What's So Great About Ushas

brunians at brunians.org · 19 Jul 2008, 03:28 · from 2008-July.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: (urth) What's So Great About Ushas
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-W9008FF80353AE47792143D7880 at phx.gbl>
References: <BAY103-W9008FF80353AE47792143D7880 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <9352.72.171.0.141.1216438120.squirrel at brunians.org>



Also, Hierogrammate means something like 'Holy Word-carrier' which is
pretty close to the meaning of angel, which is (i believe) messenger....



.



> Paul B, I'm not sure if your last post clarified things for me. I don't
> begrudge you
> dodging my nosy question about your faith but I am still not sure if you
> are saying you don't think Gene Wolfe intended Hierogrammates to be angels
> or if
> it is your opinion they are not a good representation of what angels
> should be like.
>
> John Watkins explicitly states he intends to present arguments for Gene
> Wolfe's intentions
> and gives a list of pros and cons. I think there is a glaring omission in
> the list of pros and a
> mistake in the list of cons which is continually repeated in this
> discussion.
>
> Missing in the list of pros is that the only Hierogrammate we see (Apheta
> and Venant and
> the other larvae are named Hierarchs) is named "Tzadkiel". This name, like
> Michael or
> Gabriel IS the name of a judeo-christian arch-angel.  I don't see how much
> less
> circumstantial the evidence could be. I suppose Wolfe could have called
> them "Angels"
> all through the text instead of Hierogrammates but I can't think he'd ever
> stoop to hitting
> his readers over the head with such a blunt instrument as that. The name
> Tzadkiel seems
> already more obvious than his usual.
>
> The mistake in the list of cons is to say that the Hierogrammates cannot
> be angels or connected
> to God because they engage in the "morally dubious, if not outright evil"
> behavior such as
> genocide (I presume). How can it be ignored that God and angels commit
> genocide left and right in the
> Bible? The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 10th Plague, the Red Sea on the
> Egyptian army,
> Jericho, the Midianites, the Amorites, the Phillistines, the list goes on
> and on. How can God and
> angels be re-defined as being incapable of genocide when that's one of the
> main things they do?
>
> I think only a secular humanist could redefine them as gentle caretakers
> of precious human life
> (which is why it would be more interesting if Paul B was Christian or
> Jewish).  I see no evidence
> that Gene Wolfe is a secular humanist and I find it really hard to
> conceive that he meant
> Hierogrammates to represent anything but angels.  They look like angels,
> they act like angels
> they are named like angels, they live in a higher, heavenly plane like
> angels.....
> ah well. Perhaps it's just me that sees it.
>
> -bsharp
>
>
>
>
>>I don't know about Paul, but I'd be more interested if we focus on the
> question of whether the Hierogrammates are intended to be (unfallen)
> angels
> by Gene Wolfe.  Without my books at hand, the argument for this appears to
> be:
>
> 1)  "Holy" is part of their name.
>
> 2)  Tzadkiel has a winged form that Severian identifies as an angel.
>
> 3)  Severian thinks Hierogrammates serve the Increate.
>
> 4)  Wolfe referred to Tzadkiel as an "angel" in an interview.
>
> The argument against the Hierogrammates being angels, as I understand it,
> is
>
> 1)  Catholic theology posits that angels are perfectly moral, but the
> Hierogrammates frequently engage in morally dubious if not outright evil
> behavior.
>
> 2)  Hierogrammates, unlike angels, are not direct creations of God.
>
> 3)  Most of the arguments that Hierogrammates are angels are hearsay.
>
> I think these are both colorable arguments, but I come down on the "not"
> side.  The Hierogrammates are obviously *spoken of *as angels, but they
> are
> just as obviously not two things that are *essential *to the meaning of
> the
> word "angel.">
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
> http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net