Letter 36: Severus Snape to J. Alfred Prufrock, 29th September 2000

A/N: For simplicity's sake, titles of books, journals etc are underlined and emphases are italicised. In reviving the old tradition of epistolary novels, I understand the plot may be a little slow, laborious and difficult to follow. Some might consider it AU and a little OOC.

In order not to weary the reader's patience, a number of letters from the series of correspondences have been suppressed; those only have been given which appeared necessary to a complete understanding of the events in this group. For the same reason, some letters from the actors in the events of this drama have also been suppressed.

I understand that some readers are confused as to the Epistemological Alchemy book. I received the following queries from quite a few readers, so I shall address them here.

(1) How come Epistemological Alchemy is written by Arsenius Jigger and Severus Snape? I thought Snape wrote everything and Jigger is only the front. How come both their names are in the journal article title? Did Hermione make a mistake in her zeal to expose Jigger as Snape?

Tut, tut to you. Reread the first paragraph of letter 31, where Severus writes to Prufrock, "There is no real hurry for Epistemological Alchemy. Drop the Obscurus/Esotericae House idea. I have written to Cambridge University Press's wizarding imprint, Telos Press, and it has agreed to publish it under my name and Jigger's."

Here, you see, it is to be officially taken that Jigger and Severus jointly wrote the book.

That paragraph in letter 31 continues, "[The Telos Press imprint] is obscure enough not to raise any questions. The readers can take Jigger to be the main collaborator for all I care. [my emphasis] I AM Jigger, after all."

This further confirms that Epistemological Alchemy will credit both Jigger and Severus as authors.

(2) Why did Epistemological Alchemy take so long to come out?

Once again, refer to letter 31, 1st paragraph, "Publication can be delayed for up to two years." Furthermore, in book publication, things can take a blessed long time, believe me...It can take up to a year in editing and to-and-froing with the author; and that's just the editing for the drafts. There are the fair copies to edit and another round of to-and-froing with the authors.

(3a) Do academic journals publish reviews of books? I thought they only publish articles.

(3b) Why didn't the journal ask permission from Snape to allow Hermione to review their book?

We have established that both Severus Snape and Arsenius Jigger are the authors of the book. Academic journals do publish review articles. These journals usually invite 2 'big name' in the relevant field to review another work by another big-shot in the field. Of these reviewers, one is of the author(s) school of thought and the other isn't. Alternatively, in many journals such as Political Theory, Philosophy and Public Administration, Arethusa and Hypatia, an academic or graduate student (depending on the publication) may write in to the journal, informing the editor(s) that he/she wants to review the latest book written by so-and-so on what-and-what. If the editor(s) of the journal say ok, then it's ok. You don't need the book authors' permission to review a book. The point of reviewing books in academic journals is so that people who are too lazy or busy to browse in academic bookshops will notice when reading journals (most academics don't read entertainment magazines, journals take their place), "Oh, Dr X has published again. In wonder if it's any good? Ah ha! Dr Y has reviewed it, let's hear his/her opinion and see whether this new book is worth getting and reading."

(4) How can Hermione expose Severeus/Jigger like that? Won't other people decipher the hidden message too?

When one is in a desperate situation, one resorts to desperate measures...Think what you will on that. As for the rest, unless you are looking for a message in the article, you won't find it. Believe me, most academics, myself included, just read the article and take it as that – academic stuff meant to play with your mind. You will not go looking through every article looking for a hidden message. Only a person who knows that he/she is looking for a hidden message in a journal article, would examine the article for the message rather than read it for its own sake.

(5) Prufrock seems to have figured the journal article's message, what's stopping others from doing the same?

Prufrock DID NOT decipher the hidden message, I assure you. The next letter (no. 36) confirms this. What he probably did see was the interpretation of Southern Witch (a real gem), which is this: "Part of you thinks that you are living in a Utopic enviroment just because jigger is so well respected, no shady past, etc, but you truly aren't because jigger isn't truly who you are. The Snape in you is able to see past such fantasies, having experienced life and mated with reality. I respect you and love you for your ideas and acceptance of things even if nobody else does. "

Moreover, as Keladry Lupin pointed out, "Prufrock panicked because he knows Snape's secret (i.e. he knows that Jigger=Snape)."

(6) I can't figure out the hidden message!

If you extract the first letter of each of the review's sentences (notice that I stress sentences, not every capital alphabet), they read, "I KNOW WHO YOU ARE, SEVERUS SNAPE. NO MORE PRETENSE. I HAVE LOVED ONLY ONE MAN, I WILL NOT LOSE HIM TWICE.

Why did Hermione supposedly feel that she lost him twice? (i) When Jigger/Snape explicitly told her to concentrate on her education in Letter 32, (ii) when Snape refused to meet at her Hogwarts to give her his 'Do's and Don'ts of Potions teachings'.

Without further ado...I present the letter

Proestigium or What the Seasons may Bring

Letter 36: Severus Snape to J. Alfred Prufrock, 29th September 2000

Severus X. A. Snape

Malmaison,

Alecto's Way,

Leicestershire,

UK.

29th September 2000

You worry over nothing, Prufrock. While it may be true that Miss Granger has uncovered Jigger's identity, it does not mean that others have done the same. There is another layer of meaning in the text. I curse myself for teaching her esoteric reading in exoteric writing! Confound her for trying to communicate with me. Blast! Despite my initial annoyance, I am pleased that I have taught her well – that meaning is not easily discerned. I am not pleased that she chose to question me in such a public manner. I, too, am capable of engaging in this battle of wits. I will not be so easily provoked. We shall see who emerges the victor in this bout! She dares presume that she can challenge my diseased wits – haughty creature!

I would like you to send this to the editors of Recherches Alchemique. Make sure they publish it in the October edition. The paper is attached below.

She has written to me as well. I have elected not to reply. The reply in Recherches Alchemique may silence her.

Snape

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recherches Alchemique, Vol. 201, No. 4.

Review of Hermione Granger's "Ironic Alchemy," in John Milton, Socratic Roots to Alchemy, Beaufort Press, Oxford, 2000.

By Arsenius Jigger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Youth is characterised by many caprices, as noted by the ancients and Miss Granger in her chapter, Ironic Alchemy. Of the articles collected in Socratic Roots to Alchemy, Miss Granger's is the most philosophical. Underlying her work is in-depth research and familiarity with the subject matter. As she concisely put in her paper, "contemporary life is becoming increasingly governed by technological and market forces that threaten our ability to control our own destiny." Since that is the case, we ought to be struck by the pretence that politics as the art of living together despite differences matter, that we have absorbed the notions that community, consensus, shared norms, concerns with power, coercion and conflict are essential for our daily lives. Morgenthau's review of this paper in the Nottingham Review of Books did not consider that and thus misreads the place of irony in the art of alchemy. Forwarding her theory that we have absorbed the idea that political association, it follows that in all its contingency depends on us being imbued with a strong sense of choice, agreement and compliance. On the contrary, Miss Granger explains that irony in alchemy is necessary only because we have been unable to cope with the post-modern age. Regarding her usage of the phrase 'post-modern age', she has erroneous assumed that we have passed the stage of modernity. The state of modernity is the here and now; we have not passed it nor will ever do so because each age believes that it is the modern one. However, the author redeems herself by acknowledging that irony in alchemy is inseparable from the evolution of the modern and post-modern consciousness. Even so, she does not sufficiently address her definition of irony. In the introduction, she writes, "we need irony in our private lives to make sense of the larger sociological implications of alchemy in the world at large." Morgenthau has stated the same in his book, Drafts and Poisons: A Realist Approach. Perplexingly, she does not agree that alchemical irony enables us to realise the drama of an individual human life, or of the history of humanity as a whole. Ostensibly, this is because it is not one in which a pre-existent goal is triumphantly reached or tragically not reached. Seeing it in this light then, the author's support of irony in alchemy as a contingent form of magic is not well established. Sociologically, however, it makes more sense when compared to the writings on Bertrand Russell in the same volume.

It can be said that the dramatic narrative of irony in alchemy does act as process of overcoming the ascendance of technology and the scheduling of our lives are the signs of our compliance with modernity's demands. Because of this, she rightly states that the elusive, inherent ambiguity of irony that is constantly evolving causes it to be a subject of much fascinated enquiry and speculation, not just literarily, but politically and philosophically as well. Levelling this argument somewhat, she proceeds to fit alchemy into the speculative ways of ironic alchemy as laid down by Socrates. Effectively, this paper encompasses a brief but thorough overview of the literature on the subject. In so doing, Miss Granger arrives at her own point that irony is necessary to the understanding of alchemy. This coincides with her view that the Socratics had solved nearly everything through their theoretical potions. Strawson challenges this view in last edition's review, but I beg to differ. Jeuneliot, for instance, is the Socratic cure for headaches. It has to be read ironically if one is to understand it, otherwise, one would end up with fertiliser. Going further in her theory, the reader will be delighted to find the linkage of Socratic ironic alchemy with that laid down by Kierkegaard. Generally, Kierkegaard sees ironic alchemy as a mode of seeing things and viewing existence or as an acknowledged perception of the absurdity of life force that goes into potion making. Exercising her penchant for definitions, Miss Granger creates her own new understanding of the link between irony and alchemy. Readers will find this in the section 'Understanding Ironic Alchemy in Socratic Discourses'. Yet, to my disappointment, she does not discuss the trans-ideological modes of learning growing out of the study of irony in alchemy. Ordinarily, scholars treat irony not as a limited rhetorical trope or an extended attitude to life. Unusually for a member of the Hobbesian school of Alchemical thought, she chuses to see ironic alchemy as a discursive strategy operating at the level of linguistics or form. Whether one views this article as a summary of the literature before it or as a work showcasing the importance of irony in potion brewing, one will be sure of appreciating the Socratics anew.

Alternatively, one could read "Ironic Alchemy" as an artificial and compulsory controller of the natural science that is potion making. Nevertheless, some interesting questions are raised. That we pretend that multiplicity of voluntary bodies and natural associations between all potions substances is specious – Miss Granger right devotes some part of her work to address this. Thus, she sufficiently covers the ground for her case of irony in alchemy. Naturally, I agree with her that most alchemists today operate in the face of human impermanence, separation, mortality, change, rootlessness, and meaninglessness because they have disregarded irony. On this note, let me leave you to ponder on her words. They will conjure many images that are familiar to you; such is Miss Granger's originality. Morgenthau would do well to take a leaf from her. Every alchemical formula would be more transparent if read with some degree of irony.

Footnotes

Proestigium is Latin for illusion. Ironically, the English word Prestige derives from it.

If you extract the first letter of each of the review's sentences (notice that I stress sentences, not every capital alphabet), they read, "YOU ASK FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S JIGGER YOU WANT, NOT ME."

Readers have been asking me why HG and SS are communicating through journal articles rather than letters. The answer is simple – SS refuses to reply to HG's letters, instead he chooses to reply to her in kind through journal articles. Why journal articles? She started the ball rolling with the article annexed to the previous letter. This will become clear in subsequent letters.

I assume, as should you, that SS and HG read, subscribe and contribute to several alchemical/potion journals.

By now, you should have realised that "corresponding" through journal articles is extremely tedious because HG and SS have to comb through all the potions and alchemical journals, find the other party's articles, decipher the message (if any) in the article and write a response to the person and the alchemical community. But when dealing with a stubborn man like Severus, what else can one do?