our own mind, our mind creates 
everything which matters. We (or rather, I - because in reality every 
man is the same) are the creators of the universe. And we do not need to 
learn - since our mind creates the world, we can deduct it from the 
first principles, or assume it to agree with our wishes.

For obvious reasons, this way of thinking is not very consistent with 
engineering. Engineers certainly can learn true laws of physics - this 
is how they make bridges which do not fall down. And they must confirm 
those laws by experiment - Kantian assumptions won't keep the ship 
afloat. "The comets do not follow my theories? So much the worse for 
comets!", or "Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it!" - 
those are not principles of a successful engineer.

And, returning to the Neoplatonic worldview, with perfect originals and 
imperfect copies, there is an interesting variant of it. Generally, 
originals are held to be earlier than copies. Originals are arches, 
principles, or, as it is called now, archetypes. But in Bible, the 
final, perfect originals will come at the end of the world. Until than, 
we have to do with a series of types, imperfect shadows thrown before 
the great events.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/type.html

The following article on the typology of Scripture by William G. 
Moorehead is reproduced from /The International Standard Bible 
Encyclopedia/, ed. James Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance Co., 1930), vol. 
5, pp. 3029-3030.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  TYPE

The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of 
typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The New Testament attests this 
fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of 
former dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies 
of the future. A generation ago a widespread interest in the study of 
typology prevailed; latterly the interest has largely subsided, chiefly 
because of the vagaries and extravagances which attended its treatment 
on the part of not a few writers. Pressing the typical teaching of 
Scripture so far as to imperil the historical validity of God's word is 
both dangerous and certain to be followed by reaction and neglect of the 
subject.

    1. Definition of Type

The word "type" is derived from a Greek term tupoV (/tupos/), which 
occurs 16 times in the New Testament. It is variously translated in the 
King James Version, e.g. twice "print" (John 20:25 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+20:25>); 
twice "figure" (Acts 7:43 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+7:43>; 
Romans 5:14 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Romans+5:14>); 
twice "pattern" (Titus 2:7 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Titus+2:7>; 
Hebrews 8:5 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Hebrews+8:5>); 
once "fashion" (Acts 7:44 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+7:44>); 
once "manner" (Acts 23:25 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Acts+23:25>); 
once "form" (Romans 6:17 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Romans+6:17>); 
and seven times "example" (1 Corinthians 10:6,11 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1Corinthians+10:6-11>; 
Philippians 3:17 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Philippians+3:17>; 
1 Thessalonians 1:7 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1Thessalonians+1:7>; 
2 Thessalonians 3:9 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=2Thessalonians+3:9>; 
1 Timothy 4:12 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1Timothy+4:12>; 
1 Peter 5:3 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1Peter+5:3>). 
It is clear from these texts that the New Testament writers use the word 
"type" with some degree of latitude; yet one general idea is common to 
all, namely, "likeness." A person, event or thing is so fashioned or 
appointed as to resemble another; the one is made to answer to the other 
in some essential feature; in some particulars the one matches the 
other. The two are called type and antitype; and the link which binds 
them together is the correspondence, the similarity, of the one with the 
other.

Three other words in the New Testament express the same general idea. 
One is "shadow" (skia, /skia/, Hebrews 10:1 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Hebrews+10:1>), 
"For the law having a shadow of the good things to come"--as if the 
substance or reality that was still future cast its shadow backward into 
the old economy. "Shadow" implies dimness and transitoriness; but it 
also implies a measure of resemblance between the one and the other.

The second term is "parable" (parabolh, /parabole/, Hebrews 9:9 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Hebrews+9:9>); 
the tabernacle with its services was an acted parable for the time then 
present, adumbrating thus the blessed reality which was to come.

The third term is "copy" or "pattern" (upodeigma, /hupodeigma/), a word 
that denotes a sketch or draft of something future, invisible (Hebrews 
9:23 
<http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Hebrews+9:23>); 
the tabernacle and its furniture and services were copies, outlines of 
heavenly things.

Types are pictures, object-lessons, by which God taught His people 
concerning His grace and saving power. The Mosaic system was a sort of 
kindergarten in which God's people were trained in divine things, by 
which also they were led to look for better things to come. An old 
writer thus expresses it: "God in the types of the last dispensation was 
teaching His children their letters. In this dispensation He is teaching 
them to put the letters together, and they find that the letters, 
arrange them as they will, spell Christ, and nothing but Christ."

In creation the Lord uses one thing for many purposes. One simple 
instrument meets many ends. For how many ends does water serve! And the 
atmosphere: it supplies the lungs, conveys sound, diffuses odors, drives 
ships, supports fire, gives rain, fulfills besides one knows not how 
many other purposes. And God's Word is like His work, is His work, and, 
like creation, is inexhaustible. Whatever God touches, be it a mighty 
sun or an insect's wing, a vast prophecy or a little type, He perfects 
for the place and the purpose He has in mind.

    2. Distinctive Features

What are the distinctive features of a type? A type, to be such in 
reality, must possess three well-defined qualities. (1) It must be a 
true picture of the person or the thing it represents or prefigures. A 
type is a draft or sketch of some well-defined feature of redemption, 
and therefore it must in some distinct way resemble its antitype, e.g. 
Aaron as high priest is a rough figure of Christ the Great High Priest, 
and the Day of Atonement in Israel (Leviticus 16) must be a true picture 
of the atoning work of Christ. (2) The type must be of divine 
appointment. In its institution it is designed to bear a likeness to the 
antitype. Both type and antitype are preordained as constituent parts of 
the scheme of redemption. As centuries sometimes lie between the type 
and its accomplishment in the antitype, of course infinite wisdom alone 
can ordain the one to be the picture of the other. Only God can make 
types. (3) A type always prefigures something future. A Scriptural type 
and predictive prophecy are in substance the same, differing only in 
form. This fact distinguishes between a symbol and a type. A symbol may 
represent a thing of the present or of the past as well as of the 
future, e.g. the symbols in the Lord's Supper. A type always looks to 
the future; an element of prediction must necessarily be in it.

    3. Classification of Types

Another thing in the study of types should be borne in mind, namely, 
that a thing in itself evil cannot be the type of what is good and pure. 
It is somewhat difficult to give a satisfactory classification of 
Biblical types, but broadly they may be distributed under three heads: 
(1) Personal types, by which are meant those personages of Scripture 
whose lives and experiences illustrate some principle or truth of 
redemption. Such are Adam, who is expressly described as the "figure of 
him that was to come" (Romans 5:14), Melchizedek, Abraham, Aaron, 
Joseph, Jonah, etc. (2) Historical types, in which are included the 
great historical events that under Providence became striking 
foreshadowings of good things to come, e.g. the Deliverance from the 
Bondage of Egypt; the Wilderness Journey; the Conquest of Canaan; the 
Call of Abraham; Deliverances by the Judges, etc. (3) Ritual types, such 
as the Altar, the Offerings, the Priesthood, the Tabernacle and its 
furniture. There are typical persons, places, times, things, actions, in 
the Old Testament, and a reverent study of them leads into a thorough 
acquaintance with the fullness and the blessedness of the word of God.

2011-06-14 14:26, David Stockhoff wrote:
> In fact, one might argue that to even attempt to "realistically" 
> depict a "higher" universe is to bring it down to our level to begin 
> with, putting them on a par with one another. The Celtic/pagan 
> otherworld is a far more useful fictional mode than the Christian, 
> however much they have in common. So this "equal validity" is crucial 
> to Wolfe's fiction in more than one way.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110614/a511f16a/attachment-0001.htm>