Subject: (urth) The Katharine maid

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:02:55 +0000

Most attempts to account for the unchanged appearance of the maid who played
the role of Holy Katharine for as long as Severian could remember do so by
supposing the use of time travel. That is certainly a possibility, but the
text also affords another mechanism whereby the same effect might be
accomplished -- aquastors/eidolons. We have the example of Malrubius, who
died when Severian was a young boy, yet pops up several times in the story,
and Severian himself, who was resurrected at least twice by the same plot
device. The machinery that supports eidolons have a range of "a few thousand
years".

Setting aside for the moment the question of who exactly the maid might have
been, what person in their right mind who had a choice in the matter would
consent to participating in such a rite for such a sorry group as the
torturers? When did she begin playing the role? When Severian was a small
boy? Was it the same maid when Gurloes was a boy? Did her participation end
when Severian left the guild? Was she still there for the two feasts Eata
must have attended before he ran away? Alas, the text doesn't say, yet it's
important.

If the same maid played the role for the entire period of the autarchy, it
colors the perception of her as Severian's mother. The bogus Catholic Saint
Catherine was obviously the inspiration for Holy Katharine, but of what help
is that? That Catherine was supposedly condemned for professing her faith in
an officially despised religion.

Severian the Conciliator came to Urth when Ymar was a teen, at the very end
of Typhon's rule. Ymar was present when Severian gave his little sermon
about the coming of the New Sun, and eventually became the first autarch. It
seems reasonable to suppose that Ymar's reign marked the beginning of the
Conciliator cult as the state religion. The ruined chapel in the autarch's
Citadel where the guild held its annual ceremony is evidence that the cult
was once officially sanctioned. It was ruined for the same reason that
everything else on Urth was in ruins; time took its toll and the New Sun had
not come.

So at what point did Ymar's guild start acting out the ritual, and why? The
mother of the Conciliator doesn't seem like a likely candidate for execution
by the same authority that initiated the worship of the Conciliator. If you
want to argue that the ritual was a holdover by the torturers from ancient
days long before Typhon, why was it held in a chapel devoted to the
Conciliator? If the ritual was a holdover, then what does it have to do with
Severian's mother? The torturers would have, in effect, supplanted their
patron saint with the mother of a god; traded a Catherine for a Mary, if you
will. That doesn't make sense.

It seems incredible that the maid should have begun acting her role early in
the autarchy, but if she didn't, when did she start? Who orchestrated it and
why? The Yesodians were messing with Urth at least as far back as Ymar's
time. Inire was their agent, the power behind the throne. The Hierodules
traveled backward and forward in time. They knew who Severian's parents
were.

The guild masters knew damn well who the maid was and where she came from;
the ritual could not take place without their cooperation. They knew who
Severian's mother was. What was Ouen's Catherine's real crime? She gave
birth to the Conciliator? That is exactly what the Hierogrammates wanted --
a New Sun to usher in Ushas. That is the reward a woman gets for giving
birth to a god, getting her head cut off once a year, whether it was fake or
real? Being tortured to death, sooner or later?

An eidolon maid would simplify the whole affair; just turn the sustaining
machinery on and off as needed. At the conclusion of the feast the maid
could dissolve into nothingness, like Malrubius on the beach. Since eidolons
are always of the dead, from her point of view she has nothing to lose, and
little or no time would pass between appearances. Her final payoff would be
eventual release and the promise of new life at the conclusion of her
service.

The external technology for the eidolons is alien, but the animating spirit
comes from a living person. The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship
differed from the original in that his bum leg was repaired. None but
Severian knew knew about Triskele, so the dog's eidolon came from his mind.
The dog's missing leg might as easily have been restored, but Severian
remembered him as having three legs, just as the maid remained fixed in his
famous memory.

-Roy

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:26:41 +0000

Roy,

An eidolon is an interesting idea, but where does the eidolon
technology come from? Are you suggesting that some group of
Hiero-Foos have been projecting the Katherine-maid into the
Cathedral all these years? For what reason?

I offered another suggestion a few days back that meets the
criteria you lay out. An artificial person, a la Jonas -- I guess we'd
have to call her a chem? -- might easily enough be built with an
optionally-detachable head. (Recall that Severian is sure he feels
the neck sever under his blow.)  Since chem-building technology
was clearly around in Typhon's (and therefore Ymar's) day, this
removes any necessity for alien intervention.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
http://www.danehyoakes.com
Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open
sewer and die.
  - Mel Brooks

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:12:29 +0000

> remembered him as having three legs, just as the maid remained fixed in his

Whose memory does the maid come from?
Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are likewise eidolons?

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:28:56 +0000

Dan'l wrote:
>technology come from?

>>From the Hierogrammates. It was on the Ship and it was on the smaller
"craft" B F & O used to reach Apu's time and resurrect Severian in that
tomb. It was on the craft used by Malrubius when he transported Severian to
the ocean, so we know the machinery was around on Urth in Severian's time.

>Are you suggesting that some group of
>Cathedral all these years?

Eidolons were not mere projections. They were flesh and blood so long as the
machinery used to sustain them was in operation (witness the motley bunch
who fought for Severian against the sailors in the fight after the Trial).
If allowed enough time, they could take on existence independent of the
machinery, as was the case with Severian, twice.

>For what reason?

For the same reason that *someone*, somehow, caused the maid to appear year
after year, in Severian's experience unchanged.

>removes any necessity for alien intervention.

The fact is, the Hierodules were interfering at least as far back as Ymar;
after all, he went to Yesod. There is not the least hint in the Urth Cycle
that chems were in existence on Urth in Typhon's time. I honestly don't
think that Wolfe had thought of chems when he wrote NEW SUN. More
retrofitting problems. But my main objection is thematic. There is a strong
suggestion in the text that Catherine is somehow Katharine, and more than a
hint that Severian's mother is somehow connected to the maid. I think that
requires that she be human. When Severian was young he thought that the maid
might be from the witches, but soon realized that "such disrespect would not
be tolerated". Based on that, I don't think the torturers would have allowed
their guild to be mocked by any sort of robot patroness that couldn't even
feel pain.

As a side bonus of this eidolon business, it might also explain how Inire
could be "alive so long beyond the span of his short-lived kind". A series
of eidolons created as needed over the centuries would do it. His mission
was over when Severian went to Yesod, and by all appearances he soon faded
too, so far as I can tell, without a whimper or whisper of his passing.

-Roy

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:43:09 +0000

>Whose memory does the maid come from?

It may have come from his memory of her annual feast appearance. It may have
come from one of his extra-textual time trips to the past. It may have come
from some other person.

>Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are likewise eidolons?

Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand.

-Roy

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:13:42 +0000

> come from one of his extra-textual time trips to the past. It may have come

I don't think it would be Severian's memory. Presumably, it would be 
someone available whenever the jailers guild was reformed into the 
all-male Brotherhood, long after the Conciliator had departed and Ymar 
had ascended.

> Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand.

They seem to be menial functionaries, and they don't have saints' names, 
suggesting they are not like other residents of the Commonwealth.

---

From: Dan Rabin <wolfe-lists at danrabin.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:46:58 +0000

>Jeff Wilson:  Does this imply Brother Cook and Brother Porter are 
>likewise eidolons?
>
>Roy Lackey:  Huh? They weren't eidolons. I don't understand.
>
>Jeff Wilson: They seem to be menial functionaries, and they don't 
>have saints' names,

Hmm.  I always assumed that these two were perfectly ordinary guild 
members whose names happened not to be used in these references 
because Severian was talking about their roles, not their identities. 
This would be something like referring (in contemporary America) to 
"Dean of Sciences" or "Attending Physician".

I also assume, though I can't put my finger on any evidence, that 
guild brothers in such roles are not on track to becoming masters.

It's just barely possible that there is a status of non-guild-member 
in service of the guild (something like a lay brother at a 
monastery?), but this doesn't seem likely considering that members of 
the Order are clearly pariahs and that the Order turns away adult 
applicants.

   -- Dan Rabin

---

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:41:41 +0000

I don't know if Roy subscribes to the theory that Urth is not Earth (though 
I think the spelling, the text clues and Wolfe interviews make it clear they 
are different).  I think Urth is an earlier, darker version of Earth as 
Briah is an earlier, darker version of Yesod.

Earth has Jesus, a boy born in our past, raised as a carpenter, rising to 
become a religious leader, tortured and killed, resurrected, ascended and 
fated to reappear in our future as Saviour.  His mother is Mary.

Urth has Severian, a boy born in our (initial reader of BotNS) present, 
raised as a torturer, rising to become a political leader,  killed, 
resurrected, ascending to become the New Sun in our future but fated to 
reappear as Concilliator in our past.  I think once the idea of using Saint 
Catherine, the torture victim, as a darker version of Mary, first occurred 
to Wolfe, the idea would be too cool to for him to dismiss.  To have her 
played by a maid (virgin as Roy describes) is also appropriate.

Having recently learned from an interview that Wolfe relied solely on mental 
notes to keep his stories straight, I am prepared to accept that he has 
retained various minor logistic (timeline issues etc.) inconsistencies to 
sustain his own most personally pleasing literary ideas.

Roy writes:

>The bogus Catholic Saint Catherine was obviously the inspiration for Holy 
>Katharine.

I don't understand the use of the "bogus" adjective but I think it is more 
than just inspiration.  I think Holy Katharine's story IS Saint Catherine's 
story aside from the two letter difference.  Saint Catherine's execution is 
re-enacted faithfully by the Torturers.  The wheel meant to torture her flew 
apart at her touch afterwhich she was beheaded (and her body whisked away by 
angels, hm....).  The Roman emperor who ordered her torture and execution 
was Maximus during the 6th Christian Persecution. 
http://www.catholic-forum.com/Saints/saintc01.htm

Since the name Maximus is actually used in the text of BotNS in regard to 
Holy Katharine's torture it is strong and direct evidence that this story 
originates from Earth rather than Urth.  Other similar examples of this I 
can think of are Mount Nebo mentioned in the Jungle Hut, Squanto mentioned 
in the Wonders of Urth and Sky book and Kim Lee Soong and the quote from 
Alice in Wonderland from Jonas.  For me the Frankenstein, Jungle Book and 
Theseus allusions are less compelling because there is no direct quote or 
name borrowing.  I think using an Earth name meants Wolfe is pointing to an 
important clue.

So, perhaps the person who initiated the Torturer's ritual only read a book 
inspired by an Earth Saint legend but I think the use of the Maximus name is 
a clue that there was direct contact.  I agree with Roy (though for 
different reasons) that Father Inire (with Ymar) is the likely candidate for 
getting the torturers guild in its modern organization because there are 
other clues suggesting Inire has had direct contact with Earth.

In the past I viewed Father Inire (and the Cumaean) as possibly antagonistic 
toward the coming of the New Sun.  On a recent re-reading of Urth, I noted 
Severian describing an embrace from Father Inire just before he left for 
Tzadkiel's ship, so I've softened that stance.  But I still see them both as 
fallen angels who were failing at their task, being distracted by their 
vices (young women and absorbing the lives of dead); Barbatus, Famulimus and 
Ossipago being sent to set things right.

I rebel against the eidolon theory regarding the maid's unchanging 
appearance.  Mainly, I think, because the eidolon concept in the first four 
books is used mainly for Aquastors...who are like guardian angels appearing 
and visible only to the person from whose mind they were created.  Only in 
UotNS do we start seeing eidolons capable of taking on real substance and 
being visible to everyone.

The concept of kaibits and youth retention are introduced in the first four 
books so I find those explanations more appealing for the maid.  She is of 
armiger height and it is currently under debate whether armigers were able 
to take advantage of the kaibit youth retention system.  I'm still chewing 
on Jeff Wilson's theory that the maid is actually a series of kaibits from 
an original exultant.  That might work.

Some minor quibbles with Roy who says:

>The Hierodules traveled backward and forward in time. They knew who 
>Severian's parents
were.

I think, without exception, B, F and O travel backward in time. Their memory 
is always only of the future. So if they knew who his parents were it was 
only from talking with Severian as Autarch.  Of course Severian won't openly 
tell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out, as 
we did.

and

>The eidolon of Severian created on the Ship differed from the original in 
>that his bum leg was repaired.

I believe the eidolon which was created after Severian was killed by Sidero 
still had a bum leg. The leg wasn't made whole until Severian had been to 
Yesod, passed his test, got attached to his Star and was back on the Ship 
heading home.

-bsharp

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

---

From: Mark Millman <millman at heimdallr.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:31:59 +0000

Dear Mr. Rabin,

Your suggestions are eminently plausible.  I wish
I could remember whether Severian tells us what
happens to apprentices who aren't elevated to
journeyman; that might also be a source of people
to fill the cook's and porter's roles.

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I don't think that the eidolon technology is as
widespread as the deliberate creation of servants,
which it seems to me you're implictly proposing,
would suggest.  If I've misunderstood, and you're
saying that Severian's interactions with Brother
Cook and Brother Porter are so important that
the men are recreated from his memory for his ben-
efit, then I'd be very interested in your reason-
ing.

Or are you perhaps making a connection with the
khaibits' creation, in which they'd begin as eido-
lons of their (living) models, achieve permanent
existence by living in the world, and subsequent-
ly be exploited by the exultant women?  I think
we'd all assumed that khaibits are the product of
a more conventional cloning technology--perhaps
one related to the medical experimentation in
which Baldanders is engaged at Lake Diuturna--but
this would be a very interesting take on the
issue.

Best,

Mark Millman

[previously in this thread:]

Jeff Wilson:  Does this imply Brother
Cook and Brother Porter are likewise
eidolons?

Roy Lackey:  Huh? They weren't eido-
lons. I don't understand.

Jeff Wilson:  They seem to be menial
functionaries, and they don't have
saints' names, suggesting they are
not like other residents of the Com-
monwealth.

Dan Rabin:  Hmm.  I always assumed
that these two were perfectly ordin-
ary guild members whose names hap-
pened not to be used in these refer-
ences because Severian was talking
about their roles, not their identi-
ties.  This would be something like
referring (in contemporary America)
to "Dean of Sciences" or "Attending
Physician".

I also assume, though I can't put
my finger on any evidence, that
guild brothers in such roles are not
on track to becoming masters.

It's just barely possible that there
is a status of non-guild-member in
service of the guild (something like
a lay brother at a monastery?), but
this doesn't seem likely considering
that members of the Order are clearly
pariahs and that the Order turns away
adult applicants.

---

From: Dan Rabin <wolfe-lists at danrabin.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:25:37 +0000

>Roy Lackey: >The bogus Catholic Saint Catherine was obviously the 
>inspiration for Holy
>  >Katharine.
>
>b sharp: I don't understand the use of the "bogus" adjective but I 
>think it is more
>than just inspiration.

Roy's use of "bogus" may simply have been referring to doubts about 
the historical existence of Catherine of Alexandria.

   -- Dan Rabin

---

From: Rex Lycanthrosaurus <lycanthrosaurus at fastmail.fm>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:44:28 +0000

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:41:41 -0400, "b sharp" <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
said:

> Of course Severian won't openly 
> tell US who his parents are...so if they know they had to figure it out,
> as we did.

Actually, Severian names Catherine as his mother in Chapter XLIV of
URTH:

"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and
flesh borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin
Tower."

This also seems to contradict Roy Lackey's supposition that Severian was
borne outside the Matachin. (As Autarch, not only could he disband the
torturers' guild, but also confiscate their records, thereby confirming
the above.)

As for the woman portraying St. Katharine being a khaibit, a chem, or an
eidolon, while interesting to speculate about, can't say I favor any of
these approaches. One of novel's central conceits seems to be that
Severian meets *all* of his family at some time or another, with us as
readers to determine who is actually kin and how each potential family
member is related to Severian. (I'm hoping if the wiki-project is
launched it will include drawn renditions of the various proposed family
trees.) To therefore accept that Severian meets the literal embodiments
of, say, his father, his paternal grandparents, and his sister (whoever
she may be), but only the spurious equivalent of his mother strikes me
as cheating and untidy, and not true to Wolfe's overall gameplan.

My 2 chrisos worth, if perhaps counterfit.   
-- 
  Rex Lycanthrosaurus
  lycanthrosaurus at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:00:33 +0000

On 10/25/06, Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:
> There is not the least hint in the Urth Cycle
> that chems were in existence on Urth in Typhon's time.

Jonas. The word "chem" is not used, but an artificial person of
electromechanical nature.

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:24:39 +0000

>the historical existence of Catherine of Alexandria.

Correct. The saint never existed and was removed from the canon in 1969.

-Roy

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:25:17 +0000

Rex Lycanthrosaurus quoted and wrote:

>borne outside the Matachin.

Ah, yes, so it does. It also contradicts the passage I quoted earlier:

"[ . . .] a breast running with warm milk. It was my mother's breast then,
and I could hardly contain my elation (which might have wiped the memory
away) at having reached back at last to her, after so many fruitless
attempts. My arms sought to clasp her, and I would, if only I could, have
lifted my eyes to look into her face. My mother certainly, for the children
the torturers take know no breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of
vision, then, was the metal of her cell wall. Soon she would be led away to
scream in the Apparatus or gasp in Allowin's Necklace." (CLAW, chapter
XXVII)

Both quotes cannot be true. The sentence, "My mother certainly, for the
children the torturers take know no breasts." is either a pointless lie or
another example of Wolfe being forced to change his mind about some things
when he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the
two passages.

-Roy

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:50:39 +0000

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."

----- Original Message ----
From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:25:17 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid

-Roy

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:59:35 +0000

>Rex Lycanthrosaurus quoted:
>Ah, yes, so it does.

Damn. I may have done Wolfe and myself an injustice by conceding too
quickly. <g>

Wasn't there a similar discussion not too long ago about "forebears" or some
such? "Borne" is the past participle of "bear" ("to carry; transport"). When
followed by the word "by", it doesn't refer to having given birth.

-Roy

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:17:19 +0000

If 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.

"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 . . ."

"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and
flesh who carried by Catherine in a cell of the . . ." makes even less sense.

----- Original Message ----
From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:59:35 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid

-Roy

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:21:35 +0000

> efit, then I'd be very interested in your reason-

If the Masters use a machine to make an eidolon to serve as Holy 
Katharine, they could plausibly use a machine to make an eidolon to 
serve as a cook or a menial laborer. However, unlike Holy Katharine's 
one-day-a-year existence, Brother Porter and especially Brother Cook may 
  be post-eidolons, having consumed enough independent substance.

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:36:23 +0000

> when he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the

I don't think it is necessarily a contradiction.  Since we are reading a 
translation, "take" may variously mean surgical removal as well as 
induction into the guild, either both at once or separately on different 
occasions. His mother may have been merely confined for a time, as 
Thecla was, and so nursed him in her cell. Later, she was executed and 
the apparent orphan kept as an apprentice-to-be. She may even have given 
birth during the time of confinement, and the Brothers did not open her 
to take the baby because there was the technical possibility she would 
be reprieved. Likely the c-section only takes place proximal to death 
while in custody.

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:17:30 +0000

Nathan Spears wrote:
>http://www.allwords.com/word-born.html

That on-line dictionary isn't worth the paper it's printed on. <g>

>>If 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.<<

I was hoping someone else would do this. Yes, he is referring to her as his
mother.  But, as I said, borne is the past participle of bear (to carry).
Born (no "e") is the past participle of bear (to give birth). Borne and born
are not interchangeable, which is why they have separate entries in my old
_Webster's_. You can simply substitute "carried" for "borne" in the disputed
quote without doing violence to the sentence, and the usage becomes clear. I
don't think that can be done with any one-word substitute referring to a
past incidence of giving birth to a child -- at least not without mangling
the English language.

>"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 . . ."
>flesh who carried by Catherine in a cell of the . . ." makes even less
sense.<<

Just drop the "who" you added and it makes perfect sense. But cheer up; it
can still be argued whether or not Severian meant she carried him in her
womb or the brown basket previously noted. <g> See my "Baby Severian" post
of the 18th for the larger context and why I initially thought the URTH
quote contradicted the CLAW quote and proved my theory wrong.

-Roy

---

From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:33:20 +0000

On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:
> _Webster's_.

My old _Webster's_ says:

born, a. [pp. of bear (to give birth): now used only in passive  
constructions not followed by _by_.]

> You can simply substitute "carried" for "borne" in the disputed
> quote without doing violence to the sentence,

I disagree. Who would say "carried in a cell"? You carry _from_ a  
cell, or in a _basket_, not "in a cell".

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 04:47:21 +0000

> guild brothers in such roles are not on track to becoming masters.

but there are no other "Brothers" mentioned in the guild, and no way to 
become one mentioned in the discussion of the guild ranks. This would 
imply that not only has no-one become a Brother during Severian's tenure 
  with them, but no one has even mentioned it either. It's like the 
typical childhood image of school teachers who live inside the school 
house, never seen in any other context.

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:27:32 +0000

>constructions not followed by _by_.]

Precisely. My _Webster's_ says the same thing. That's why Wolfe didn't write
"born by"; he wrote "borne by". "Born" has nothing to do with the sentence
in question. The word isn't in the sentence.

["Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and flesh
borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin Tower."]

-Roy

---

From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:51:34 +0000

> in question. The word isn't in the sentence.

The point is that "borne by" is what Wolfe would write if he meant  
that Catherine gave birth to Severian in the cell, because "born by"  
is wrong. "Borne" is, in fact, a valid past participle of "bear (to  
give birth)," as specified in the "bear" entry:

"_Bear_, signifying _to bring forth_, has the past participle, when  
used passively, spelled born, but when used after the verb _to have_,  
it is spelled _borne_. Thus, a child was _born_, but she has _borne_  
a child."

Although "have" is not in the sentence, the "born" entry makes it  
clear that in this particular passive use, "borne" is to be  
preferred, which is why I cited said entry.

In any case:

     --"borne by" to mean "given birth by" is a common usage, whether  
sanctioned by Webster or not;
     --mentioning one's birth is a common way to emphasize one's mere  
humanity, as in "man, born of woman." Mentioning being carried seems  
random (although I don't have the "brown basket" reference to hand;  
maybe there's enough context there to make it less so).

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:34:20 +0000

>>From dictionary.com

"?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
is also the participle when the sense is ?to bring forth (young)? and
the 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."

In 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.

----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:51:34 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid

In any case:

---

From: Mark Millman <millman at heimdallr.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:30:34 +0000

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thanks for playing devil's advocate.  It still seems
pretty unlikely, either as a practical matter within
the story or thematically from a critical viewpoint.

Best,

Mark Millman

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Jeff Wilson wrote:

> If the Masters use a machine to make
> an eidolon to serve as Holy Katharine,
> they could plausibly use a machine to
> make an eidolon to serve as a cook or
> a menial laborer. However, unlike
> Holy Katharine's one-day-a-year exis-
> tence, Brother Porter and especially
> Brother Cook may be post-eidolons,
> having consumed enough independent
> substance.
>
> --
> [previously,] Mark Millman wrote:
>
> > I don't think that the eidolon
> > technology is as widespread as
> > the deliberate creation of ser-
> > vants, which it seems to me
> > you're implictly proposing,
> > would suggest.  If I've misun-
> > derstood, and you're saying
> > that Severian's interactions
> > with Brother Cook and Brother
> > Porter are so important that
> > the men are recreated from his
> > memory for his benefit, then
> > I'd be very interested in your
> > reasoning.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:30:46 +0000

> when he came to write the sequel. I can't think of any way to reconcile the

I think you're misinterpreting the sentence you quote.  You've addressed the 
second half of the sentence but you haven't explained what the first half 
means.  Why does the fact that "...the children the torturers take know no 
breasts..." prove that the memory of his suckling is his mother?  What does 
the entire sentence mean?  I think Severian is saying that it must be his 
mother because if he's suckling at a breast, he hasn't yet been taken by the 
torturers.  Once he IS taken, he'll be fed by bottle or equivalent.  Thus the 
memory must be of a time before he is taken and the woman suckling him must 
be his mother.  That means there's no contradiction in the two passages.  
Catherine bore him (and suckled him) while imprisoned in a cell in the tower.  
At some point after his birth (exactly how long after is unclear, but 
certainly while he was still an infant) she was tortured and killed, and 
Severian was taken by the torturers to be raised as a member of the Guild.

---

From: Chris Mulder <chris_mulder at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:10:51 +0000

Exactly my interpretation, as well. 
   
  cm

Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org> wrote:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20061027/7150270f/attachment.htm

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:53:30 +0000

The dictionary citations both of you have given support my reading. This is
the sentence:

"Perhaps I was too distant from myself, from the Severian of bone and flesh
borne by Catherine in a cell of the oubliette under the Matachin Tower."

The part before the comma can be ignored here, leaving the subordinate
clause "from the Severian of bone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell of
the oubliette under the Matachin Tower." There is only *one* verb in the
clause, "borne". There is no form of the verb "to have" before borne (or
another verb after it) to qualify it, as would be required for borne to
refer to the mere fact that Catherine gave birth in a cell.

The subject in the clause is "Severian", the predicate is "borne". The rest
of the clause, beginning with the word "by", is a prepositional phrase
serving as an adverb modifying the verb "borne".

Either the sentence is grammatically incorrect or "borne by" means something
other than "to bring forth". As written, "borne by" means "carried by". The
more usual meaning in this context would be that Catherine carried a child
in her womb.

But Severian also had a memory of being in a brown basket when he was still
too young to crawl, and one most often uses a basket to carry something. It
is possible that he was carried *to* the cell in the basket. It is also
possible that he was kept in the basket while she was in a cell, but I doubt
that she would have had much occasion to carry it around there. (Unless
maybe he had the colic and she was trying to get him to stop crying. <g>)
The prepositional phrase, however, weighs against that.

So, in the end, the URTH quote still seems to undermine my theory that
Severian was not born in the Matachin Tower. At least I think it does. The
quote still doesn't quite square with all the criteria laid out in the
tetralogy, particularly the criterion that none of the apprentices were born
among the torturers. I could probably come up with some theory that allows
for both, but that would lead to more speculation than either the text or I
can support.

-Roy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Date: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid

>>From dictionary.com

"?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
is also the participle when the sense is ?to bring forth (young)? and
the 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."

In 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.

----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:51:34 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid

In any case:

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:57:15 +0000

>Severian was taken by the torturers to be raised as a member of the Guild.

I guess that what I get for being economical and not repeating myself. <g>
My "Baby Severian" post of the 18th dealt with much of your argument. Most
of the criteria for acceptance into the guild are also addressed on the
second page of the second chapter of SHADOW. Among them is, "None of us were
born among the torturers, for none are."

-Roy

---

From: Tim Walters <walters at doubtfulpalace.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:15:00 +0000

On Oct 27, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:
>
> The dictionary citations both of you have given support my reading.

No, they don't. Nathan Spears' citation ("Two children borne by her  
earlier") is exactly analogous to Wolfe's clause ("the Severian of  
bone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell..."), leaving no room for  
doubt that Wolfe's sentence can sensibly be read as being about  
Severian's birth.

In my opinion, that's the only unstrained reading, but that's less  
certain.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:54:07 +0000

On Saturday 28 October 2006 00:57, Roy C. Lackey wrote:
> second page of the second chapter of SHADOW. Among them is, "None of us
> were born among the torturers, for none are."

I've gone back and reread your 18th post.  Your arguments against Severian 
being born in the tower rests on the sentence "None of us were born among the 
torturers, for none are."  I'd argue that you're misinterpreting that 
sentence as well.  What does it mean to be "born among the torturers?"  I'd 
say it's referring to the torturers taking wives or lovers and raising their 
own children into the guild.  The torturers do not replenish their guild from 
within.  I don't think the sentence means that no children are born among the 
torturers _clients_.  

I don't see any resolution for the apparently contradictory sentences about 
wet nurses and knowing no breasts.  I suspect this was an error on Wolf's 
part.

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:47:00 +0000

What statement about wet nurses?  Looking at the Baby Sev post I found this line:

> The key part of this quote is "the children the torturers take know no
breasts", which seems to contradict his earlier statement about wet-nurses.

but I'm not clear on what the earlier statement is.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:22:30 +0000

On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:47, Nathan Spears wrote:
> > I don't see any resolution for the apparently contradictory sentences
> > about wet nurses and knowing no breasts.  I suspect this was an error on
> > Wolf's part.
>

Chapter 2 of Shadow:

"...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her and if the babe 
draws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy.  The females are rendered to 
the witches..."

It seems to me the line saying that the children the torturers take know no 
breast is a direct contradiction to the above which says they engage a wet 
nurse.  At least, the only definition I'm familiar with for "wet nurse" is a 
woman who suckles another woman's child.  If it is a contradiction, then the 
question is whether it's an error of Severian's or Wolfe's.  I suspect it's 
Wolfe's.  I can see any point or significance to Severian misleading the 
reader in so subtle and trivial a manner.  Outside of that apparent error, I 
don't see any contradictions or issues with Severian being born in the tower.

As I see it, the torturers, if they have children, do not bring them into the 
guild.  The guild is replenished by the children of their clients.  A woman 
who is remanded into their care for torture is given a Caesarian.  Male 
children who survive are raised as torturers.  We know, however, that some 
clients are merely imprisoned for extended periods until their sentence is 
handed down.  The text doesn't specifically say but it seems unlikely that a 
pregnant woman would be given a Caesarian while her ultimate disposition has 
yet to be decided.  After all, it's possible she'll be released.  Thus it 
seems not only possible but likely that some women do give birth while 
imprisoned in the tower, if only those who are awaiting final judgement and 
disposition.  I don't see any issue or contradiction with Severian being born 
to Catherine while she was a prisoner but before her sentence had been handed 
down.  Once her sentence was given, it was executed and Severian was "taken" 
into the guild.

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:13:14 +0000

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.

I 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.

I second the opinion that it's just an oversight by Wolfe.

----- Original Message ----
From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:22:30 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) The Katharine maid

Chapter 2 of Shadow:

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:30:48 +0000

Tim Walters quoted and wrote:
>bone and flesh borne by Catherine in a cell..."),

The complete cited sentence was: "Two children borne by her earlier were
already grown." The presence of the verb "were", following "borne", changes
the sentence structure, making the analogy flawed. But it doesn't really
matter. If Wolfe intended "borne by" to mean "given birth by", then it
violates sanctioned usage. If he intended it to mean "carried by" (referring
to a pregnant woman), it doesn't. Either way, as I have previously
indicated, the implication is that Catherine seems to have been pregnant and
in a cell. It follows that Severian was most likely born in a cell, which
means that my theory that he wasn't is probably wrong.

-Roy

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:04:53 +0000

>don't see any contradictions or issues with Severian being born in the
tower.

The apparent contradiction about who suckles whom and when played a large
role in why I theorized that Severian might not have been born in the tower.
I'll set aside for the moment the issue of torturer recruitment.

[snip]
>  The text doesn't specifically say but it seems unlikely that a

Let's dismiss Severian, too, for now. Now suppose this scenario:

Some woman, pregnant but not yet "big with child", is sent to the torturers.
Unlike most people sent to them, she is not tortured relatively soon after
arrival. The pregnancy progresses and eventually a boy baby draws breath,
whether born naturally or otherwise. A week, or a month, or three months
later the order comes for her to be tortured. She dies as a result of it.
What happens to the baby?

According to the logic of your above supposition, this hypothetical baby
would at this point be "taken" into the guild. Who feeds and otherwise cares
for it -- and *where*? Severian said, "the children the torturers take know
no breasts". Not only are there no female members of the guild, I can't
recall *any* female in NEW SUN even being inside the Matachin Tower who was
not a "client". It would be logical to assume that a newborn would be
treated the same way as a child cut from the womb. But if so, why did
Severian specify "...when a woman big with child is sent to us we open her
and if the babe draws breath engage a wet-nurse if it be a boy."? It seems
that he is making some sort of distinction between babies born naturally and
those the torturers cut out. I was trying to account for that in my theory.

Again: "My mother certainly, for the children the torturers take know no
breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of vision, then, was the metal
of her cell wall." That "then" bothers me. In his thoughts, as the vague
memory comes to him, he concludes that the woman he can't see and probably
couldn't recognize if he could see her, *must* be his mother *because* he is
nursing in a cell. In other words, those particular aspects of the memory
distinguish him from "the children the torturers take" in some way.

If there was nothing unusual about infants nursing from their respective
mothers in cells, how could he have arrived at the conclusion he reached?
Why couldn't the woman nursing him have been just some wet-nurse? *Because
it happened in a cell.* A wet-nurse would not have been in a cell.

It therefore seems to me that your above interpretation of what Severian
meant by "taken" into the guild can't be correct. His "the children the
torturers take know no breasts" statement is unqualified, making no
exception for himself or the hypothetical baby. Even if each and every
apprentice in the guild came to be there as a result of his mother having
given birth to him naturally in a cell or by C-section, then who are the
children the torturers take who know no breasts?

-Roy

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:09:18 +0000

Roy,

Though the statement is unqualified, I think there is an _implicit_
qualification that cuts through this dilemma like Alexander's sword
through a certain knot.

The children the torturers take know no breasts ... _after_ they are
taken. The torturers, obviously, have no control over what happens
_before_ the child is taken.

---

From: Daniel D Jones <ddjones at riddlemaster.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:38:52 +0000

On Sunday 29 October 2006 16:04, Roy C. Lackey wrote:
> Daniel D Jones wrote:
> Some woman, pregnant but not yet "big with child", is sent to the
> torturers. Unlike most people sent to them, she is not tortured relatively
> soon after arrival. The pregnancy progresses and eventually a boy baby
> draws breath, whether born naturally or otherwise. A week, or a month, or
> three months later the order comes for her to be tortured. She dies as a
> result of it. What happens to the baby?
>
> would at this point be "taken" into the guild. Who feeds and otherwise
> cares for it -- and *where*? 

The apprentices are raised in the tower and cared for by older apprentices and 
Guildmembers.  I see no reason that this couldn't include infants as well, 
and no reason the children couldn't be bottle-fed on milk taken from a cow, 
goat, etc.  This would explain why they "know no breast."

> Severian said, "the children the torturers 
> take know no breasts". Not only are there no female members of the guild, I
> can't recall *any* female in NEW SUN even being inside the Matachin Tower
> who was not a "client". It would be logical to assume that a newborn would
> be treated the same way as a child cut from the womb. But if so, why did
> that he is making some sort of distinction between babies born naturally
> and those the torturers cut out. I was trying to account for that in my
> theory.

As great a writer as he is, even Wolfe is only human.  I don't think he 
analyzes every sentence for every possible interpretation and nuance of 
meaning.  Only his readers do that.

I think the statement about "knowing no breast" was simply a plausible way for 
Severian to know that this was his mother and not a wet nurse.  Once they are 
taken into the guild, they know no breast.  So a memory of a breast must be 
his mother.  The contradiction with the elsewhere statement about wet nurses 
is simply an error on Wolfe's part.  

> breasts. The grayness at the edge of my field of vision, then, was the
> metal of her cell wall." That "then" bothers me. In his thoughts, as the
> vague memory comes to him, he concludes that the woman he can't see and
> probably couldn't recognize if he could see her, *must* be his mother
> *because* he is nursing in a cell. In other words, those particular aspects
> of the memory distinguish him from "the children the torturers take" in
> some way.

No, he concludes the woman nursing him must be his mother because she is, in 
fact, nursing him.  Once he was taken from her and placed into the care of 
the guild, he was never suckled again.  He then concludes that the grayness 
is a cell wall because he knows that his mother was imprisoned.  The "then" 
means that this sentence follows logically from the former one, not that it 
logically implies the previous sentence.  He doesn't conclude that it's his 
mother because of the cell - he concludes it's a cell because it's his 
mother.  

> mothers in cells, how could he have arrived at the conclusion he reached?

As I just explained.

> it happened in a cell.* A wet-nurse would not have been in a cell.

No, the passage assumes there were no wet-nurses.  The children taken know no 
breast.  They are bottle fed.

> children the torturers take who know no breasts?

Every child that's taken by the torturers.  You're taking the sentence as an 
absolute - if a child was taken by the torturers, then he _at no time_ knew a 
breast.  I think the sentence means that, _once taken_, the infant _never 
again_ knows a breast.  Since the children taken know no breast after they're 
taken, the fact that he's in the process of knowing a breast is proof that he 
has not yet been taken and is in the arms of his mother.