(urth) Twin again (was: Re: Sister?)

[Jane Delawney]

On 07/08/10 12:18, Jeff Wilson wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 8:14 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:
>> GW
>> spends altogether too much time and effort setting Severian up as one of
>> twins (or at the very least of a brother-sister pair with appropriate
>> names) for this to be an irrelevant or insignificant question, surely?
>
> Let us think what information that the guild would have retained. We 
> could expect them to have:
>
> * the official documentation commanding Catharine's imprisonment and 
> her torture and execution if any. These would record her name, 
> residence and position,  a brief or lengthy physical description doe 
> identification purposes, and the charges against her.
Of course, this kind of  record would have been routine for any 'client'.

> * the official guild records kept for inspection by the authorities, 
> accounting for her disposition and that of any children who arrived 
> with her or she bore.
Re: the second point - Well yes, one might *indeed* expect these details 
to be recorded, especially if she bore twins and one of them was 
retained by the Seekers (because a boy) and the other handed over to the 
Witches (because a girl). As I've already mentioned I think GW provides 
the reader with so many hints and suggestions re: Sev's name and the 
possible existence of a sister that I can't think why he would have done 
this, unless we are supposed to assume that he did in fact have a 
sister. Otherwise, why bother? Just to be able to turn around and say, 
'Ha ha, fooled you?'

Can't see it somehow.
> I don't think this would necessarily include any details of any family 
> members who had not fallen into their hands, except by chance 
> inclusion: "...found guilty of the murder of her husband the Autarch's 
> servant Pancras for which the sentence of death is to be carried 
> out...". Of course, an exultant's family would be identifiable from 
> their name, *if* that name were faithfully  recorded and there was no 
> complicating factors like disinheritance or abdication.
>
> Of any siblings, the guild records would say that a girl with 
> such-a-color hair and eyes and marks was given to the Witches if the 
> birth came after incarceration, or such-a-color hair and eyes and 
> marks and the name of X if the girl came with her mother to the tower.
For sure. But if Sev was raised by the Guild from a baby (as his 
recollection of being nursed by a woman within the Tower strongly 
suggests he was - though his assumption that this woman was his mother 
is yet another example of his 'unreliable narrator' status since he has 
informed us within the first chapter or two of his narrative that when 
the Seekers  have a suitable newborn in their hands, they will engage a 
wet-nurse; the baby doesn't necessarily get nursed by his own mother) 
and he did have a twin sister, the delivery - by natural means, or by 
the Guild's rough form of C-section as the text suggests - of twin 
babies, one of each sex and one taken or given to be raised by each of 
the sibling Guilds would surely be a notable event, and I can't see it 
not being recorded.

It's always possible of course that Catherine was subjected to this 
rough surgery and that consequently, only one of her twins survived. If 
so, why keep harping on the 'twins' theme? Unless of course the (IMO) 
wild suggestion that the mandragora is Sev's twin happens to be correct.

>
> Severian's lack of mention of a sister
Though people who came into contact with him keep suggesting the 
possibility, over and over again.


> suggests to me that either he came without one, or that any on record 
> are no longer locatable.
This on the other hand is entirely plausible. Sev as Autarch could have 
requisitioned the records and discovered that he had a sister, given to 
the Witches, who was not named at birth (because the Witches would give 
her a name) and was therefore untraceable. This bit of information would 
close out all kinds of hints and suggestions within the four volumes; 
but it's not given.

I still find this odd. Further comments more than welcome, this stuff 
(alongside plenty more in the books) has puzzled me for years!

many thanks to all who have replied and hopefully I don't have to 
explain yet again why I have altered the subject line (sticking to one 
thread at the moment because I don't want to confuse more than one of them).

JD