Religion/Faith?

[Joachim]

I have a question: which Black Library novels discuss the transition from the Imperial Truth to the Imperial Cult the most? I sort of ran into the topic while reading "Know no Fear" by Dan Abnett, where it is mentioned from the Ultramarines´ perspective, when confronted to the newfound "religion" of the Word Bearers. I remember that the Horus trilogy also mentions it, characters like Sinderman or obvioulsy Keeler in particular. What other novels go that way? I suppose "The First Heretic" would be of course be among them, but perhaps "The Master of Mankind" as well`?

[Markus]

The Books you mention for sure. Especially the First chapters of Horus Rising, the anaolgy to "I was there when Horus killed the Emperor" as a mirror setup for the whole thing, and the Dialogue between Sinderman and Loken about what the crusade is and does.

I also think "Saturnine" has much when it comes to the foundation building of the myth, that is used to make the whole "Cult" aspect.

The Scouring: Ashes of the Imperium also has lots of in person perspective that can help to understand from which place the "cultification" comes.

I think also the Watchers of the Throne series gives an interesting perspective on the fully flagged out imperial cult vs the rather "traditional" Custodes and especially Gulliman returned. Maybe one could find points that help build the distinction clearer and get more "trennschärfe"/selectiviy.

[Jonas Hermann]

Fulgrim by Graham McNeil (Horus Heresy 5) has a great chapter (No. 9) that basically foreshadows the development of the Imperial Cult. It's a conversation between Julius Kaesoron, First Captain of the Emperor's Children, and the iterator Evander Tobias about the meaning of the word "heresy" (from Ancient Greek "haeresis"), which, at first, does not seem to make much sense in the context of the atheist regime that the Imperium is at the time:

‘Indeed,’ said Tobias, ‘though such a word has more or less fallen out of usage in the Imperium, thanks to the great works of the Emperor. Its etymological roots lie in the ancient languages of the Olympian Hegemony and it simply means a “choice” of beliefs. In the tract, Contra Haereses, the scholar Irenaeus describes his beliefs as a devout follower of a long dead god, beliefs that were later to became the orthodoxy of his cult and the cornerstone of a great many religions.’

The tract in question is real, written by the Church Father Irenaeus around 180 AD. The subtext here is that Contra Haereses is mostly a critique of Gnosticism, which assumes a dualistic cosmology in which a second, evil god (the cosmocrator) begets devils and demons. Unintentionally, Tobias foreshadows the setup of Emperor vs. Chaos that we have in the later Imperium. The Imperial Cult is, after all, a reaction to the Primordial Truth.

Nerdgasm over. I think passages like that are the reason why Warhammer appeals to academics. It has bolter porn but also overeducated references as a sort of academic fan service. It's great pulp fiction (in the positive sense).

[Joachim]

Thank you very much, both of you! That's very helpful, gonna give those a shot!

@Jonas It's fascinating how many references one can find. I always wonder how many I miss. There's a few obvious ones, actual quotes by Nietzsche (quoted as "the philosopharch Nietzsche, circa M2", in the epigraph ofKnow No Fear), but I guess there must be many more. I also recall some hungarian sentences in some of Fehervari's works. Anyway, many of the BL writers have studied something in the humanities, I guess it's a deformation professionelle.

[WBRB-Dimitrios]

Tales of Heresy also has a couple of short stories, one called 'Scions of the Storm', where Lorgar, Erebus and other chaplains arrive at Forty-Seven Sixteen, and they let Sol Talgron in a little secret: Lorgar is writing a new book, one that, as he says, will change everything.

The other, 'The Old Church' (which I don't want to spoil too much) has a lot on faith and the old religion, and an interesting - albeit easy to decipher from early on - twist.

Both have brief mentions in the Lectitio Divinitatus, the world before the Imperial Truth and its involvement in faith, and similar themes. The second story also has another depiction of the Thunder Warriors (which I personally love) and how they acted while they were the 'regular' army of the Emperor.

[Keranza]

Oh, I love that short story! I think you mean The Last Church — unless there is another church story I’ve missed. It made a very strong impression on me: the way it shows how an entire life can grow out of one decisive misunderstanding, and how even a mistaken interpretation can become a meaning powerful enough to live and die for. I think this can happen outside fiction too, and such recognitions can be devastating. Not everyone can do what Uriah does: return to his burning church. It’s one of my favourite Warhammer stories!

[Markus]

I knew there was something with that Name, thanks for bringing that up @Keranza.

Uriah is a form of the Name Urija, from the Book Samuel in the Tanach, and it has a double meaning that completly fits the story!

First of all the Name:
אוּרִיָּה ’ûrîjāh - יָה jāh oder יָהוּ jāhû) is JHWH, אור ’wr is "enlighten, shine" but אוּר ’ûr is also "fire" in its basic form. The full name meaning "The Light of JHWH".

Second of all Urija brings the order of his own execution as a letter to his excutioners, hence there is the german phrase of "Uriasbrief", which describes a letter that brings bad fortune to its own deliverer.

And now for strike two, since Graham McNeill is from Scotland I found the Name "Olathaire" to be sounding rather gaelic. I am not a gaelic scholar, but after a few comparisons and searches I have found:

lathair(e) - presence, venue (genitive form: origin, ownership- "of the")
o (preposition) - from, since

Presence could be read both as what Uriah says is god, but also with the ambigutity of it beeing The Emperor (hence the obscure "presence")

This is kind of weird, since we have a "double ownership" with the "from" and the "of the".
Given that the figure of Uriah had a revelation that made him a priest in the last church on earth (literally the keeper of the "venue" of the "light of JHWH") , and the "presence" of the Emperor that brings "Fire", this "double ownership" is interesting. It could be hinting at the "double ownership" of Uriahs revelation both as he said from god and as The Emperor says, by himself.
Also he tries to save himself by becoming a priest but that eventually brings about his own demise. His own epiphany and sermons become the letter that seals his fate and death.

I know this is quiet the bed of Procrustes I have set up here, but I can not imagine Graham McNeill NOT thinking about all this and just "fill it in".
And sorry for the detour in this topic, I just fell into this rabbit hole and I hope it can "shine some light" on the complex meaning that one could find even in a w40k short story.

[Keranza]

Thank you, Markus — this is not a detour for me at all.
I had a vague feeling that Uriah’s name might be connected with the biblical figure, but my knowledge of the Bible is rather superficial, so no immediate allusions came to mind. What you unfold through the name is not merely interesting; it really expands the meaning of the story.

In this “light”, I think one can see a constant displacement between the literal and the symbolic. Uriah carries light — and perhaps fire — in his very name, and the light he experiences does not merely change his life. It tears him out of a bare, almost unconscious literal mode of existence and gives him an inner world. That inner world takes form in the church, in ritual, in service, and in his relation to his congregation. In psychological language, one might say that symbolisation begins to work — even, to borrow Bion’s term carefully, that something like an alpha-function starts functioning: unbearable experience becomes meaning.

Your point about the Uriasbrief struck me especially. It makes me think of a broader archetypal motif: the fatal letter, the message that carries the death of the one who bears it. Hamlet comes to mind, but Hamlet is able to read and alter the letter. Uriah cannot do that, because in his case the “letter” is not a document but his whole life. He cannot open it and rewrite it, as Hamlet does; he can only live it, like someone sitting in the Siege Perilous — a fatal seat, a place one cannot occupy without fulfilling a hidden destiny. Uriah’s “letter” is not a document, and his “seat” is not Arthurian, of course, but his whole life becomes something like both: a text and a place of meaning that lead him to his death.

This is why I find the story so devastating. A mistaken interpretation may still have given Uriah a real life, a vocation, and a form of faithfulness — faithfulness not only as loyalty, but as remaining true to the meaning that had made him inwardly alive. The tragedy is not simply that he was wrong. It is that the meaning which saved him also seals his fate — very much like the biblical Uriah, whose faithfulness becomes part of the mechanism of his death.

So yes, I think there is a slow and tragic mutual absorption of literalism and symbolism here. The literal fact destroys the symbol; but the symbol, once created, cannot be reduced back to mere fact. To me, this has an almost Jungian character: the opposites are not simply reconciled or defeated, but contain each other and keep transforming into each other. One might even think of a taijitu-like movement here.

I completely agree with you: even a short Warhammer story can contain unexpectedly large and complex meanings.
Thank you for opening up the name in this way.