{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4753", "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": 4753, "subject": "The Katharine maid", "messages": 39, "voices": 11, "first": "2006-10-25T20:02:55+00:00", "last": "2006-10-30T19:38:52+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<001a01c6f870$936f2c40$f53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-25T20:02:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Most attempts to account for the unchanged appearance of the maid who played\nthe role of Holy Katharine for as long as Severian could remember do so by\nsupposing the use of time travel. That is certainly a possibility, but the\ntext also affords another mechanism whereby the same effect might be\naccomplished -- aquastors/eidolons. We have the example of Malrubius, who\ndied when Severian was a young boy, yet pops up several times in the story,\nand Severian himself, who was resurrected at least twice by the same plot\ndevice. The machinery that supports eidolons have a range of \"a few thousand\nyears\".\n\nSetting aside for the moment the question of who exactly the maid might have\nbeen, what person in their right mind who had a choice in the matter would\nconsent to participating in such a rite for such a sorry group as the\ntorturers? When did she begin playing the role? When Severian was a small\nboy? Was it the same maid when Gurloes was a boy? Did her participation end\nwhen Severian left the guild? Was she still there for the two feasts Eata\nmust have attended before he ran away? Alas, the text doesn't say, yet it's\nimportant.\n\nIf the same maid played the role for the entire period of the autarchy, it\ncolors the perception of her as Severian's mother. The bogus Catholic Saint\nCatherine was obviously the inspiration for Holy Katharine, but of what help\nis that? That Catherine was supposedly condemned for professing her faith in\nan officially despised religion.\n\nSeverian the Conciliator came to Urth when Ymar was a teen, at the very end\nof Typhon's rule. Ymar was present when Severian gave his little sermon\nabout the coming of the New Sun, and eventually became the first autarch. It\nseems reasonable to suppose that Ymar's reign marked the beginning of the\nConciliator cult as the state religion. The ruined chapel in the autarch's\nCitadel where the guild held its annual ceremony is evidence that the cult\nwas once officially sanctioned. It was ruined for the same reason that\neverything else on Urth was in ruins; time took its toll and the New Sun had\nnot come.\n\nSo at what point did Ymar's guild start acting out the ritual, and why? The\nmother of the Conciliator doesn't seem like a likely candidate for execution\nby the same authority that initiated the worship of the Conciliator. If you\nwant to argue that the ritual was a holdover by the torturers from ancient\ndays long before Typhon, why was it held in a chapel devoted to the\nConciliator? If the ritual was a holdover, then what does it have to do with\nSeverian's mother? The torturers would have, in effect, supplanted their\npatron saint with the mother of a god; traded a Catherine for a Mary, if you\nwill. That doesn't make sense.\n\nIt seems incredible that the maid should have begun acting her role early in\nthe autarchy, but if she didn't, when did she start? Who orchestrated it and\nwhy? The Yesodians were messing with Urth at least as far back as Ymar's\ntime. Inire was their agent, the power behind the throne. The Hierodules\ntraveled backward and forward in time. They knew who Severian's parents\nwere.\n\nThe guild masters knew damn well who the maid was and where she came from;\nthe ritual could not take place without their cooperation. They knew who\nSeverian's mother was. What was Ouen's Catherine's real crime? She gave\nbirth to the Conciliator? That is exactly what the Hierogrammates wanted --\na New Sun to usher in Ushas. That is the reward a woman gets for giving\nbirth to a god, getting her head cut off once a year, whether it was fake or\nreal? Being tortured to death, sooner or later?\n\nAn eidolon maid would simplify the whole affair; just turn the sustaining\nmachinery on and off as needed. At the conclusion of the feast the maid\ncould dissolve into nothingness, like Malrubius on the beach. Since eidolons\nare always of the dead, from her point of view she has nothing to lose, and\nlittle or no time would pass between appearances. Her final payoff would be\neventual release and the promise of new life at the conclusion of her\nservice.\n\nThe external technology for the eidolons is alien, but the animating spirit\ncomes from a living person. The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship\ndiffered from the original in that his bum leg was repaired. None but\nSeverian knew knew about Triskele, so the dog's eidolon came from his mind.\nThe dog's missing leg might as easily have been restored, but Severian\nremembered him as having three legs, just as the maid remained fixed in his\nfamous memory.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370610251326t49cdb0a8x9b1bded7fb5bd6ea@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-25T20:26:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001a01c6f870$936f2c40$f53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy,\n\nAn eidolon is an interesting idea, but where does the eidolon\ntechnology come from? Are you suggesting that some group of\nHiero-Foos have been projecting the Katherine-maid into the\nCathedral all these years? For what reason?\n\nI offered another suggestion a few days back that meets the\ncriteria you lay out. An artificial person, a la Jonas -- I guess we'd\nhave to call her a chem? -- might easily enough be built with an\noptionally-detachable head. (Recall that Severian is sure he feels\nthe neck sever under his blow.) Since chem-building technology\nwas clearly around in Typhon's (and therefore Ymar's) day, this\nremoves any necessity for alien intervention." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nTragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open\nsewer and die.\n - Mel Brooks" } ] }, { "message_id": "<454035AD.4060700@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T04:12:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001a01c6f870$936f2c40$f53ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nThe external technology for the eidolons is alien, but the animating spirit\ncomes from a living person. The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship\ndiffered from the original in that his bum leg was repaired. None but\nSeverian knew knew about Triskele, so the dog's eidolon came from his mind.\nThe dog's missing leg might as easily have been restored, but Severian\nremembered him as having three legs, just as the maid remained fixed in his\nfamous memory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whose memory does the maid come from?\nDoes this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are likewise eidolons?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002601c6f8b7$431cc3a0$403ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-26T04:28:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<454035AD.4060700@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l wrote:\nAn eidolon is an interesting idea, but where does the eidolon\ntechnology come from?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From the Hierogrammates. It was on the Ship and it was on the smaller\n\"craft\" B F & O used to reach Apu's time and resurrect Severian in that\ntomb. It was on the craft used by Malrubius when he transported Severian to\nthe ocean, so we know the machinery was around on Urth in Severian's time." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are you suggesting that some group of\nHiero-Foos have been projecting the Katherine-maid into the\nCathedral all these years?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Eidolons were not mere projections. They were flesh and blood so long as the\nmachinery used to sustain them was in operation (witness the motley bunch\nwho fought for Severian against the sailors in the fight after the Trial).\nIf allowed enough time, they could take on existence independent of the\nmachinery, as was the case with Severian, twice." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For what reason?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For the same reason that *someone*, somehow, caused the maid to appear year\nafter year, in Severian's experience unchanged." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I offered another suggestion a few days back that meets the\ncriteria you lay out. An artificial person, a la Jonas -- I guess we'd\nhave to call her a chem? -- might easily enough be built with an\noptionally-detachable head. (Recall that Severian is sure he feels\nthe neck sever under his blow.) Since chem-building technology\nwas clearly around in Typhon's (and therefore Ymar's) day, this\nremoves any necessity for alien intervention." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The fact is, the Hierodules were interfering at least as far back as Ymar;\nafter all, he went to Yesod. There is not the least hint in the Urth Cycle\nthat chems were in existence on Urth in Typhon's time. I honestly don't\nthink that Wolfe had thought of chems when he wrote NEW SUN. More\nretrofitting problems. But my main objection is thematic. There is a strong\nsuggestion in the text that Catherine is somehow Katharine, and more than a\nhint that Severian's mother is somehow connected to the maid. I think that\nrequires that she be human. When Severian was young he thought that the maid\nmight be from the witches, but soon realized that \"such disrespect would not\nbe tolerated\". Based on that, I don't think the torturers would have allowed\ntheir guild to be mocked by any sort of robot patroness that couldn't even\nfeel pain.\n\nAs a side bonus of this eidolon business, it might also explain how Inire\ncould be \"alive so long beyond the span of his short-lived kind\". A series\nof eidolons created as needed over the centuries would do it. His mission\nwas over when Severian went to Yesod, and by all appearances he soon faded\ntoo, so far as I can tell, without a whimper or whisper of his passing.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004301c6f8b9$3f1c5f20$403ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-26T04:43:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<002601c6f8b7$431cc3a0$403ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson quoted and wrote:\nThe external technology for the eidolons is alien, but the animating\nspirit\ncomes from a living person. The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship\ndiffered from the original in that his bum leg was repaired. None but\nSeverian knew knew about Triskele, so the dog's eidolon came from his\nmind.\nThe dog's missing leg might as easily have been restored, but Severian\nremembered him as having three legs, just as the maid remained fixed in\nhis\nfamous memory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whose memory does the maid come from?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It may have come from his memory of her annual feast appearance. It may have\ncome from one of his extra-textual time trips to the past. It may have come\nfrom some other person." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are likewise eidolons?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<45404406.6080303@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T05:13:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<004301c6f8b9$3f1c5f20$403ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nJeff Wilson quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The external technology for the eidolons is alien, but the animating\nspirit\ncomes from a living person. The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship\ndiffered from the original in that his bum leg was repaired. None but\nSeverian knew knew about Triskele, so the dog's eidolon came from his\nmind.\nThe dog's missing leg might as easily have been restored, but Severian\nremembered him as having three legs, just as the maid remained fixed in\nhis\nfamous memory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Whose memory does the maid come from?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It may have come from his memory of her annual feast appearance. It may have\ncome from one of his extra-textual time trips to the past. It may have come\nfrom some other person." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think it would be Severian's memory. Presumably, it would be \nsomeone available whenever the jailers guild was reformed into the \nall-male Brotherhood, long after the Conciliator had departed and Ymar \nhad ascended." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are likewise eidolons?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They seem to be menial functionaries, and they don't have saints' names, \nsuggesting they are not like other residents of the Commonwealth." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan Rabin", "address": "wolfe-lists at danrabin.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T05:46:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<45404406.6080303@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are \nlikewise eidolons?\n\nRoy Lackey: Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand.\n\nJeff Wilson: They seem to be menial functionaries, and they don't \nhave saints' names,\nsuggesting they are not like other residents of the Commonwealth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm. I always assumed that these two were perfectly ordinary guild \nmembers whose names happened not to be used in these references \nbecause Severian was talking about their roles, not their identities. \nThis would be something like referring (in contemporary America) to \n\"Dean of Sciences\" or \"Attending Physician\".\n\nI also assume, though I can't put my finger on any evidence, that \nguild brothers in such roles are not on track to becoming masters.\n\nIt's just barely possible that there is a status of non-guild-member \nin service of the guild (something like a lay brother at a \nmonastery?), but this doesn't seem likely considering that members of \nthe Order are clearly pariahs and that the Order turns away adult \napplicants.\n\n -- Dan Rabin" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "b sharp", "address": "bsharporflat at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T15:41:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know if Roy subscribes to the theory that Urth is not Earth (though \nI think the spelling, the text clues and Wolfe interviews make it clear they \nare different). I think Urth is an earlier, darker version of Earth as \nBriah is an earlier, darker version of Yesod.\n\nEarth has Jesus, a boy born in our past, raised as a carpenter, rising to \nbecome a religious leader, tortured and killed, resurrected, ascended and \nfated to reappear in our future as Saviour. His mother is Mary.\n\nUrth has Severian, a boy born in our (initial reader of BotNS) present, \nraised as a torturer, rising to become a political leader, killed, \nresurrected, ascending to become the New Sun in our future but fated to \nreappear as Concilliator in our past. I think once the idea of using Saint \nCatherine, the torture victim, as a darker version of Mary, first occurred \nto Wolfe, the idea would be too cool to for him to dismiss. To have her \nplayed by a maid (virgin as Roy describes) is also appropriate.\n\nHaving recently learned from an interview that Wolfe relied solely on mental \nnotes to keep his stories straight, I am prepared to accept that he has \nretained various minor logistic (timeline issues etc.) inconsistencies to \nsustain his own most personally pleasing literary ideas.\n\nRoy writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The bogus Catholic Saint Catherine was obviously the inspiration for Holy \nKatharine." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't understand the use of the \"bogus\" adjective but I think it is more \nthan just inspiration. I think Holy Katharine's story IS Saint Catherine's \nstory aside from the two letter difference. Saint Catherine's execution is \nre-enacted faithfully by the Torturers. The wheel meant to torture her flew \napart at her touch afterwhich she was beheaded (and her body whisked away by \nangels, hm....). The Roman emperor who ordered her torture and execution \nwas Maximus during the 6th Christian Persecution. \nhttp://www.catholic-forum.com/Saints/saintc01.htm\n\nSince the name Maximus is actually used in the text of BotNS in regard to \nHoly Katharine's torture it is strong and direct evidence that this story \noriginates from Earth rather than Urth. Other similar examples of this I \ncan think of are Mount Nebo mentioned in the Jungle Hut, Squanto mentioned \nin the Wonders of Urth and Sky book and Kim Lee Soong and the quote from \nAlice in Wonderland from Jonas. For me the Frankenstein, Jungle Book and \nTheseus allusions are less compelling because there is no direct quote or \nname borrowing. I think using an Earth name meants Wolfe is pointing to an \nimportant clue.\n\nSo, perhaps the person who initiated the Torturer's ritual only read a book \ninspired by an Earth Saint legend but I think the use of the Maximus name is \na clue that there was direct contact. I agree with Roy (though for \ndifferent reasons) that Father Inire (with Ymar) is the likely candidate for \ngetting the torturers guild in its modern organization because there are \nother clues suggesting Inire has had direct contact with Earth.\n\nIn the past I viewed Father Inire (and the Cumaean) as possibly antagonistic \ntoward the coming of the New Sun. On a recent re-reading of Urth, I noted \nSeverian describing an embrace from Father Inire just before he left for \nTzadkiel's ship, so I've softened that stance. But I still see them both as \nfallen angels who were failing at their task, being distracted by their \nvices (young women and absorbing the lives of dead); Barbatus, Famulimus and \nOssipago being sent to set things right.\n\nI rebel against the eidolon theory regarding the maid's unchanging \nappearance. Mainly, I think, because the eidolon concept in the first four \nbooks is used mainly for Aquastors...who are like guardian angels appearing \nand visible only to the person from whose mind they were created. Only in \nUotNS do we start seeing eidolons capable of taking on real substance and \nbeing visible to everyone.\n\nThe concept of kaibits and youth retention are introduced in the first four \nbooks so I find those explanations more appealing for the maid. She is of \narmiger height and it is currently under debate whether armigers were able \nto take advantage of the kaibit youth retention system. I'm still chewing \non Jeff Wilson's theory that the maid is actually a series of kaibits from \nan original exultant. That might work.\n\nSome minor quibbles with Roy who says:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Hierodules traveled backward and forward in time. They knew who \nSeverian's parents" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "were.\n\nI think, without exception, B, F and O travel backward in time. Their memory \nis always only of the future. So if they knew who his parents were it was \nonly from talking with Severian as Autarch. Of course Severian won't openly \ntell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out, as \nwe did.\n\nand" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship differed from the original in \nthat his bum leg was repaired." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe the eidolon which was created after Severian was killed by Sidero \nstill had a bum leg. The leg wasn't made whole until Severian had been to \nYesod, passed his test, got attached to his Star and was back on the Ship \nheading home.\n\n-bsharp" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061026120834.B58343-100000@heimdallr.dyndns.org>", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "millman at heimdallr.dyndns.org" }, "date": "2006-10-26T16:31:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Mr. Rabin,\n\nYour suggestions are eminently plausible. I wish\nI could remember whether Severian tells us what\nhappens to apprentices who aren't elevated to\njourneyman; that might also be a source of people\nto fill the cook's and porter's roles.\n\nDear Mr. Wilson:\n\nI don't think that the eidolon technology is as\nwidespread as the deliberate creation of servants,\nwhich it seems to me you're implictly proposing,\nwould suggest. If I've misunderstood, and you're\nsaying that Severian's interactions with Brother\nCook and Brother Porter are so important that\nthe men are recreated from his memory for his ben-\nefit, then I'd be very interested in your reason-\ning.\n\nOr are you perhaps making a connection with the\nkhaibits' creation, in which they'd begin as eido-\nlons of their (living) models, achieve permanent\nexistence by living in the world, and subsequent-\nly be exploited by the exultant women? I think\nwe'd all assumed that khaibits are the product of\na more conventional cloning technology--perhaps\none related to the medical experimentation in\nwhich Baldanders is engaged at Lake Diuturna--but\nthis would be a very interesting take on the\nissue.\n\nBest,\n\nMark Millman\n\n\n[previously in this thread:]\n\nJeff Wilson: Does this imply Brother\nCook and Brother Porter are likewise\neidolons?\n\nRoy Lackey: Huh? They weren't eido-\nlons. I don't understand.\n\nJeff Wilson: They seem to be menial\nfunctionaries, and they don't have\nsaints' names, suggesting they are\nnot like other residents of the Com-\nmonwealth.\n\nDan Rabin: Hmm. I always assumed\nthat these two were perfectly ordin-\nary guild members whose names hap-\npened not to be used in these refer-\nences because Severian was talking\nabout their roles, not their identi-\nties. This would be something like\nreferring (in contemporary America)\nto \"Dean of Sciences\" or \"Attending\nPhysician\".\n\nI also assume, though I can't put\nmy finger on any evidence, that\nguild brothers in such roles are not\non track to becoming masters.\n\nIt's just barely possible that there\nis a status of non-guild-member in\nservice of the guild (something like\na lay brother at a monastery?), but\nthis doesn't seem likely considering\nthat members of the Order are clearly\npariahs and that the Order turns away\nadult applicants." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan Rabin", "address": "wolfe-lists at danrabin.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T17:25:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<20061026120834.B58343-100000@heimdallr.dyndns.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy Lackey: >The bogus Catholic Saint Catherine was obviously the \ninspiration for Holy\n >Katharine.\n\nb sharp: I don't understand the use of the \"bogus\" adjective but I \nthink it is more\nthan just inspiration." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy's use of \"bogus\" may simply have been referring to doubts about \nthe historical existence of Catherine of Alexandria.\n\n -- Dan Rabin" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1161884668.27965.274300975@webmail.messagingengine.com>", "from": { "name": "Rex Lycanthrosaurus", "address": "lycanthrosaurus at fastmail.fm" }, "date": "2006-10-26T17:44:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:41:41 -0400, \"b sharp\" \nsaid:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course Severian won't openly \ntell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out,\nas we did." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, Severian names Catherine as his mother in Chapter XLIV of\nURTH:\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin. (As Autarch, not only could he disband the\ntorturers' guild, but also confiscate their records, thereby confirming\nthe above.)\n\nAs for the woman portraying St. Katharine being a khaibit, a chem, or an\neidolon, while interesting to speculate about, can't say I favor any of\nthese approaches. One of novel's central conceits seems to be that\nSeverian meets *all* of his family at some time or another, with us as\nreaders to determine who is actually kin and how each potential family\nmember is related to Severian. (I'm hoping if the wiki-project is\nlaunched it will include drawn renditions of the various proposed family\ntrees.) To therefore accept that Severian meets the literal embodiments\nof, say, his father, his paternal grandparents, and his sister (whoever\nshe may be), but only the spurious equivalent of his mother strikes me\nas cheating and untidy, and not true to Wolfe's overall gameplan.\n\nMy 2 chrisos worth, if perhaps counterfit. " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": " Rex Lycanthrosaurus\n lycanthrosaurus at fastmail.fm\n\n-- \nhttp://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370610261100i2c48eb61u267a0389bfc7cfee@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T18:00:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<002601c6f8b7$431cc3a0$403ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/25/06, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nThere is not the least hint in the Urth Cycle\nthat chems were in existence on Urth in Typhon's time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jonas. The word \"chem\" is not used, but an artificial person of\nelectromechanical nature." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nTragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open\nsewer and die.\n - Mel Brooks" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001001c6f934$6529ed60$cb3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-26T19:24:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370610261100i2c48eb61u267a0389bfc7cfee@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Roy Lackey: >The bogus Catholic Saint Catherine was obviously the \ninspiration for Holy\n >Katharine.\n\nb sharp: I don't understand the use of the \"bogus\" adjective but I \nthink it is more\nthan just inspiration." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy's use of \"bogus\" may simply have been referring to doubts about \nthe historical existence of Catherine of Alexandria.\n\n -- Dan Rabin" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Correct. The saint never existed and was removed from the canon in 1969.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001901c6f934$7b086080$cb3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-26T19:25:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001001c6f934$6529ed60$cb3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rex Lycanthrosaurus quoted and wrote:\nOn Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:41:41 -0400, \"b sharp\" \nsaid:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Of course Severian won't openly\ntell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out,\nas we did." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, Severian names Catherine as his mother in Chapter XLIV of\nURTH:\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does. It also contradicts the passage I quoted earlier:\n\n\"[ . . .] a breast running with warm milk. It was my mother's breast then,\nand I could hardly contain my elation (which might have wiped the memory\naway) at having reached back at last to her, after so many fruitless\nattempts. My arms sought to clasp her, and I would, if only I could, have\nlifted my eyes to look into her face. My mother certainly, for the children\nthe torturers take know no breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of\nvision, then, was the metal of her cell wall. Soon she would be led away to\nscream in the Apparatus or gasp in Allowin's Necklace.\" (CLAW, chapter\nXXVII)\n\nBoth quotes cannot be true. The sentence, \"My mother certainly, for the\nchildren the torturers take know no breasts.\" is either a pointless lie or\nanother example of Wolfe being forced to change his mind about some things\nwhen he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the\ntwo passages.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061026195039.39638.qmail@web54404.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T19:50:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001901c6f934$7b086080$cb3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy, I'm confused about the contradiction you are trying to point out. The passage from Urth names his mother and says that she bore him in her prison cell, and the passage from Claw says that he fed from her breast in her prison cell. I think the sentence you highlight is pointing out that children will not breast feed after they are taken by the torturers. Severian is still with his mother in her cell, he has not yet been \"taken.\"\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Roy C. Lackey \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:25:17 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rex Lycanthrosaurus quoted and wrote:\nOn Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:41:41 -0400, \"b sharp\" \nsaid:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Of course Severian won't openly\ntell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out,\nas we did." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, Severian names Catherine as his mother in Chapter XLIV of\nURTH:\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does. It also contradicts the passage I quoted earlier:\n\n\"[ . . .] a breast running with warm milk. It was my mother's breast then,\nand I could hardly contain my elation (which might have wiped the memory\naway) at having reached back at last to her, after so many fruitless\nattempts. My arms sought to clasp her, and I would, if only I could, have\nlifted my eyes to look into her face. My mother certainly, for the children\nthe torturers take know no breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of\nvision, then, was the metal of her cell wall. Soon she would be led away to\nscream in the Apparatus or gasp in Allowin's Necklace.\" (CLAW, chapter\nXXVII)\n\nBoth quotes cannot be true. The sentence, \"My mother certainly, for the\nchildren the torturers take know no breasts.\" is either a pointless lie or\nanother example of Wolfe being forced to change his mind about some things\nwhen he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the\ntwo passages.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c6f939$45f56500$5c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-26T19:59:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<20061026195039.39638.qmail@web54404.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rex Lycanthrosaurus quoted:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Damn. I may have done Wolfe and myself an injustice by conceding too\nquickly. \n\nWasn't there a similar discussion not too long ago about \"forebears\" or some\nsuch? \"Borne\" is the past participle of \"bear\" (\"to carry; transport\"). When\nfollowed by the word \"by\", it doesn't refer to having given birth.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061026211720.95006.qmail@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-10-26T21:17:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c6f939$45f56500$5c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "http://www.allwords.com/word-born.html\n\nIf the \"borne by\" means \"to bear a burden\" then the sentence seems clunky. It takes a right turn and makes Catherine the focus rather than Severian. I think he's referring to Catherine as the mother.\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and flesh who was a burden to Catherine in a cell of the . . .\"\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh who carried by Catherine in a cell of the . . .\" makes even less sense.\n\n----- Original Message ----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Roy C. Lackey \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:59:35 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid\nRex Lycanthrosaurus quoted:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Damn. I may have done Wolfe and myself an injustice by conceding too\nquickly. \n\nWasn't there a similar discussion not too long ago about \"forebears\" or some\nsuch? \"Borne\" is the past participle of \"bear\" (\"to carry; transport\"). When\nfollowed by the word \"by\", it doesn't refer to having given birth.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<45417B3F.4020807@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-10-27T03:21:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<20061026120834.B58343-100000@heimdallr.dyndns.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mark Millman wrote:\nI don't think that the eidolon technology is as\nwidespread as the deliberate creation of servants,\nwhich it seems to me you're implictly proposing,\nwould suggest. If I've misunderstood, and you're\nsaying that Severian's interactions with Brother\nCook and Brother Porter are so important that\nthe men are recreated from his memory for his ben-\nefit, then I'd be very interested in your reason-\ning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If the Masters use a machine to make an eidolon to serve as Holy \nKatharine, they could plausibly use a machine to make an eidolon to \nserve as a cook or a menial laborer. However, unlike Holy Katharine's \none-day-a-year existence, Brother Porter and especially Brother Cook may \n be post-eidolons, having consumed enough independent substance." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<45417EB7.1040303@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-10-27T03:36:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001901c6f934$7b086080$cb3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nBoth quotes cannot be true. The sentence, \"My mother certainly, for the\nchildren the torturers take know no breasts.\" is either a pointless lie or\nanother example of Wolfe being forced to change his mind about some things\nwhen he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the\ntwo passages." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think it is necessarily a contradiction. Since we are reading a \ntranslation, \"take\" may variously mean surgical removal as well as \ninduction into the guild, either both at once or separately on different \noccasions. His mother may have been merely confined for a time, as \nThecla was, and so nursed him in her cell. Later, she was executed and \nthe apparent orphan kept as an apprentice-to-be. She may even have given \nbirth during the time of confinement, and the Brothers did not open her \nto take the baby because there was the technical possibility she would \nbe reprieved. Likely the c-section only takes place proximal to death \nwhile in custody." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001001c6f97e$d4f417c0$ab3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-27T04:17:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<45417EB7.1040303@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Nathan Spears wrote:\nhttp://www.allwords.com/word-born.html" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That on-line dictionary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If the \"borne by\" means \"to bear a burden\" then the sentence seems clunky." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It takes a right turn and makes Catherine the focus rather than Severian. I\nthink he's referring to Catherine as the mother.<<\n\nI was hoping someone else would do this. Yes, he is referring to her as his\nmother. But, as I said, borne is the past participle of bear (to carry).\nBorn (no \"e\") is the past participle of bear (to give birth). Borne and born\nare not interchangeable, which is why they have separate entries in my old\n_Webster's_. You can simply substitute \"carried\" for \"borne\" in the disputed\nquote without doing violence to the sentence, and the usage becomes clear. I\ndon't think that can be done with any one-word substitute referring to a\npast incidence of giving birth to a child -- at least not without mangling\nthe English language." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and flesh\nwho was a burden to Catherine in a cell of the . . .\"\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh who carried by Catherine in a cell of the . . .\" makes even less\nsense.<<" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just drop the \"who\" you added and it makes perfect sense. But cheer up; it\ncan still be argued whether or not Severian meant she carried him in her\nwomb or the brown basket previously noted. See my \"Baby Severian\" post\nof the 18th for the larger context and why I initially thought the URTH\nquote contradicted the CLAW quote and proved my theory wrong." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Rex Lycanthrosaurus quoted:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Damn. I may have done Wolfe and myself an injustice by conceding too\nquickly. \n\nWasn't there a similar discussion not too long ago about \"forebears\" or\nsome\nsuch? \"Borne\" is the past participle of \"bear\" (\"to carry; transport\")." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "followed by the word \"by\", it doesn't refer to having given birth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1EC955D1-342D-4CFF-8DDD-CEE2ED153506@doubtfulpalace.com>", "from": { "name": "Tim Walters", "address": "walters at doubtfulpalace.com" }, "date": "2006-10-27T04:33:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001001c6f97e$d4f417c0$ab3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nI was hoping someone else would do this. Yes, he is referring to \nher as his\nmother. But, as I said, borne is the past participle of bear (to \ncarry).\nBorn (no \"e\") is the past participle of bear (to give birth). Borne \nand born\nare not interchangeable, which is why they have separate entries in \nmy old\n_Webster's_." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My old _Webster's_ says:\n\nborn, a. [pp. of bear (to give birth): now used only in passive \nconstructions not followed by _by_.]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You can simply substitute \"carried\" for \"borne\" in the disputed\nquote without doing violence to the sentence," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree. Who would say \"carried in a cell\"? You carry _from_ a \ncell, or in a _basket_, not \"in a cell\"." } ] }, { "message_id": "<45418F59.4040400@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2006-10-27T04:47:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan Rabin wrote:\nJeff Wilson: Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are \nlikewise eidolons?\n\nRoy Lackey: Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand.\n\nJeff Wilson: They seem to be menial functionaries, and they don't \nhave saints' names,\nsuggesting they are not like other residents of the Commonwealth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmm. I always assumed that these two were perfectly ordinary guild \nmembers whose names happened not to be used in these references \nbecause Severian was talking about their roles, not their identities. \nThis would be something like referring (in contemporary America) to \n\"Dean of Sciences\" or \"Attending Physician\".\n\nI also assume, though I can't put my finger on any evidence, that \nguild brothers in such roles are not on track to becoming masters." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "but there are no other \"Brothers\" mentioned in the guild, and no way to \nbecome one mentioned in the discussion of the guild ranks. This would \nimply that not only has no-one become a Brother during Severian's tenure \n with them, but no one has even mentioned it either. It's like the \ntypical childhood image of school teachers who live inside the school \nhouse, never seen in any other context." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002801c6f999$61227b00$323ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-27T07:27:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<45418F59.4040400@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Tim Walters quoted and wrote:\nOn Oct 26, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I was hoping someone else would do this. Yes, he is referring to\nher as his\nmother. But, as I said, borne is the past participle of bear (to\ncarry).\nBorn (no \"e\") is the past participle of bear (to give birth). Borne\nand born\nare not interchangeable, which is why they have separate entries in\nmy old\n_Webster's_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My old _Webster's_ says:\n\nborn, a. [pp. of bear (to give birth): now used only in passive\nconstructions not followed by _by_.]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Precisely. My _Webster's_ says the same thing. That's why Wolfe didn't write\n\"born by\"; he wrote \"borne by\". \"Born\" has nothing to do with the sentence\nin question. The word isn't in the sentence.\n\n[\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and flesh\nborne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin Tower.\"]\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tim Walters", "address": "walters at doubtfulpalace.com" }, "date": "2006-10-27T08:51:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<002801c6f999$61227b00$323ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:27 AM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nborn, a. [pp. of bear (to give birth): now used only in passive\nconstructions not followed by _by_.]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Precisely. My _Webster's_ says the same thing. That's why Wolfe \ndidn't write\n\"born by\"; he wrote \"borne by\". \"Born\" has nothing to do with the \nsentence\nin question. The word isn't in the sentence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The point is that \"borne by\" is what Wolfe would write if he meant \nthat Catherine gave birth to Severian in the cell, because \"born by\" \nis wrong. \"Borne\" is, in fact, a valid past participle of \"bear (to \ngive birth),\" as specified in the \"bear\" entry:\n\n\"_Bear_, signifying _to bring forth_, has the past participle, when \nused passively, spelled born, but when used after the verb _to have_, \nit is spelled _borne_. Thus, a child was _born_, but she has _borne_ \na child.\"\n\nAlthough \"have\" is not in the sentence, the \"born\" entry makes it \nclear that in this particular passive use, \"borne\" is to be \npreferred, which is why I cited said entry.\n\nIn any case:\n\n --\"borne by\" to mean \"given birth by\" is a common usage, whether \nsanctioned by Webster or not;\n --mentioning one's birth is a common way to emphasize one's mere \nhumanity, as in \"man, born of woman.\" Mentioning being carried seems \nrandom (although I don't have the \"brown basket\" reference to hand; \nmaybe there's enough context there to make it less so)." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061027143420.98450.qmail@web54404.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-10-27T14:34:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From dictionary.com" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"?Usage note Since the latter part of the 18th century, a distinction has been made between born and borne as past participles of the verb bear1. Borne is the past participle in all senses that do not refer to physical birth: The wheatfields have borne abundantly this year. Judges have always borne a burden of responsibility. Borne\nis also the participle when the sense is ?to bring forth (young)? and\nthe focus is on the mother rather than on the child. In such cases, borne is preceded by a form of have or followed by by: Anna had borne a son the previous year. Two children borne by her earlier were already grown.\"\n\nIn looking around the web for this, I have noticed a lot of uses of the phrase \"borne by Mary\" in reference to Jesus. I was wondering if the Catholic members of the list, or those familar with Catholicism, might comment as to whether this phrase is familiar to them - that is, if the phrase comes up a lot in doctrine or teaching or gossip around the cathedral. Perhaps Wolfe chose this phrase with those connotations in mind - this list has already (heh) borne discussion of the possibility of Catherine as a Mary substitute, and that would fit perfectly with the sentence in question.\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Tim Walters \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:51:34 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:27 AM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nborn, a. [pp. of bear (to give birth): now used only in passive\nconstructions not followed by _by_.]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Precisely. My _Webster's_ says the same thing. That's why Wolfe \ndidn't write\n\"born by\"; he wrote \"borne by\". \"Born\" has nothing to do with the \nsentence\nin question. The word isn't in the sentence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The point is that \"borne by\" is what Wolfe would write if he meant \nthat Catherine gave birth to Severian in the cell, because \"born by\" \nis wrong. \"Borne\" is, in fact, a valid past participle of \"bear (to \ngive birth),\" as specified in the \"bear\" entry:\n\n\"_Bear_, signifying _to bring forth_, has the past participle, when \nused passively, spelled born, but when used after the verb _to have_, \nit is spelled _borne_. Thus, a child was _born_, but she has _borne_ \na child.\"\n\nAlthough \"have\" is not in the sentence, the \"born\" entry makes it \nclear that in this particular passive use, \"borne\" is to be \npreferred, which is why I cited said entry.\n\nIn any case:\n\n --\"borne by\" to mean \"given birth by\" is a common usage, whether \nsanctioned by Webster or not;\n --mentioning one's birth is a common way to emphasize one's mere \nhumanity, as in \"man, born of woman.\" Mentioning being carried seems \nrandom (although I don't have the \"brown basket\" reference to hand; \nmaybe there's enough context there to make it less so)." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061027122312.L58343-100000@heimdallr.dyndns.org>", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "millman at heimdallr.dyndns.org" }, "date": "2006-10-27T16:30:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<45417B3F.4020807@io.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Mr. Wilson:\n\nThanks for playing devil's advocate. It still seems\npretty unlikely, either as a practical matter within\nthe story or thematically from a critical viewpoint.\n\nBest,\n\nMark Millman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nIf the Masters use a machine to make\nan eidolon to serve as Holy Katharine,\nthey could plausibly use a machine to\nmake an eidolon to serve as a cook or\na menial laborer. However, unlike\nHoly Katharine's one-day-a-year exis-\ntence, Brother Porter and especially\nBrother Cook may be post-eidolons,\nhaving consumed enough independent\nsubstance.\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >\n\n\n[previously,] Mark Millman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't think that the eidolon\ntechnology is as widespread as\nthe deliberate creation of ser-\nvants, which it seems to me\nyou're implictly proposing,\nwould suggest. If I've misun-\nderstood, and you're saying\nthat Severian's interactions\nwith Brother Cook and Brother\nPorter are so important that\nthe men are recreated from his\nmemory for his benefit, then\nI'd be very interested in your\nreasoning." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200610271530.46921.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-10-27T19:30:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001901c6f934$7b086080$cb3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thursday 26 October 2006 15:25, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nRex Lycanthrosaurus quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:41:41 -0400, \"b sharp\" \n\nsaid:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Of course Severian won't openly\ntell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out,\nas we did." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, Severian names Catherine as his mother in Chapter XLIV of\nURTH:\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does. It also contradicts the passage I quoted earlier:\n\n\"[ . . .] a breast running with warm milk. It was my mother's breast then,\nand I could hardly contain my elation (which might have wiped the memory\naway) at having reached back at last to her, after so many fruitless\nattempts. My arms sought to clasp her, and I would, if only I could, have\nlifted my eyes to look into her face. My mother certainly, for the children\nthe torturers take know no breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of\nvision, then, was the metal of her cell wall. Soon she would be led away to\nscream in the Apparatus or gasp in Allowin's Necklace.\" (CLAW, chapter\nXXVII)\n\nBoth quotes cannot be true. The sentence, \"My mother certainly, for the\nchildren the torturers take know no breasts.\" is either a pointless lie or\nanother example of Wolfe being forced to change his mind about some things\nwhen he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the\ntwo passages." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're misinterpreting the sentence you quote. You've addressed the \nsecond half of the sentence but you haven't explained what the first half \nmeans. Why does the fact that \"...the children the torturers take know no \nbreasts...\" prove that the memory of his suckling is his mother? What does \nthe entire sentence mean? I think Severian is saying that it must be his \nmother because if he's suckling at a breast, he hasn't yet been taken by the \ntorturers. Once he IS taken, he'll be fed by bottle or equivalent. Thus the \nmemory must be of a time before he is taken and the woman suckling him must \nbe his mother. That means there's no contradiction in the two passages. \nCatherine bore him (and suckled him) while imprisoned in a cell in the tower. \nAt some point after his birth (exactly how long after is unclear, but \ncertainly while he was still an infant) she was tortured and killed, and \nSeverian was taken by the torturers to be raised as a member of the Guild." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061028011051.1727.qmail@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Chris Mulder", "address": "chris_mulder at sbcglobal.net" }, "date": "2006-10-28T01:10:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<200610271530.46921.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly my interpretation, as well. \n \n cm\n\nDaniel D Jones wrote:\n I think you're misinterpreting the sentence you quote. You've addressed the \nsecond half of the sentence but you haven't explained what the first half \nmeans. Why does the fact that \"...the children the torturers take know no \nbreasts...\" prove that the memory of his suckling is his mother? What does \nthe entire sentence mean? I think Severian is saying that it must be his \nmother because if he's suckling at a breast, he hasn't yet been taken by the \ntorturers. Once he IS taken, he'll be fed by bottle or equivalent. Thus the \nmemory must be of a time before he is taken and the woman suckling him must \nbe his mother. That means there's no contradiction in the two passages. \nCatherine bore him (and suckled him) while imprisoned in a cell in the tower. \nAt some point after his birth (exactly how long after is unclear, but \ncertainly while he was still an infant) she was tortured and killed, and \nSeverian was taken by the torturers to be raised as a member of the Guild." } ] }, { "message_id": "<002e01c6fa3c$43403160$273ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-28T02:53:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<20061028011051.1727.qmail@web82106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gentlemen:\n\nThe dictionary citations both of you have given support my reading. This is\nthe sentence:\n\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and flesh\nborne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin Tower.\"\n\nThe part before the comma can be ignored here, leaving the subordinate\nclause \"from the Severian of bone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell of\nthe oubliette under the Matachin Tower.\" There is only *one* verb in the\nclause, \"borne\". There is no form of the verb \"to have\" before borne (or\nanother verb after it) to qualify it, as would be required for borne to\nrefer to the mere fact that Catherine gave birth in a cell.\n\nThe subject in the clause is \"Severian\", the predicate is \"borne\". The rest\nof the clause, beginning with the word \"by\", is a prepositional phrase\nserving as an adverb modifying the verb \"borne\".\n\nEither the sentence is grammatically incorrect or \"borne by\" means something\nother than \"to bring forth\". As written, \"borne by\" means \"carried by\". The\nmore usual meaning in this context would be that Catherine carried a child\nin her womb.\n\nBut Severian also had a memory of being in a brown basket when he was still\ntoo young to crawl, and one most often uses a basket to carry something. It\nis possible that he was carried *to* the cell in the basket. It is also\npossible that he was kept in the basket while she was in a cell, but I doubt\nthat she would have had much occasion to carry it around there. (Unless\nmaybe he had the colic and she was trying to get him to stop crying. )\nThe prepositional phrase, however, weighs against that.\n\nSo, in the end, the URTH quote still seems to undermine my theory that\nSeverian was not born in the Matachin Tower. At least I think it does. The\nquote still doesn't quite square with all the criteria laid out in the\ntetralogy, particularly the criterion that none of the apprentices were born\namong the torturers. I could probably come up with some theory that allows\nfor both, but that would lead to more speculation than either the text or I\ncan support.\n\n-Roy\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n-\n-----Original Message-----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Nathan Spears \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nDate: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:34 AM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid\nFrom dictionary.com" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"?Usage note Since the latter part of the 18th century, a distinction has\nbeen made between born and borne as past participles of the verb bear1.\nBorne is the past participle in all senses that do not refer to physical\nbirth: The wheatfields have borne abundantly this year. Judges have always\nborne a burden of responsibility. Borne\nis also the participle when the sense is ?to bring forth (young)? and\nthe focus is on the mother rather than on the child. In such cases, borne is\npreceded by a form of have or followed by by: Anna had borne a son the\nprevious year. Two children borne by her earlier were already grown.\"\n\nIn looking around the web for this, I have noticed a lot of uses of the\nphrase \"borne by Mary\" in reference to Jesus. I was wondering if the\nCatholic members of the list, or those familar with Catholicism, might\ncomment as to whether this phrase is familiar to them - that is, if the\nphrase comes up a lot in doctrine or teaching or gossip around the\ncathedral. Perhaps Wolfe chose this phrase with those connotations in\nmind - this list has already (heh) borne discussion of the possibility of\nCatherine as a Mary substitute, and that would fit perfectly with the\nsentence in question.\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Tim Walters " } ] }, { "message_id": "<002001c6fa4d$8d626720$fd3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-28T04:57:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<002e01c6fa3c$43403160$273ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Daniel D Jones quoted and wrote:\n\"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and\nflesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin\nTower.\"\n\nThis also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was\nborne outside the Matachin." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ah, yes, so it does. It also contradicts the passage I quoted earlier:\n\n\"[ . . .] a breast running with warm milk. It was my mother's breast\nthen,\nand I could hardly contain my elation (which might have wiped the memory\naway) at having reached back at last to her, after so many fruitless\nattempts. My arms sought to clasp her, and I would, if only I could, have\nlifted my eyes to look into her face. My mother certainly, for the\nchildren\nthe torturers take know no breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field\nof\nvision, then, was the metal of her cell wall. Soon she would be led away\nto\nscream in the Apparatus or gasp in Allowin's Necklace.\" (CLAW, chapter\nXXVII)\n\nBoth quotes cannot be true. The sentence, \"My mother certainly, for the\nchildren the torturers take know no breasts.\" is either a pointless lie\nor\nanother example of Wolfe being forced to change his mind about some\nthings\nwhen he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile\nthe\ntwo passages." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you're misinterpreting the sentence you quote. You've addressed\nthe\nsecond half of the sentence but you haven't explained what the first half\nmeans. Why does the fact that \"...the children the torturers take know no\nbreasts...\" prove that the memory of his suckling is his mother? What does\nthe entire sentence mean? I think Severian is saying that it must be his\nmother because if he's suckling at a breast, he hasn't yet been taken by\nthe\ntorturers. Once he IS taken, he'll be fed by bottle or equivalent. Thus\nthe\nmemory must be of a time before he is taken and the woman suckling him must\nbe his mother. That means there's no contradiction in the two passages.\nCatherine bore him (and suckled him) while imprisoned in a cell in the\ntower.\nAt some point after his birth (exactly how long after is unclear, but\ncertainly while he was still an infant) she was tortured and killed, and\nSeverian was taken by the torturers to be raised as a member of the Guild." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I guess that what I get for being economical and not repeating myself. \nMy \"Baby Severian\" post of the 18th dealt with much of your argument. Most\nof the criteria for acceptance into the guild are also addressed on the\nsecond page of the second chapter of SHADOW. Among them is, \"None of us were\nborn among the torturers, for none are.\"\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7B426BAD-F239-43BF-900B-5C80575EB3DF@doubtfulpalace.com>", "from": { "name": "Tim Walters", "address": "walters at doubtfulpalace.com" }, "date": "2006-10-28T06:15:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<002e01c6fa3c$43403160$273ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Oct 27, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n\nThe dictionary citations both of you have given support my reading." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, they don't. Nathan Spears' citation (\"Two children borne by her \nearlier\") is exactly analogous to Wolfe's clause (\"the Severian of \nbone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell...\"), leaving no room for \ndoubt that Wolfe's sentence can sensibly be read as being about \nSeverian's birth.\n\nIn my opinion, that's the only unstrained reading, but that's less \ncertain." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200610280854.07988.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-10-28T12:54:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<002001c6fa4d$8d626720$fd3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Saturday 28 October 2006 00:57, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nDaniel D Jones quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "At some point after his birth (exactly how long after is unclear, but\ncertainly while he was still an infant) she was tortured and killed, and\nSeverian was taken by the torturers to be raised as a member of the Guild." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I guess that what I get for being economical and not repeating myself. \nMy \"Baby Severian\" post of the 18th dealt with much of your argument. Most\nof the criteria for acceptance into the guild are also addressed on the\nsecond page of the second chapter of SHADOW. Among them is, \"None of us\nwere born among the torturers, for none are.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've gone back and reread your 18th post. Your arguments against Severian \nbeing born in the tower rests on the sentence \"None of us were born among the \ntorturers, for none are.\" I'd argue that you're misinterpreting that \nsentence as well. What does it mean to be \"born among the torturers?\" I'd \nsay it's referring to the torturers taking wives or lovers and raising their \nown children into the guild. The torturers do not replenish their guild from \nwithin. I don't think the sentence means that no children are born among the \ntorturers _clients_. \n\nI don't see any resolution for the apparently contradictory sentences about \nwet nurses and knowing no breasts. I suspect this was an error on Wolf's \npart." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061028204700.5752.qmail@web54403.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-10-28T20:47:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<200610280854.07988.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't see any resolution for the apparently contradictory sentences about \nwet nurses and knowing no breasts. I suspect this was an error on Wolf's \npart." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What statement about wet nurses? Looking at the Baby Sev post I found this line:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The key part of this quote is \"the children the torturers take know no\nbreasts\", which seems to contradict his earlier statement about wet-nurses." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "but I'm not clear on what the earlier statement is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<200610281722.31266.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-10-28T21:22:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<20061028204700.5752.qmail@web54403.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:47, Nathan Spears wrote:\nI don't see any resolution for the apparently contradictory sentences\nabout wet nurses and knowing no breasts. I suspect this was an error on\nWolf's part." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What statement about wet nurses? Looking at the Baby Sev post I found this \nline:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The key part of this quote is \"the children the torturers take know no" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "breasts\", which seems to contradict his earlier statement about wet-nurses.\n\nbut I'm not clear on what the earlier statement is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chapter 2 of Shadow:\n\n\"...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her and if the babe \ndraws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy. The females are rendered to \nthe witches...\"\n\nIt seems to me the line saying that the children the torturers take know no \nbreast is a direct contradiction to the above which says they engage a wet \nnurse. At least, the only definition I'm familiar with for \"wet nurse\" is a \nwoman who suckles another woman's child. If it is a contradiction, then the \nquestion is whether it's an error of Severian's or Wolfe's. I suspect it's \nWolfe's. I can see any point or significance to Severian misleading the \nreader in so subtle and trivial a manner. Outside of that apparent error, I \ndon't see any contradictions or issues with Severian being born in the tower.\n\nAs I see it, the torturers, if they have children, do not bring them into the \nguild. The guild is replenished by the children of their clients. A woman \nwho is remanded into their care for torture is given a Caesarian. Male \nchildren who survive are raised as torturers. We know, however, that some \nclients are merely imprisoned for extended periods until their sentence is \nhanded down. The text doesn't specifically say but it seems unlikely that a \npregnant woman would be given a Caesarian while her ultimate disposition has \nyet to be decided. After all, it's possible she'll be released. Thus it \nseems not only possible but likely that some women do give birth while \nimprisoned in the tower, if only those who are awaiting final judgement and \ndisposition. I don't see any issue or contradiction with Severian being born \nto Catherine while she was a prisoner but before her sentence had been handed \ndown. Once her sentence was given, it was executed and Severian was \"taken\" \ninto the guild." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20061029041314.33060.qmail@web54403.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2006-10-29T04:13:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<200610281722.31266.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Aha! I missed that. It does seem like a contradiction. But in a world without baby formula, perhaps the wet-nurse puts her milk in a bottle. The torturers might refuse to let the children breastfeed for psychological reasons.\n\nI was also going to suggest that perhaps the \"stand under the bar\" rules applies literally to children that the torturers \"take.\" That is, perhaps they don't accept a child into the ranks until they can stand on their feet, but at that point they wouldn't be breastfeeding anyway.\n\nI second the opinion that it's just an oversight by Wolfe.\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: Daniel D Jones \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:22:30 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:47, Nathan Spears wrote:\nI don't see any resolution for the apparently contradictory sentences\nabout wet nurses and knowing no breasts. I suspect this was an error on\nWolf's part." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What statement about wet nurses? Looking at the Baby Sev post I found this \nline:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The key part of this quote is \"the children the torturers take know no" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "breasts\", which seems to contradict his earlier statement about wet-nurses.\n\nbut I'm not clear on what the earlier statement is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chapter 2 of Shadow:\n\n\"...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her and if the babe \ndraws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy. The females are rendered to \nthe witches...\"\n\nIt seems to me the line saying that the children the torturers take know no \nbreast is a direct contradiction to the above which says they engage a wet \nnurse. At least, the only definition I'm familiar with for \"wet nurse\" is a \nwoman who suckles another woman's child. If it is a contradiction, then the \nquestion is whether it's an error of Severian's or Wolfe's. I suspect it's \nWolfe's. I can see any point or significance to Severian misleading the \nreader in so subtle and trivial a manner. Outside of that apparent error, I \ndon't see any contradictions or issues with Severian being born in the tower.\n\nAs I see it, the torturers, if they have children, do not bring them into the \nguild. The guild is replenished by the children of their clients. A woman \nwho is remanded into their care for torture is given a Caesarian. Male \nchildren who survive are raised as torturers. We know, however, that some \nclients are merely imprisoned for extended periods until their sentence is \nhanded down. The text doesn't specifically say but it seems unlikely that a \npregnant woman would be given a Caesarian while her ultimate disposition has \nyet to be decided. After all, it's possible she'll be released. Thus it \nseems not only possible but likely that some women do give birth while \nimprisoned in the tower, if only those who are awaiting final judgement and \ndisposition. I don't see any issue or contradiction with Severian being born \nto Catherine while she was a prisoner but before her sentence had been handed \ndown. Once her sentence was given, it was executed and Severian was \"taken\" \ninto the guild." } ] }, { "message_id": "<004001c6fb13$06732e40$623ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-29T04:30:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<20061029041314.33060.qmail@web54403.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Tim Walters quoted and wrote:\nThe dictionary citations both of you have given support my reading." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, they don't. Nathan Spears' citation (\"Two children borne by her\nearlier\") is exactly analogous to Wolfe's clause (\"the Severian of\nbone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell...\")," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The complete cited sentence was: \"Two children borne by her earlier were\nalready grown.\" The presence of the verb \"were\", following \"borne\", changes\nthe sentence structure, making the analogy flawed. But it doesn't really\nmatter. If Wolfe intended \"borne by\" to mean \"given birth by\", then it\nviolates sanctioned usage. If he intended it to mean \"carried by\" (referring\nto a pregnant woman), it doesn't. Either way, as I have previously\nindicated, the implication is that Catherine seems to have been pregnant and\nin a cell. It follows that Severian was most likely born in a cell, which\nmeans that my theory that he wasn't is probably wrong.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001001c6fb9d$e4b767e0$5e3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2006-10-29T21:04:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<004001c6fb13$06732e40$623ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel D Jones wrote:\nChapter 2 of Shadow:\n\n\"...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her and if the babe\ndraws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy. The females are rendered\nto\nthe witches...\"\n\nIt seems to me the line saying that the children the torturers take know no\nbreast is a direct contradiction to the above which says they engage a wet\nnurse. At least, the only definition I'm familiar with for \"wet nurse\" is\na\nwoman who suckles another woman's child. If it is a contradiction, then\nthe\nquestion is whether it's an error of Severian's or Wolfe's. I suspect it's\nWolfe's. I can see any point or significance to Severian misleading the\nreader in so subtle and trivial a manner. Outside of that apparent error,\nI\ndon't see any contradictions or issues with Severian being born in the\ntower." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The apparent contradiction about who suckles whom and when played a large\nrole in why I theorized that Severian might not have been born in the tower.\nI'll set aside for the moment the issue of torturer recruitment.\n\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " The text doesn't specifically say but it seems unlikely that a\npregnant woman would be given a Caesarian while her ultimate disposition\nhas\nyet to be decided. After all, it's possible she'll be released. Thus it\nseems not only possible but likely that some women do give birth while\nimprisoned in the tower, if only those who are awaiting final judgement and\ndisposition. I don't see any issue or contradiction with Severian being\nborn\nto Catherine while she was a prisoner but before her sentence had been\nhanded\ndown. Once her sentence was given, it was executed and Severian was\n\"taken\"\ninto the guild." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let's dismiss Severian, too, for now. Now suppose this scenario:\n\nSome woman, pregnant but not yet \"big with child\", is sent to the torturers.\nUnlike most people sent to them, she is not tortured relatively soon after\narrival. The pregnancy progresses and eventually a boy baby draws breath,\nwhether born naturally or otherwise. A week, or a month, or three months\nlater the order comes for her to be tortured. She dies as a result of it.\nWhat happens to the baby?\n\nAccording to the logic of your above supposition, this hypothetical baby\nwould at this point be \"taken\" into the guild. Who feeds and otherwise cares\nfor it -- and *where*? Severian said, \"the children the torturers take know\nno breasts\". Not only are there no female members of the guild, I can't\nrecall *any* female in NEW SUN even being inside the Matachin Tower who was\nnot a \"client\". It would be logical to assume that a newborn would be\ntreated the same way as a child cut from the womb. But if so, why did\nSeverian specify \"...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her\nand if the babe draws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy.\"? It seems\nthat he is making some sort of distinction between babies born naturally and\nthose the torturers cut out. I was trying to account for that in my theory.\n\nAgain: \"My mother certainly, for the children the torturers take know no\nbreasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of vision, then, was the metal\nof her cell wall.\" That \"then\" bothers me. In his thoughts, as the vague\nmemory comes to him, he concludes that the woman he can't see and probably\ncouldn't recognize if he could see her, *must* be his mother *because* he is\nnursing in a cell. In other words, those particular aspects of the memory\ndistinguish him from \"the children the torturers take\" in some way.\n\nIf there was nothing unusual about infants nursing from their respective\nmothers in cells, how could he have arrived at the conclusion he reached?\nWhy couldn't the woman nursing him have been just some wet-nurse? *Because\nit happened in a cell.* A wet-nurse would not have been in a cell.\n\nIt therefore seems to me that your above interpretation of what Severian\nmeant by \"taken\" into the guild can't be correct. His \"the children the\ntorturers take know no breasts\" statement is unqualified, making no\nexception for himself or the hypothetical baby. Even if each and every\napprentice in the guild came to be there as a result of his mother having\ngiven birth to him naturally in a cell or by C-section, then who are the\nchildren the torturers take who know no breasts?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370610301109k5a57e1c6vfffa20a938c8bede@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2006-10-30T19:09:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001001c6fb9d$e4b767e0$5e3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/29/06, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nIt therefore seems to me that your above interpretation of what Severian\nmeant by \"taken\" into the guild can't be correct. His \"the children the\ntorturers take know no breasts\" statement is unqualified, making no\nexception for himself or the hypothetical baby. Even if each and every\napprentice in the guild came to be there as a result of his mother having\ngiven birth to him naturally in a cell or by C-section, then who are the\nchildren the torturers take who know no breasts?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy,\n\nThough the statement is unqualified, I think there is an _implicit_\nqualification that cuts through this dilemma like Alexander's sword\nthrough a certain knot.\n\nThe children the torturers take know no breasts ... _after_ they are\ntaken. The torturers, obviously, have no control over what happens\n_before_ the child is taken." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant\n-----\nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nhttp://www.danehyoakes.com\nTragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open\nsewer and die.\n - Mel Brooks" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200610301438.53062.ddjones@riddlemaster.org>", "from": { "name": "Daniel D Jones", "address": "ddjones at riddlemaster.org" }, "date": "2006-10-30T19:38:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Katharine maid", "in_reply_to": "<001001c6fb9d$e4b767e0$5e3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:04, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nDaniel D Jones wrote:\nSome woman, pregnant but not yet \"big with child\", is sent to the\ntorturers. Unlike most people sent to them, she is not tortured relatively\nsoon after arrival. The pregnancy progresses and eventually a boy baby\ndraws breath, whether born naturally or otherwise. A week, or a month, or\nthree months later the order comes for her to be tortured. She dies as a\nresult of it. What happens to the baby?\n\nAccording to the logic of your above supposition, this hypothetical baby\nwould at this point be \"taken\" into the guild. Who feeds and otherwise\ncares for it -- and *where*? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The apprentices are raised in the tower and cared for by older apprentices and \nGuildmembers. I see no reason that this couldn't include infants as well, \nand no reason the children couldn't be bottle-fed on milk taken from a cow, \ngoat, etc. This would explain why they \"know no breast.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian said, \"the children the torturers \ntake know no breasts\". Not only are there no female members of the guild, I\ncan't recall *any* female in NEW SUN even being inside the Matachin Tower\nwho was not a \"client\". It would be logical to assume that a newborn would\nbe treated the same way as a child cut from the womb. But if so, why did\nSeverian specify \"...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her\nand if the babe draws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy.\"? It seems\nthat he is making some sort of distinction between babies born naturally\nand those the torturers cut out. I was trying to account for that in my\ntheory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As great a writer as he is, even Wolfe is only human. I don't think he \nanalyzes every sentence for every possible interpretation and nuance of \nmeaning. Only his readers do that.\n\nI think the statement about \"knowing no breast\" was simply a plausible way for \nSeverian to know that this was his mother and not a wet nurse. Once they are \ntaken into the guild, they know no breast. So a memory of a breast must be \nhis mother. The contradiction with the elsewhere statement about wet nurses \nis simply an error on Wolfe's part. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again: \"My mother certainly, for the children the torturers take know no\nbreasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of vision, then, was the\nmetal of her cell wall.\" That \"then\" bothers me. In his thoughts, as the\nvague memory comes to him, he concludes that the woman he can't see and\nprobably couldn't recognize if he could see her, *must* be his mother\n*because* he is nursing in a cell. In other words, those particular aspects\nof the memory distinguish him from \"the children the torturers take\" in\nsome way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, he concludes the woman nursing him must be his mother because she is, in \nfact, nursing him. Once he was taken from her and placed into the care of \nthe guild, he was never suckled again. He then concludes that the grayness \nis a cell wall because he knows that his mother was imprisoned. The \"then\" \nmeans that this sentence follows logically from the former one, not that it \nlogically implies the previous sentence. He doesn't conclude that it's his \nmother because of the cell - he concludes it's a cell because it's his \nmother. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If there was nothing unusual about infants nursing from their respective\nmothers in cells, how could he have arrived at the conclusion he reached?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I just explained." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why couldn't the woman nursing him have been just some wet-nurse? *Because\nit happened in a cell.* A wet-nurse would not have been in a cell." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, the passage assumes there were no wet-nurses. The children taken know no \nbreast. They are bottle fed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It therefore seems to me that your above interpretation of what Severian\nmeant by \"taken\" into the guild can't be correct. His \"the children the\ntorturers take know no breasts\" statement is unqualified, making no\nexception for himself or the hypothetical baby. Even if each and every\napprentice in the guild came to be there as a result of his mother having\ngiven birth to him naturally in a cell or by C-section, then who are the\nchildren the torturers take who know no breasts?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Every child that's taken by the torturers. You're taking the sentence as an \nabsolute - if a child was taken by the torturers, then he _at no time_ knew a \nbreast. I think the sentence means that, _once taken_, the infant _never \nagain_ knows a breast. Since the children taken know no breast after they're \ntaken, the fact that he's in the process of knowing a breast is proof that he \nhas not yet been taken and is in the arms of his mother." } ] } ] }