Father Inire Theory

Lee Berman · 05 Dec 2010, 13:55 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 08:55:10 -0500
Subject: (urth) Father Inire Theory
Message-ID: <SNT123-W23E204BACD0AB302A4A0ABCF2A0 at phx.gbl>

>Jeff Wilson: That would suggest that Severian and Dux Caesidius and Ouen are 
>shape-shifting godlets, as they resemble each other in just as many respects. Agia 
>and Agilus are even more alike, surely they are as well?

I'm not sure if this is an expression of personal interest and request for an elaboration of
my Father Inire theory or an attempt at invalidating it via reductio ad absurdum. If the latter 
I will suggest, as before, that it is a waste of time. Like shooting fish in a barrel. It is my 
opinion that the superficial mysteries of BotNS which can be solved by careful reading, logic and 
a little research are solved. The mysteries which remain, if any do, require a large dose of 
intuition.

And intuition is highly individualized. Someone else's imagination is easy to dismiss as
ridiculous.  I'm not sure if there is any way to know if the intuitive theories which are now
being proprosed are entirely the product of the imagination of the theorist or if that imagination 
happens to match the imagination of Gene Wolfe as he was writing BotNs. But I think we should
still try.

As it happens, I do have an answer for Jeff's objection. I think WOlfe has given us a method
for detecting which characters are gods, demons/monsters and angels- the naming convention.
There is no St Inire, St. Typhon or St. Tzadkiel. But there is a St. Caesidius, St. Ouen, 
Ste. Agia etc. Dorcas' husband being unnamed (and resembling Inire and Charon) is a clue.

For this reason, I've been steering my Inire Theory away from (St.) Rudesind. Perhaps his
old, bent, monkey-like appearance is due to the nature of his assistantship and association
with Father Inire and an admonition to trust in the power of names and not be deceived by 
appearances. I don't know. Theory is still a work in progress.

On the other hand there is no St. Hethor. And his space origin, mirror skills and interest in
young human women make me suspicious. If he was really Inire, would he be trying to kill his
own grandson? I think perhaps he would if he knew Severian couldn't be killed but had a secret
power he hoped to explore/exploit.

>Jeff Wilson: Inire and the Cumaean are manufactured creatures or at least of manufactured race, 
>like the rest of the Yesodis. They have no need to split and change shape because they are made 
>to order for their specific tasks handed down by the likes of Tzadkiel. They become bent with age 
>as they struggle to exceed their parameters, but that's it.

I think this is a pretty good theory, similar to Borski's.  My own contribution would be suggest 
that if Inire and the Cumaean had adhrered to the angelic tasks assigned to them they wouldn't
be exceeding their parameters. It is by *Falling* from their tasks they have lost the tall, beautiful
appearance of Barbatus and Famulimus and have an old, twisted, animalistic (monkey/snake) appearance. 

B and F remain pure and above humanity. Inire and the Cumaean have gone native, and have gotten involved 
in a variety of evil activities such as running wars, establishing an autarchy surrounded by beautiful 
young concubines, witchcraft, beautification, necromancy and eating of the  dead. Not a coincidence they
are gone as Urth is gone.

My biggest problem with Jeff's theory is the final three words. Why can we only look at BotNS from one lens 
or perspective? Viewing the aliens in the story as beings manufactured for a purpose is a good way of 
presenting them to residents of a modern industrial nation. Surely God created Dionysus, Satan and Gabriel
(or their concepts) for a purpose.  

But how would ancient Greeks or gnostics view such beings? Isn't their perspective just as important or valid 
as ours? Heck the oldest parts of the Bible (including the first few Commanments) virtually acknowledge a 
polytheistic world.  I wonder how people 3000 years from now will view our religious beliefs.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net