# Shapeshifting Evidence and Principles

*The Urth list — 13 messages, 7 voices, 27 May 2006*

<https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4629>

> 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.

---

### b sharp
*27 May 2006, 17:24*

If you find it impossible that 5th Head of Cerberus could be part of the 
history before BotNS, then you should skip this first paragraph. In this 
book we see (very hazily) that during a wave of human space migration, they 
encounter an alien shape-shifting species which can imitate humans almost 
exactly, manual dexterity being the most difficult part.  Dr Veil (Aunt 
Jeannine) teaches that shape-shifting to imitate a human cannot be perfect 
because that would involve losing the ability to shape-shift. And evolution 
would not allow for a creature to lose its most advantageous trait.

In BotNS, Melito's story contains an angel with shapeshifting ability.  This 
angel can give away its shapeshifting ability for a while then take it back. 
  We know that angels are divinely created, not evolved like beasts. Still 
the angel cannot give up one thing, which its essential essence as a divine 
creation.  Therefore it needs to call in an actual (evolved) eagle to take 
its place in a birdfight.

We don't actually see Zak and Tzadkiel shape-shift but he presents the 
clearest evidence for shape-shifting. We learn from Severian that one of the 
deepest instincts of a shape-shifting, imitating creature must be to run 
away when the masquerade is discovered.  In 5th Head, Number Five is able to 
chase Dr. Marsch away by insisting he is an abo from Sainte Anne imitating a 
human.

So who better than Tzadkiel to explain shape-shifting to Severian?  She 
explains that, "the cells of our bodies shift, like those of certain sea 
creatures on your Urth (sponges I think) which can be pressed through a 
screen yet reunite.  What then prevents me from shaping a miniature and 
constricting the connection until it parts?"  So, Roy (as we both knew), 
size-shifting really is a function of shape-shifting.  But now we have a 
Poriferal mechanism to explain it.

Severian also tells Tzadkiel that he has been told two stories with 
shapeshifting in them but he asks about only one of them, Melito's angel 
story.  Tzadkiel assures Severian that he can't give that ability to humans 
(including larval Hierogrammates). But what about the other story?

I think he means Foila's story which is interesting (and the best IMHO).  
The Armiger's Daughter seems to appear in three guises, as a masked horse 
rider, as a sort of bird-person and as an angel with a sword.  She is marked 
in each guise by the color brown and a gold ring on her ankle.  Her arm is 
hurt while she is a horserider and the wound is maintained when she becomes 
the bird- person (it isn't mentioned for the angel).  She is not observed 
flying as a bird or angel, so perhaps the shape-shifting is in appearance 
only and not substance.  We are told that the beliefs of her land include 
that shape-changers will not change once they have been made prisoner.

So......as I see it, this evidence suggests these BotNS principles:  that 
shape shifters are most likely to be found in the past, the future and on 
planets other than Urth.  Time and space travel make it possible for 
shapeshifters to travel to Urth.  If so, they will go through great lengths 
to hide themselves and their abilities. The imitation can never be perfect 
and they will always be marked by some sign of their original nature.  They 
won't shift in front of our eyes, or while imprisoned.  The shape change may 
be just visual illusion in some cases, but can be of substance in other 
cases.

Now, perhaps Gene Wolfe has created an Urth in which shape-shifting legends 
and aliens could visit, but never do.  Perhaps the abos of Sainte Anne were 
wiped out and that's all there is to the story.  Maybe the Urth stories 
within the story are no more than pure fiction.  Perhaps dinosaurs are not 
dragons, just bones. Maybe these myths and legends are just a fun way for 
Wolfe to place false clues and mislead fanciful readers who might still, in 
their hearts, long for a Pegasus.  We each have our own view on that, I 
think.


-bsharp

---

### Roy C. Lackey
*28 May 2006, 20:13 · follows b sharp*

Bsharp wrote a well crafted little essay that I almost wish I didn't have to
take issue with.

> If you find it impossible that 5th Head of Cerberus could be part of the
> history before BotNS, then you should skip this first paragraph. In this
> book we see (very hazily) that during a wave of human space migration, they
> encounter an alien shape-shifting species which can imitate humans almost
> exactly, manual dexterity being the most difficult part.  Dr Veil (Aunt
> Jeannine) teaches that shape-shifting to imitate a human cannot be perfect
> because that would involve losing the ability to shape-shift. And evolution
> would not allow for a creature to lose its most advantageous trait.

5HC may have taken place in Urth's past, but if so it was a very distant
past and for that reason little or no more related to the Sun Cycle than
PEACE or PANDORA, which may also have taken place in Earth's/Urth's past.
The level of technology evidenced in 5HC does not seem to be all that much
advanced from what we have on Earth today, or, more properly, what has been
envisioned for decades by many science fiction writers to be available in
the relatively near future. But the more telling indicator that 5HC is not
far removed from our present is the pronounced French and English influence
evidenced on the twin planets. Historical enmity between the two nations on
Earth has obviously been extended to the colonies. The Urth of Severian's
day is so many thousands of years in the future of either country that
neither of them exists, even as a legend. The "Saint" part of the colony
names shows a strong Christian influence, whereas on Urth Christ has been
long forgotten.

If the twin planets in 5HC had a place in Urth's history, it would have to
have been early in the First Empire, a time that had long passed before
Typhon came on the scene and tried to rekindle a second empire.

> Now, perhaps Gene Wolfe has created an Urth in which shape-shifting legends
> and aliens could visit, but never do.  Perhaps the abos of Sainte Anne were
> wiped out and that's all there is to the story.  Maybe the Urth stories
> within the story are no more than pure fiction.  Perhaps dinosaurs are not
> dragons, just bones. Maybe these myths and legends are just a fun way for
> Wolfe to place false clues and mislead fanciful readers who might still, in
> their hearts, long for a Pegasus.  We each have our own view on that, I
> think.

Now how the hell am I supposed to argue with that? <g>

Earlier, bsharp asked:

> So, when Roy says "I see no evidence of shape-shifting in NEW SUN,", is he
> saying Urth legends are not evidence? Or that shape-shifting is a pegasus,
> a piece which does not fit his mental picture?

Yes to the first question, with the exception of Tzadkiel, previously noted,
who isn't a legend -- in the story. Yes to the second question, also. I
realize that to ask you to point out your "Pegasus" in the text would be
unfair, given the nature of what we have to work with, but at least show me
the bones and feathers of a flying horse. I don't think you can. Belief
isn't proof -- and I'm hardheaded.

I don't see that any plot purpose would be served by a shape-shifting Inire.
He remained the power behind the throne for the decade of Severian's
autarchy. Severian's first manuscript was written at the end of that decade.
How could he have remained ignorant of Inire's alleged abilities for so
long, and if he wasn't ignorant of them, why would he have concealed that
knowledge from his theoretical readers? After learning of Tzadkiel's
abilities, why would he not have connected Inire to such an ability, if he
thought Inire had it, and said something about it in his second manuscript,
where Inire is hardly even mentioned? The show was all over when he wrote
the second manuscript, the deed was done; why hide it?

We learn from Tzadkiel that less than fully-mature Hierogrammates cannot
change their shape. We know that Inire was a cacogen. Therefore he would
have to be a Hierogrammate on the order of Tzadkiel in order to change
shape, or else be a member of another species that has that ability, and who
is *also* working for Tzadkiel, in effect a "holy slave". I don't think that
Inire is a Hierogrammate. The Hierodules were created by the Hierogrammates
to tamper with human destiny, and Tzadkiel said that the ability to
shape-shift cannot be designated. Though Inire need not belong to the same
species as B and F, who do not seem to have that ability, it seems to me a
stretch that Wolfe would create a character with that ability, when no
meaningful plot purpose is served.

Why would a being who could make himself look like a man call attention to
himself by running around a lazaret looking like a monkey if he had a choice
in the mater?

-Roy

---

### b sharp
*28 May 2006, 22:20 · follows Roy C. Lackey*

Roy, thanks for the responsive and thoughtful (in both senses of the word) 
post.

In regards to 5th Head, I do have a sense of the time frame and when I say I 
think they belong in the same universe I don't mean the immediate story 
blends right into BotNS.  But Sainte Anne and Sainte Croix don't just 
disappear when the 5th Head story ends. They have a future and I see the 
established principles there appear in BotNS.  If you don't see cloning or 
shapeshifting or characters similar to #5 and Phaedria then okay, I do 
accept that. It may be a complete illusion or just a function of Gene 
Wolfe's subconscious interests in that period of his life that I see but, 
what can I say. I see it.

Perhaps my Atrium of Time post will be more to your liking. It is very nuts 
and bolts.

Human beings have different sort of brains and it can be nearly impossible 
for unilke brains to see eye to eye.  So instead I'll use this post to 
illustrate not my "rightness" but to illustrate my current position. 
So..take a look at this picture:

http://www.valerio.net/pictures/image_2_996.jpg

What are your first thoughts? Mine are, "okay, a ring" and "where is the 
jewel?".  Now to me, Roy and mournings glory stop with, "okay a ring".

If I say "where is the jewel?" they say a ring doesn't need a jewel.  I say 
but "there is a jewel missing!"  They say "we have no reason to think that.  
A ring is a round piece of metal that goes around your finger and looks 
pretty.  This object is a ring, it has all the attributes of a ring, end of 
story, no jewel needed."  "But there is an empty space...never mind, let me 
look around".

So, I go looking for the missing jewel.  I find a few that don't fit.  I 
find one on the floor, under the table. I try putting it in the empty space 
between the tines and it seems to fit.  Roy and mg say, the jewel is 
worthless or interesting, but adds nothing to the purpose of the ring.  "It 
doesn't make it rounder, or more metallic or fit your finger better or 
prettier".  I say, "well I think it might make it prettier, depending on 
taste and it makes the ring richer and more valuable but...welll....anyway, 
look, there are tines which hold jewels and the tines are empty and here is 
a jewel in the right place, at the right time, with the right shape....". 
Then I give up and write this post.

In the meantime I have my original inspriation for joining here, Robert 
Borski, yelling over my shoulder from his book that the four doubled tines 
represent the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, which makes it obvious the 
missing jewel is the Star of Nepal.  The filigree on the side of the ring 
looks North African and thus represents the theft of the Star of Nepal by 
the Bey of Tunis. Using cryptonymic analysis we reverse Bey to achieve the 
word YEB, and we know that in Semitic languages a J has a Y sound so the 
ring means the next president of the USA will be you know who.

A day in the life of Bsharp.  How I suffer in the middle LOL!  In 
seriousness I appreciate all the input, guidance and collaboration I've 
found in this community so far.  It has been just great.

-bsharp

---

### thalassocrat at nym.hush.com
*28 May 2006, 23:58 · follows b sharp*

> On Mon, 29 May 2006 08:20:48 +1000 b sharp 
> <bsharporflat at hotmail.com> wrote:
> So..take a look at this picture:
> 
> http://www.valerio.net/pictures/image_2_996.jpg
> 
> What are your first thoughts? Mine are, "okay, a ring" and "where 
> is the 
> jewel?".  Now to me, Roy and mournings glory stop with, "okay a 
> ring".
> 
> If I say "where is the jewel?" they say a ring doesn't need a 
> jewel.  I say 
> but "there is a jewel missing!"  They say "we have no reason to 
> think that.  
> A ring is a round piece of metal that goes around your finger and 
> looks 
> pretty.  This object is a ring, it has all the attributes of a 
> ring, end of 
> story, no jewel needed."  "But there is an empty space...never 
> mind, let me 
> look around".

I don't think that's the real dichotomy. Better: "Here's a nice 
shiny jewel - let's shove it in the ring!" vs "But it doesn't fit, 
and if you scratch it, it flakes. Let's find a real gem that fits."

---

### Chris
*29 May 2006, 00:20 · in reply to b sharp*

What you are primarily missing here, I think, is a reference to the 
Templars.

> Roy, thanks for the responsive and thoughtful (in both senses of the word)
> post.
> 
> In regards to 5th Head, I do have a sense of the time frame and when I say 
> I
> think they belong in the same universe I don't mean the immediate story
> blends right into BotNS.  But Sainte Anne and Sainte Croix don't just
> disappear when the 5th Head story ends. They have a future and I see the
> established principles there appear in BotNS.  If you don't see cloning or
> shapeshifting or characters similar to #5 and Phaedria then okay, I do
> accept that. It may be a complete illusion or just a function of Gene
> Wolfe's subconscious interests in that period of his life that I see but,
> what can I say. I see it.
> 
> Perhaps my Atrium of Time post will be more to your liking. It is very nuts
> and bolts.
> 
> Human beings have different sort of brains and it can be nearly impossible
> for unilke brains to see eye to eye.  So instead I'll use this post to
> illustrate not my "rightness" but to illustrate my current position.
> So..take a look at this picture:
> 
> http://www.valerio.net/pictures/image_2_996.jpg
> 
> What are your first thoughts? Mine are, "okay, a ring" and "where is the
> jewel?".  Now to me, Roy and mournings glory stop with, "okay a ring".
> 
> If I say "where is the jewel?" they say a ring doesn't need a jewel.  I say
> but "there is a jewel missing!"  They say "we have no reason to think that.
> A ring is a round piece of metal that goes around your finger and looks
> pretty.  This object is a ring, it has all the attributes of a ring, end of
> story, no jewel needed."  "But there is an empty space...never mind, let me
> look around".
> 
> So, I go looking for the missing jewel.  I find a few that don't fit.  I
> find one on the floor, under the table. I try putting it in the empty space
> between the tines and it seems to fit.  Roy and mg say, the jewel is
> worthless or interesting, but adds nothing to the purpose of the ring.  "It
> doesn't make it rounder, or more metallic or fit your finger better or
> prettier".  I say, "well I think it might make it prettier, depending on
> taste and it makes the ring richer and more valuable but...welll....anyway,
> look, there are tines which hold jewels and the tines are empty and here is
> a jewel in the right place, at the right time, with the right shape....".
> Then I give up and write this post.
> 
> In the meantime I have my original inspriation for joining here, Robert
> Borski, yelling over my shoulder from his book that the four doubled tines
> represent the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, which makes it obvious the
> missing jewel is the Star of Nepal.  The filigree on the side of the ring
> looks North African and thus represents the theft of the Star of Nepal by
> the Bey of Tunis. Using cryptonymic analysis we reverse Bey to achieve the
> word YEB, and we know that in Semitic languages a J has a Y sound so the
> ring means the next president of the USA will be you know who.
> 
> A day in the life of Bsharp.  How I suffer in the middle LOL!  In
> seriousness I appreciate all the input, guidance and collaboration I've
> found in this community so far.  It has been just great.
> 
> -bsharp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________

---

### thalassocrat at nym.hush.com
*29 May 2006, 01:05 · follows Chris*

> I wrote:
> I don't think that's the real dichotomy. Better: "Here's a nice 
> shiny jewel - let's shove it in the ring!" vs "But it doesn't fit, 

> and if you scratch it, it flakes. Let's find a real gem that 
> fits."

Well, that certainly sounds more aggressive than I intended. I 
really meant that everybody finds themselves on different sides of 
that division from time to time. What looks like ill-fitting tawdry 
costume paste to some may look like the Wossisname diamond to 
others, or even to the same person at a different time. Etc etc 
etc. 

I don't think anybody really denies the existence of empty jewel 
settings which we're supposed to fill in for ourselves.

---

### b sharp
*29 May 2006, 04:59 · follows thalassocrat at nym.hush.com*

mournings glory writes:

> I've recently been accused off-list of being a bully in here, and hope this 
> doesn't further damage my credibility or rep; nevertheless, if you're only 
> interested in applause or >self-gratification, maybe you shouldn't 
> masturbate in public. Now please, sir, let's see what you >come up with 
> next!

Well, I'm not happy to see that my 20 year quest for solutions to the 
mysteries in BotNS has been reduced to applause seeking, self-gratification 
and masturbating in public.  I guess that could be called bullying language, 
I don't know. You called me sir, was that an attempt to be courteous?

mg also writes:

> Actually, I've never endorsed the mirror theory. In my opinion the slug is 
> able to enter the House >Absolute the same way the white wolves are, via 
> any number of hidden or forgotten entrances.

So Hethor doesn't use shapeshifting or mirrors.  Interesting theory. So the 
slug has nothing to do with Hethor, it is just a wild creature that drops in 
when it wants to? This really ignores large chunks of text.

mg says:

> I pointed out the likely shapeshifting ability of Venant unless he 
> naturally looks like the very human, if false, Epitome of Urth.

I tried to nicely correct these two textual mistakes you made and I think 
Roy did too, on one of them. But you repeat them.  Either you ignored our 
posts or didn't read them. You don't seem too interested in reading the 
BotNS text either.   If you are going to be blundering, insulting, 
self-righteous and make up your own text then I'm not sure what benefit I 
can get from discourse with you.

Chris writes:

> What you are primarily missing here, I think, is a reference to the 
> Templars.

That's not much to go on Chris. Any further info you can provide?

Thalassocrat says:

> I don't think that's the real dichotomy. Better: "Here's a nice shiny jewel 
> - let's shove it in the ring!" vs "But it doesn't fit, and if you scratch 
> it, it flakes. Let's find a real gem that fits."
> Well, that certainly sounds more aggressive than I intended. I really meant 
> that everybody finds themselves on different sides of that division from 
> time to time. What looks like ill-fitting tawdry costume paste to some may 
> look like the Wossisname diamond to others, or even to the same person at a 
> different time. Etc etc etc.

I appreciate the politeness of your re-statement but I think your original 
words more accurately reflect your feelings.  Though I am new to this 
message board I am not new to BotNS.  Being less familiar with later works I 
do not mention them much.  I sometimes submit off-the-cuff posts and I try 
to identify them as such.  My serious posts are have been carefully thought 
out and researched for positive and negative evidence in the text.  To avoid 
clutter I eschew citing chapter and page but if needed I could start.

As noted in my ring analogy, I do not start exploring a puzzle by looking on 
the floor for pretty pieces then try to make them fit somewhere.  I start by 
looking at the picture as a whole and  notice gaps. Then I look for pieces 
which fit.

I do welcome criticism.  If you feel a gap doesn't exist, I am interested in 
why.  If you feel there is a gap but my proposed piece doesn't fit I am 
interested in that also.  I strongly prefer criticism which finds 
contradiction directly from the text.  If a person just needs to vent their 
emotions regarding one of my posts, to say it doesn't "feel right to me", 
that's okay too, though not as useful.

I am not very open to criticism which use vague, unsupported arguments such 
as "that doesn't help the plot" or "there is no need for that".  These sorts 
of statements imply the speaker fully and entirely apprehends the intentions 
and devices of the author.  That the mind of Gene Wolfe, the subtext, plot 
and themes of BotNS are in such full understanding that the power of 
authoritative judgement has been conferred.  If there is someone here who 
does have a full grasp of the BotNS please let him be identified.  From all 
I've seen in my various searches of the past 20 years, there is no one on 
earth, save perhaps one, who  comes close to that power of judgement.

I will again state my quest:  I hope to understand as much as possible about 
the work of art called The Book of The New Sun and its companion Urth of the 
New Sun and the intentions of the brilliant mind that created it.  I welcome 
friendly, intelligent discourse and would rather avoid unpleasantness, 
ignorance and competiton but my goal is as stated.  By documenting my 
progress I hope to enlist the help of people with the same goal and perhaps 
to help them as well.

-bsharp

---

### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
*29 May 2006, 05:13 · in reply to b sharp*

> On 5/28/06, b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com> wrote:
> In regards to 5th Head, I do have a sense of the time frame and when I say I
> think they belong in the same universe I don't mean the immediate story
> blends right into BotNS.  But Sainte Anne and Sainte Croix don't just
> disappear when the 5th Head story ends. They have a future and I see the
> established principles there appear in BotNS.

Be,

How do you feel about extratextual statements by the writer?
I ask because some people feel that the author of a work has no
special authority over the work or its interpretation once it has been
published (which makes me wonder how they deal with revised
versions and suchlike but anyway). I tend to take a more moderate
stance myself.

At any rate Wolfe has made some surprisingly unequivocal
statements that 5HC does -not- take place in the past of the Solar
books. I think that it's beyond clear that they are conceptually
linked, but with such statements on the record, only extremely
cogent, exigent, and -clear- evidence would convince me to accept
an interpretive framework which involved assuming that 5HC
did, in fact, take place in the past of the New Sun.

(Perhaps more problematic: Wolfe seems to have it clearly fixed in
his mind that the Solar books take place in a previous "cycle" of the
universe, and not in our "future" at all. If that's the case, then it might
be argued that the Solar books are in 5HC's _past_, assuming of
course that 5HC is in our possible future.

> So..take a look at this picture:
> 
> http://www.valerio.net/pictures/image_2_996.jpg
> 
> What are your first thoughts?

"What is it made of? Is it an ancient piece where the jewel has
been lost, or a modern piece from one of those stores where
you select the jewel and the ring and they assemble it for you?"

I also find myself wondering whether those are gem chips of
some sort in the filigree work.

It would not occur to me to say "Okay, a ring," because that
flashes past too fast for me to notice. That it's (a picture of) a
ring registers before I can have any _conscious_ thoughts about
it at all.

If I were to follow in your analogy, I guess I'd have to say that I
agree with you that the lack-of-a-jewel is the most interesting
feature of the ring: but I'm more interested in the space where
the jewel might go than I am in the (hypothetical) jewel itself.

To me, it is a space where any number of different jewels might
be affixed by any number of different jewelers -- if you want to
get all technical about it, it represents (to me) a paradigm with
a space held open for a selection from a syntagm of different
objects (jewels), but I really don't want to go into all that theoretical
language right now.

What can we tell about the jewel? In some ways, very little --
the picture being decolored, we can't tell what color the metal
or any chips in the filigree might be, so we can't tell what color
of jewel might fit well into it.

We can tell a bit more about the shape -- it looks to me like it's
fitted for a square-cut jewel; a pearl wouldn't work very well, then.
But then, looking a little more closely, the corners of the square
are edged-in a bit, so not quite square, more of a semiregular
octagon. This together with the filigree work suggests a fairly
fancy cut.

And, though we don't know what size this ring is, we can make
a general estimate of the size of the gap from the normal range
of human fingers: the jewel would be, at the absolute outside, a
centimetre across. If someone were to tell me that this were
actually a ring made for an Angrborn, of course, I would have to
revise that estimate upwards.

So that gives me a range of possible jewels ... or, to return from
the ring to its analogic sense, a range of possible interpretations
of a mysterious feature in a text. Ideally, I like to keep that range
open, rather than choosing a single "right" interpretation. What I'll
do is build mental models of the text that allow for rich and
interesting interpretationS, and while I'll often argue for the
interpretation that fascinates me most, it doesn't mean that I think
that others are necessarily "wrong."

Gaps -- elisions -- are fascinating things...

--Dan'l

```
I do not fear Satan half so much as I fear those who fear him.
                        -- St Teresa of Avila
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
```

---

### Tristan Davenport
*29 May 2006, 08:22 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes*

> Dan'l wrote:
> (Perhaps more problematic: Wolfe seems to have it clearly fixed in
> his mind that the Solar books take place in a previous "cycle" of the
> universe, and not in our "future" at all. If that's the case, then it might
> be argued that the Solar books are in 5HC's _past_, assuming of
> course that 5HC is in our possible future.

Now I'm curious about this business of cycles.  How closely does Wolfe's 
universe repeat itself cycle after cycle?  I'm asking because this puts me 
in mind of one of Silk's enlightenments in BotLS.  He's given a vision of 
Jesus very close to what's described in the Bible -- riding in on the ass, 
people waving green branches, etc.  This suggests to me that the Sun series 
takes place in *our* future.  An equally compelling bit of evidence occurs 
when Silk is talking to someone (Horn?) about life in other cities in the 
whorl.  He mentions that foreigners often speak other languages, including 
(and he names it specifically) French.  In BotNS, an ancient language is 
represented by Latin, but it's never called "Latin" in the text.  Is this 
mentioning of French a goof-up on Wolfe's part, or a clear reference to our 
own epoch?  Excuse the lack of page/volume references.

One more question: Does the wedding ring given by Silk to Hyacinth (in 
Exodus, I think) depict the face of an avern?

                             Tristan
                             tristan_davenport at hotmail.com

---

### thalassocrat at nym.hush.com
*29 May 2006, 13:36 · follows Tristan Davenport*

> On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:22:43 +1000 Tristan Davenport 
> <tristan_davenport at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now I'm curious about this business of cycles.  How closely does 
> Wolfe's 
> universe repeat itself cycle after cycle?  I'm asking because this 

> puts me 
> in mind of one of Silk's enlightenments in BotLS.  He's given a 
> vision of 
> Jesus very close to what's described in the Bible -- riding in on 
> the ass, 
> people waving green branches, etc.  This suggests to me that the 
> Sun series 
> takes place in *our* future.  An equally compelling bit of 
> evidence occurs 
> when Silk is talking to someone (Horn?) about life in other cities 

> in the 
> whorl.  He mentions that foreigners often speak other languages, 
> including 
> (and he names it specifically) French.  In BotNS, an ancient 
> language is 
> represented by Latin, but it's never called "Latin" in the text.  
> Is this 
> mentioning of French a goof-up on Wolfe's part, or a clear 
> reference to our 
> own epoch?  Excuse the lack of page/volume references.
> 
> One more question: Does the wedding ring given by Silk to Hyacinth 

> (in 
> Exodus, I think) depict the face of an avern?

Hmmm, what's the basis for that?

Let me throw in another one: are the juvenile form of the 
Hierogrammates in any way related to the huge moth SilkHorn sees on 
one of his astral journeys to Green? The one with wings marked with 
a cross and a circle? I doubt it, but I think you could spin a fun 
theory from it.

Thinking of Alpheta and her kin wafts me towards cosmological 
thoughts which touch on your point. I really don't believe Wolfe 
expects us to be very happy about the BOTNS universe. Angelic 
beings whose idea of justice is slow genocide in retribution for 
the sins of distant ancestors? Redemption via accelerated genocide? 
Mutant bureaucratic moth-creatures supevising the affairs of the 
worlds? 

Nah. It's all wrong. The BOTNS powers & dominions are separated 
from the Increate, like Gabriel in Melito's story: "The Pancreator 
is infinitely far from me." In LS/SS, the Outsider comes inside, 
and, IMO, things are fundamentally, cosmologically diffrent. 

I don't know whether it's just a change in Wolfe's storytelling 
context, or whether there's actually supposed to be some kind of 
progression leading from one to the other. 

But if it's the first, linking the two series looks unnecessary and 
awkward (if not downright inept). I prefer to believe the second, 
that the Outsider coming inside has changed things fundamentally, 
all through history, and through the cycles of history. Jesus in 
the deep past; Silk's enlightenment, and all the flows from it, in 
the present. 

Which is a long & tendentious way of saying, yup, I agree: the 
SS/LS universe is ours, and the BOTS universe isn't.

---

### Roy C. Lackey
*29 May 2006, 19:08 · follows thalassocrat at nym.hush.com*

> Andrew wrote:
> Thinking of Alpheta and her kin wafts me towards cosmological
> thoughts which touch on your point. I really don't believe Wolfe
> expects us to be very happy about the BOTNS universe. Angelic
> beings whose idea of justice is slow genocide in retribution for
> the sins of distant ancestors? Redemption via accelerated genocide?
> Mutant bureaucratic moth-creatures supevising the affairs of the
> worlds?
> 
> Nah. It's all wrong. The BOTNS powers & dominions are separated
> from the Increate, like Gabriel in Melito's story: "The Pancreator
> is infinitely far from me." In LS/SS, the Outsider comes inside,
> and, IMO, things are fundamentally, cosmologically diffrent.

The many references made to the Increate in the Urth Cycle leave little room
to doubt that Increate means God, as, for example, Dan'l uses the word God.
Severian, at least, believed that he was doing God's will when he destroyed
Urth. "It came to me that when the Increate had chosen me his instrument to
destroy the land, only babes and beasts had died in innocence." (URTH, 333)

-Roy

---

### thalassocrat at nym.hush.com
*29 May 2006, 20:01 · follows Roy C. Lackey*

> On Tue, 30 May 2006 05:08:52 +1000 "Roy C. Lackey" 
> <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:
> The many references made to the Increate in the Urth Cycle leave 
> little room
> to doubt that Increate means God, as, for example, Dan'l uses the 
> word God.
> Severian, at least, believed that he was doing God's will when he 
> destroyed
> Urth. "It came to me that when the Increate had chosen me his 
> instrument to
> destroy the land, only babes and beasts had died in innocence." 
> (URTH, 333)

Sure, the Increate is God, and Sev & others believe they are doing 
God's will. But nobody seems to have a direct line to him; they're 
guessing.

I do think Sev's prayer in the chapel of the Pelerines is very 
instructive (Ch 14 of Citadel). 

"I remained conscious of my kneeling body, but only as a peripheral 
burden. My mind was among the starry wastes, far from Urth and 
indeed far from Urth's archipeligo of island worlds, and it seemed 
to me that that to which I spoke was farther still - I had come, as 
it were, to the walls of the universe, and now shouted through the 
walls to one who waited outside."

At this point, I think you'd normally expect any answer to the 
prayer to come from the Increate, who is surely the same as the 
later "Outsider". But no; Sev finds only himself.

"... I seemed to see ... through the chink in the universe to a new 
universe ... where my listener knelt to hear me. What had seemed a 
crevice in the world had expanded until I could see a face and 
folded hands, and the opening, like a tunnel, running deep into a 
human head ... I was whispering into my own ear ..."

Of course, it's as the New Sun that Sev finds himself. But even as 
the New Sun, the Conciliator, the holest thing around, I don't 
recall the smallest hint that Sev experiences any form of communion 
with the Increate. 

In the New Sun universe, the Outsider isn't taking any calls.

---

### don doggett
*31 May 2006, 05:03 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes*

> --- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
> So that gives me a range of possible jewels ... or,
> to return from
> the ring to its analogic sense, a range of possible
> interpretations
> of a mysterious feature in a text. Ideally, I like
> to keep that range
> open, rather than choosing a single "right"
> interpretation. What I'll
> do is build mental models of the text that allow for
> rich and
> interesting interpretationS, and while I'll often
> argue for the
> interpretation that fascinates me most, it doesn't
> mean that I think
> that others are necessarily "wrong."
> 
> Gaps -- elisions -- are fascinating things...

Amen to that. They're the reason most great religious
texts survive and carry relevance, as well as great
literature imo.
This list would have degenerated into nitpicks years
ago if not for the deliberate (and absolutely pitch
perfect) vagueness of Wolfe's narrative.

Don

---