Numerological Wolfe

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 19 Apr 2002, 22:16 · from urth-v0204.mbox · original

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: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: (urth) Numerological Wolfe
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:16:02 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0204-713 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0204/713.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I made a numerological reflection relevant to 5HC:=20

> "666," the Number of the Beast, is "the number of a man." Kaballistically,
> 6 is a man and 3 is God; 666 is Man making a God of himself.)

> In Rev. 13 the number is six hundred, sixty, six, not three 6s. A=20
> lot of people are confused on this, simply because we say "sixsixsix"
> and the English could be read either way.=20

Well, yeah. The Arabic numeral system simply wasn't around when John
had his vision. Still, I misdoubt whether the standard translations
(like KJV's "six hundred, three score and six") are any better reflections
of the original Gk than a simple 666. I frankly find it very unlikely that
St John in writing this down was _un_aware of the hexaplicity of the three
components of his number.

I wasn't really familiar with the whole Solomon thing -- but I guess it
works in context.

Whatever meaning the number may have had to St John -- I think that is an=20
entirely different question from what it may have meant to Gene Wolfe in=20
the early-to-mid-'70s. And certainly it seems that much of the activity
at 666 Saltimbanque is oriented toward man deifying himself.=20

And, really, given=20
o the popular association of the number with a certain Caesar,
o the identity of GW's favorite fictional detective,
and
o the family's "real" last name
I find it extremely unlikely that GW would miss the opportunity to=20
make _that_ association...

H'mmm. I have a couple of kind of separate things to say about 5HC. I'll
make them in a separate post or two.

--Blattid

--=20

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