"My father's mounted guard"

In Claw chap XXV, Severian is having life memories before he falls asleep. while there is obviously the potential for Thecla memories to intermix here, this following passage is still confusing: "I played again with pebbles in the courtyard beside the fallen curtain wall, as Thecla dodged the hooves of my father's mounted guard." Who's Father? Do any of the other 'interruptions' from Thecla's memory happen mid sentence like this? I searched the archives and found that this was suggested. I find it problematic that the narrative voice would change in mid sentence. Even if the memory is Thecla's why would she be dodging the feet of her father's guard? IS this tidbit pointing to Severian's father as Autarch or some other Exultant family?

If it's any help, this particular sentence has been discussed before: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0019/0025.shtml -Matt

Thanks. Yes, I saw that. I'm not sure I buy the change of character mid sentence. Seems like some clue to me.

I'll second that. At least it seems odd. And it doesn't seem likely that Thecla would have to dodge the mounts of her own father's guard. It would seem more likely that they're another exultant's or the Autarch's. Do you happen to remember any mention of how old Thecla was when she was brought to the House Absolute? And isn't it fairly certain that Ouen was Severian's father? ---H

I think it's likely that Thecla here is a typo for her sister's name Thea. But the really interesting thing is not only is Thecla's memory roused to the first person at the time of the original reverie, but apparently manifests once again years later during the writing of the manuscript.

If it were a typo, then it has been replicated across multiple editions. I think one needs a significant evidence before settling on the typo explanation.

Thecla's memory (and as Wolfe seems to see it, her conscious identity) is always there. As in The Book of the Short Sun, the author is not a single person. J.

Dear Bennewitz,

It's because she's a small child and has gotten underfoot, as small children do. Presumably it depends on whether the memories are from Severian and Thecla at the same age, or Severian and Thecla at the same time. (Has anybody raised this point before? Is it even interesting for our purposes? Do we know how much, if at all, older Thecla is than Severian? I've always assumed that she is older, but on examining that assumption I find that there's no real support for it. She could easily be Severian's age.) If they're the same age, she's probably too young to know better. If the memories are from the same time and she's older, she may have been acting under what in our day is the common horse-infatuation of young girls--I imagine it still holds with Urth girls and destriers. Mark Millman

Hello! On 9 pa?dziernika 2008, Mark Millman wrote: "I played again with pebbles in the court- yard beside the fallen curtain wall, as Thecla dodged the hooves of my father's mounted guard." That sentence is perfectly constructed. Severian has in his head memories both his own and of Thecla. He begins by recalling his own childhood (I played again with pebbles in the court- yard beside the fallen curtain wall), which transits seamlessly into memories of Thecla's childhood, but still recalled from the point of view of Severian (as Thecla dodged the hooves). Finally, it transits into Thecla's memory seen from her point of view (of my father's mounted guard). This shows that the artificial memories have become mingled with his own.

But why have those two memories in particular become entwined? Neither knew the other as a child, neither played in the other's play places, they probably weren't even toddlers at the same time.

I've come to agree with this perspective. However, if there are other such sentances in the first two books, I must have missed them. Has anyone another such example?

I suppose it's because of stream of consciousness, symbol association. He's got her memory from the corpse eating, and because he can't forget, her memories just mingle in with his. There are other moments where he slips into Thecla mode, but it doesn't usually screw with the subject/object structure of the sentence. As a narrative device, it's obviously problematic, but tasty.

he reveals in UOTNS that he's not just Severian and Thecla, but equally the eunuch autarch and all of his predecessors. maybe there's someone else here other than Severian or Thecla? Duncan

And later:

Well, there are other times when the subject switches from singular to plural in the same sentence, when the described action is clearly Thecla's alone. Immediately after ingesting her flesh, penultimate paragraph of chapter XI, CLAW: "Just when I despaired--she was there, filling me as a melody fills a cottage. I was with her, running beside the Acis when we were a child. [etc.]" Note the plural pronoun "we", but the singular "child". Also, when Severian spoke to small Tzadkiel, he told her "... of my childhoods in the Citadel, at my father's villa, and in the village called Famulorum near the House Absolute." (URTH, chapter XL, 284) Obviously, the memories are, in order, Severian's, Thecla's and the Old Autarch's. -Roy

Two thoughts. However Severian's miracles work, he has a bit of a dry spell after giving up the Claw in Citadel. Maybe it's all in his head. Second, regardless of when Severian-the-character becomes threefold, Severian-the-writer is threefold all along. Now, presumably, he can perfectly recall being just one person, or just two, but other evidence suggests that he doesn't have perfect control of his personae. Is there a point at which the old Autarch asserts himself?

After the fall on the Ship that killed Severian, URTH, Chapter IX, p-65: "The old Autarch, who lived in my mind but seldom spoke, muttered through my swollen lips. 'Find another....'" -Roy

I think John Watkins meant, and I am more interested in, is there a point where Old Autarch asserts himself over the narrator, like Thecla seems to have?

I don't think so, and the quote suggests the same. My real point was to address the original thrust of this thread, which has been the subject of much debate and spawned some rather fanciful theories. Thecla's father had a villa up north on the frontier. The Old Autarch fathered neither Severian nor Thecla. Ouen was Severian's father. Thecla's father died before Severian even met her. Waiter Ouen certainly never commanded a mounted guard. The Old Autarch had been a servant in the House Absolute. It is very unlikely that a lowly servant's father commanded a mounted guard; still less likely to have done so when Thecla was a little girl. So the father in the sentence in question must refer to Thecla's father. -Roy

I dunno, Roy. "Fact" is a pretty strong word for use describing an ambiguous work of fiction. But anyway, I can't remember reading that both parents were required to be exultant for exultant status. Nor do I remember any statement of class status for the Castellan but I do seem to remember reading that military officer positions might be filled by armigers or exultants. I think there is more evidence that Catherine is not an exultant, due to her height, but not sure it matters. The bit about having a ball every year until he died was part of a dream sequence I think, one which also included a father figure with the head of a brown eyed bull. Given that dreamy milieu I'm not sure we can call it a "fact" that her father is dead. And then there is that "villa"... Anyway, as noted in my last post, I'm currently of the thought that Severian's family membership has been deliberately obscured through the use of pink herrings; hints at possibilities with no intention of there being one "true" answer which can be divined. So any suggestion of who Severian's family might be (including Dorcas and Ouen) is open for doubt, debate and denial. Any suggestion one could make is easy enough to knock down. Still seems worth pointing out these hints anyway. In an interview somewhere, Gene Wolfe was asked how long he hoped his work would be read after his death. He was surprised at the question but he was able to answer "100 years" or "300 years" I forget which. Either way, that's pretty ambitious I think, and says to me that we'll get no deathbed revelations solving any of these mysteries. Ah well. Some like eternal mystery. Not me so much, though.