Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Anyone ever notice that the only place "B.G." is actually used in the books in the sense of "Before Guild" is three entries in the Terminology? (Corrin, Battle of; Jihad, Butlerian; and Zensunni)

That "A.G." never appears anywhere at all?

And that after Leto ascends the throne, time seems to be reckoned in terms of his reign? (A.R.L. (Anno Regni Latonae), anyone? ) This last makes sense, considering the gradual decrease in the importance of the Guild, especially after the INMs.

(Been thinking about this since working on a concordance entry for RM Syaksa the other night...)

Now that you mention it, they just call it year ______ of the Padishah Emperor or somesuch? Sorry, my memory's not great today and I don't have my files.

By Jove!

That's interesting and very FH. Giving you just a bit of information to draw a conclusion from. Nice pickup.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Now that you mention it, they just call it year ______ of the Padishah Emperor or somesuch? Sorry, my memory's not great today and I don't have my files.

Yep. The very first example of that should be the most famous:

A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct. This every sister of the Bene Gesserit knows. To begin your study of the life of Muad'Dib, then, take care that you first place him in his time: born in the 57th year of the Padishah Emperor, Shaddam IV. ...

Of course, that has to be interpreted as "in the 57th year of life of" or the dating of events gets even hairier.

I believe Dune is actually the ONLY book in which FH gives specific Standard/Guild-reckoning dates, and with the exception of the birth and death years for Wellington Yueh in the epigraph to Ch. 5 and the Terminology entries I mentioned earlier, all of them occur in Appendix IV: The Almanak en-Ashraf (Selected Excerpts of the Noble Houses).

Evidently FH felt adding "A.G." would have been redundant.

SandChigger wrote:Evidently FH felt adding "A.G." would have been redundant.

It's so far after the formation of the Guild I guess it either doesn't matter or it's common knowledge. When we write dates we usually don't write AD or CE unless there's a chance of confusion, like maybe an ancient history text.

Of course, that has to be interpreted as "in the 57th year of life of" or the dating of events gets even hairier.

really ?

because the way it's phrased, I'd take it to mean the 57th year of the reign ....

SandRider wrote:

Of course, that has to be interpreted as "in the 57th year of life of" or the dating of events gets even hairier.

really ?

because the way it's phrased, I'd take it to mean the 57th year of the reign ....

I suppose someone could work it out from the Appendix wherein his year of birth is given. I don't have my copy with me at the moment though.

Freakzilla wrote:

SandChigger wrote:Evidently FH felt adding "A.G." would have been redundant.

It's so far after the formation of the Guild I guess it either doesn't matter or it's common knowledge. When we write dates we usually don't write AD or CE unless there's a chance of confusion, like maybe an ancient history text.

Good point, in day to day speach we really only specify if we mean something other than the Common Era, or if the conversation is about something that might involve dates from both before and after 0.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

SandChigger wrote:Evidently FH felt adding "A.G." would have been redundant.

It's so far after the formation of the Guild I guess it either doesn't matter or it's common knowledge. When we write dates we usually don't write AD or CE unless there's a chance of confusion, like maybe an ancient history text.

Good point, in day to day speach we really only specify if we mean something other than the Common Era, or if the conversation is about something that might involve dates from both before and after 0.

(N.B there is no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar.)

SadisticCynic wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

SandChigger wrote:Evidently FH felt adding "A.G." would have been redundant.

It's so far after the formation of the Guild I guess it either doesn't matter or it's common knowledge. When we write dates we usually don't write AD or CE unless there's a chance of confusion, like maybe an ancient history text.

Good point, in day to day speach we really only specify if we mean something other than the Common Era, or if the conversation is about something that might involve dates from both before and after 0.

(N.B there is no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar.)

Yes yes, by zero I mean the pretendy split second dividing BCE and CE. Obviously there is no "year 0" such is why I just wrote "0" without the word year.

SadisticCynic wrote:I suppose someone could work it out from the Appendix wherein his year of birth is given. I don't have my copy with me at the moment though.

Appendix IV: The Almanak en-Ashraf:

The Padishah Emperor, 81st of his line (House Corrino) to occupy the Golden Lion Throne, reigned from 10,156 (date his father, Elrood IX, succumbed to chaumurky) until replaced by the 10,196 Regency set up in the name of his eldest daughter, Irulan.

If Shaddam ascends the throne in 10156, the 57th year of his reign would be 10213. Since the Atreides move to Arrakis and all the fun starts in 10191, that's obviously wrong.

Paul is 15 at the time of the move, putting his birth in 10176. 57 years before that is 10119. (This is obviously the thinking behind the date they give in the House books, where the dates in Dune for Shaddam & Fenring are called "typographical errors". N.B. Dr Torkos, in his timeline, gives 10175 as Paul's birthyear, but still ends up with 10119 for Shaddam's.)


Here's a question for the gallery: how much time is covered by the narrative in each of Messiah and Children? We know that it's 12 years between Dune and DM and 9 years between DM and CoD. Torkos gives 10217 for the date of Leto's ascension. Does that seem right?

I came up with 10215... with no years for the narratives. I don't think they took very long but i guess they could cumulate two years. I don't think there's anything in the text to back that up though.

I came up with 10214 myself, but that was also leaving no time for the book periods. Hmmm....

Leto's ascension = 10191 (Begining of Dune) + 3 (Dune Narrative) + 12 (Between Dune and DM) + 9 (Age of the twins in CoD)

Freakzilla wrote:3 (Dune Narrative)

OK, that's the source of the difference: I used the 10193 "Arrakis Revolt" date, which obviously leaves only two years for the Dune narrative.

Well, it starts in 10191 and says Paul spent three years in the desert.

So we throw out the Almanak en-Ashraf date for the Arrakis Revolt & deaths of Baron Harkonnen & Beast Rabban (10193) as well?

The problem is we're not told when in the year things happen. If the Atreides moved to Arrakis late in 10190 or early in 10191, then "nearly three years" could easily fall within late 10193.

Btw, where is the "three years" quote from? I can only find this:

He is going to bring Gurney Halleck here, she thought. And she wondered at the strange mingling of emotions that filled her. Gurney and his music had been a part of so many pleasant times on Caladan before the move to Arrakis. She felt that Caladan had happened to some other person. In the nearly three years since then, she had become another person. Having to confront Gurney forced a reassessment of the changes. (D 44:93)

To my way of reading, that says the "nearly three years" covers the time from the move from Caladan. How much time do you estimate there was from the arrival on Arrakis to the Harkonnen/Sardaukar attack?

SandChigger wrote:...How much time do you estimate there was from the arrival on Arrakis to the Harkonnen/Sardaukar attack?

I don't recall any hard facts as to duration but my guess would be roughly 2 or 3 months. How long was there from Gurney returning to the fold and the Atreides recapturing Arrakis?