(urth) Father Inire as Dionysus

[David Stockhoff]

On 10/22/2011 10:20 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
> This post is for David Stockhoff to whom I promised an answer
>
> to his question on what benefit Severian might have for keeping
>
> Father Inire in such difficult to penetrate disguises.


thanks!
> I think this question was carried on the assumption that Severian
>
> hoping to hide his and his family's incestuous nature was sufficient
>
> grounds to keep his family members hidden, to various degrees of
>
> difficulty.

If the incest extends beyond Dorcas, which was an accidental instance, yes.

> I could answer the question about Father Inire in similar terms. As
>
> a Greek god analog he is incestuous by nature. It is he who brings
>
> the embarassing curse of incest to Severian's family and keeping him
>
> in disguise is sort of a reflex. Mentioning him as royal vizier is okay
>
> but admiting he is Dorcas' husband, Cyriaca's uncle and certain others
>
> would be too revealing in the incest department.
>
>
>
> I could also answer that he is a cacogen, a sort of being which is held
>
> in some disgust in the Commonwealth. Perhaps Severian doesn't want to
>
> disgust his readers by admitting any closer association than necessary.

I hadn't noted any disgust for Inire, but it's possible.

> Those answers are okay, though not completely satifying. But a recent insight
>
> suggested there may be more to it, if we consider another level of literary
>
> interpretation. Together, the two levels might be a good answer.
>
>
>
> David, in the past we've had discussions about the literary theme of "God is
>
> to universe as author is to story". And we I think we agreed that a
>
> religious scholar like Wolfe is insightful enough to consider that an author
>
> is more properly considered as a demiurge than god.
>
>
>
> Actually I'd like to digress and add to that discussion for a paragraph or two.
>
> The demiurge is the all-powerful creator of the material world and all that is
>
> in it. Where the demiurge is incomplete is that he lacks participation in the
>
> spirit. (and free will is a component of the spirit, so a demiurge cannot fully
>
> control a conscious human being).
>
>
>
> So, in literature, the author is the demiurge. He can control anything and
>
> everything in his story except for one thing. The spiritual component of a
>
> story, which is the reader. The author can influence but cannot control how each of
>
> his readers chooses to understand and interpret his stories.

So far so good. I can also imagine further punning along the lines of 
the writer's idea's incestuously merging and intertwining throughout 
many novels.

> Anyway, there is a famous anecdote that I can't fully place just now. It was in some
>
> lecture where some person of note in the lupine universe surprised Wolfe with the
>
> question, "can we assume that the name of Number 5 and Maitre is Gene Wolfe?" Caught
>
> by surprise, Wolfe blurted out "yes!". But this admission of metafiction and veiled
>
> autobiography is not something Wolfe is prone to admit. That may be the only example.
>
>
>
> It isn't something new for analysts to suggest Gene WOlfe puts himself into his stories.
>
> Number 5, Weer, Severian, Ouen and Horn (not sure about Silkhorn) are oft noted candidates.
>
>
>
> We have discussed how Father Inire can be seen as a demiurgical figure to the Commonwealth
>
> as Tzadkiel is to his ship, as Typhon-Pas is to the Whorl and how The Outsider is to the
>
> universe of Briah.
>
>
>
> Wolfe has stated that Severian can be considered an aspect of The Outsider.  If Wolfe recognizes
>
> his role as demiurge in creating the Sun series, is it possible he has put himself into
>
> the story AS The Outsider? This recognizes Severian as an aspect of himself but also makes
>
> Father Inire (and Typhon and Tzadkiel the Angel of Judgement) as aspects of himself.
>
>
>
> Could this be the reason Severian is so reticent about Father Inire? Does Wolfe make him do this
>
> to hide (but also provide a clue) that Gene Wolfe is lurking in various disguises throughout this
>
> story. Afterall, creating such human-form agents to accomplish their goals in the world is
>
> something that demiurges are prone to do.

I thought I saw where you were going---that Wolfe is Inire (and perhaps 
Tzadkiel in UotNS). But despite valid connections one can make between 
demiurge and Increate, I can't see Wolfe seeing himself as the Outsider, 
for the reason you gave: that an author is a demiurge, not a god. So I'm 
confused there.

If the demiurge has created a box in which he keeps pets dressed up as 
one character or another, it is not the demiurge who is likely to break 
in to free them---these are separate roles. (I say this while admitting 
that the Outsider cannot actually "be" God because God is above all 
creations, but since he has no face or dialog, he's as close as Wolfe 
can reasonably get.)

Going with Inire-as-Wolfe, my response must be that it actually explains 
the reticence and mystery about Inire all by itself, making further 
explanations unnecessary. It does lead one to look for instances where 
Inire has fiddled with things behind the scenes, which of course is what 
Inire does. And while Severian himself may simply be consciously unaware 
that Inire has these connections, as Autarch he must have some idea.

Going further: I could add a fourth "reason" for Severian to not mention 
things that he must know as Autarch---which is that in his acquired 
memories he knows so much that it would overpower any narrative. To tell 
his story he must push those memories aside and speak as himself.

Still, the Autarchs must not know everything about Severian, or else 
Severian himself would know everything about himself. This present 
further problems. Either Inire knows more than the Autarchs (quite 
likely) or Severian actually knows (rather than suspects or fears) the 
answers to all the things we puzzle over and deliberately hides them. 
Fine. But then we must believe he hides them badly.

And round and round we go.

Incidentally, part of the inspiration for the Autarchy may come from the 
fact that Byzantine emperors chose potential successors as their chief 
advisers (though I'm not sure whether they adopted heirs as the Romans 
did). Conversely, they also chose their chief advisers to succeed them. 
This ensured continuity whether the throne was inherited or not.

My point is that Inire does not fit into this scheme. He's more like a 
Grand Vizier at the head of an eternal bureaucracy such as the Ottomans 
had. Further, the Ottoman sultans frequently appointed loyal "aliens" 
(Jews, Christians, Europeans) as their viziers. Inire fits this model 
more neatly.