{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4633", "note": "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.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4633, "subject": "Naming Rule 2a.", "messages": 1, "voices": 1, "first": "2006-05-29T07:32:45+00:00", "last": "2006-05-29T07:32:45+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-05-29T07:32:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Naming Rule 2a.", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Robert Borski lists two Rules of Names in his Solar Labyrinth book. The \nfirst is a clear and concise way to distinguish Commonwealth humans from \nothers via saintly names. The second provides a very open, sprawling \ncollection of paired characters and things from BotNS which may be connected \nbiologically, figuratively, political, on identity, or other and are based \non a flexible scheme of shared letters in the name.\n\nTo be honest, I think I will fail in my quest for an understanding of BotNS \ndeep enough to ever significantly connect Laeutus with Eata or Kyneburga \nwith Lybe. But I'd like to propose a much smaller, concise rule of names \nderived from this which could shed some light on some things.\n\nThis 2a. rule assumes that cloning is occurring on Urth. I know some \n(including, I think, Borski) are sure that there is no cloning going on in \nthe Commonwealth. But the old Autarch says explicitly that kaibits are \ngrown from the cells of exultant women so an exchange of blood will prolong \ntheir youth. Perhaps he is lying but I don't see the use of it. Moreover, \nWolfe takes the time to insert two textual suggestions that Appian is a \ntruthful guy. Plus in Ascians we have a billion bits of circumstantial \nevidence that cloning might be a common practice on Urth.\n\nIn his perusal of naming pairs, Borski finds one pair that doesn't seem to \nmake sense even to him. Two childhood friends of Thecla are named Josephina \nand Josepha. It does seem silly for an author to name two briefly \nreferenced, unimportant characters with such similar names. Borski \nhypothesizes this was a editorial or auctoral mistake.\n\nI propose that it wasn't a mistake and that these characters are important \nin introducing this 2a. naming rule which is- The name of a kaibit shall be \na derived, diminuative name of the cell donor.\n\nOther of the few examples which could fit this naming rule are Domnicellae \nand Domnina and Pelagia and Pega. Perhaps there are more I haven't found. \nDomnicelle is an exultant but Pelagia is an armigette. So if the naming \nrule is valid then the second highest caste also participates in cloning. I \nthink this will be important later.\n\nAnother Urth rule we have been taught is that the only way to prolong youth \nis through growth. This could explain why exultants (male and female) are \nso tall and why armigers, with less access to kaibits are tall but not quite \nso tall as exultants.\n\nStill cloning seems to be a rather impolite topic never to be mentioned out \nloud (except by the truthful Appian). Pega says she is Pelagia's soubrette \n(coquettish maid), and Odilo chides that she was an ancilla (servant). But \nsomething weird and unspoken is going on underneath that conversation. Pega \ndid Pelagia's hair we are told, and shared gossip and care of a bird. An \nalmost sisterly relationship. Thecla's playful relationship with Domnina, \nJosepha and Josephina suggest that kaibits and their mistresses mixed rather \nfreely.\n\nI agree with Borski that when notable Wolfe characters go unnamed, we are \nbeing invited to name them. He notes that for the kaibits in the House \nAzure all we are given are their assumed names. He jumps to the conclusion \nthat a couple of them must be Severa. I prefer to be more conservative and \nsuggest (consulting my list of saints) that the kaibit for the Chatelaine \nBarbea is named Barbe, or Barba. The Kaibit for Gracia could be Ia, but I \nthink is more likely Grace. The kaibit for Thecla might then be Tecla. \nChatelaine Leocadia's would have to be Lea. The Chatelaine Nympha's name \ndoesn't appear to have a saintly diminuative match. But there is no Saint \nNympha that I can find, either.\n\n(the next two paragraphs should be ignored if you don't like scenarios which \nare a bit offbeat; skip to the last paragraph). Thea also could be a kaibit \nname for Thecla. Could there be a kaibit relationship? Thea and Thecla are \nboth tall, dark haired and probably both have violet eyes. They call each \nother \"half sister\" or \"my dearest sister\" but no parentage is ever \nexplained. Severian always distinguishes Thea from Thecla by saying Thea's \nface is heart shaped. Thecla's face is triangular, with a widow's peak. \nThis sounds a lot like a heart shape to me. But a heart shape would be \nproduced if a triangle face had sunken cheeks.\n\nThere is a strange dream sequence, where Thecla, as a girl, is wandering \nthrough a chamber full of partially dressed women. Borski thinks she is \nlooking for her mother, but I think she might be seeking someone even \ncloser to her. She seems to finally find this person in the face of one of \nthe women, who has a weird heart-shaped patch on her cheek.\n\nThea is never (I think) called a Chatelaine or identified as part of the \nAutarchs court. So how could she have become so tall? What happens to \nmembers of the Inner Circle of Concubines and their kaibits as they age, say \ninto their 30's, 40's 50's? The Chatelaine would get very tall. And the \nkaibit would need a kaibit of her own. There is another dream sequence \nwhere Thecla is very concerned about how old she might be.\n\nSeverian briefly sees what seems to be the kaibit of Thea in the House Azure \nand at the House Absolute. What would a kaibit of Thea be named? It is \nalready such a short name and I don't find any St. The or Te or Tha or Ta in \nmy list. So I think her name, in the beginning would simply have been \n\"Thea's\". Later this would become the more conventional homonym, Thais.\n(Borski and I agree on the identity of Thais but for somewhat different \nreasons).\n\n-bsharp" } ] } ] }