|
The role of the poet in telling the uncompromising truth as he sees it is a common theme of both novels. Yet, the source of inspiration remains dubious, perhaps influenced by satanic elements. This idea makes the poet's truth satanic in that it tends to subvert already recognized beliefs in its expression. Indeed, anything conflicting with the original directives of, in this case, a codified religion, becomes evil and inaccurate: "A man who sets himself up is taking on the Creator's role, according to one way of seeing things; he's unnatural, a blasphemer, an abomination of abominations. . . . Or you might simply say: it's just like being a man" (Verses 49). |
| "Becoming a man" means, according to Rushdie himself, having the courage to "understand [himself] and shape [his future] by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the unsayable; not by bowing the knee, whether to gods or to men" ("Faith" 394-5). By not showing proper obeisance to the powers that be, the poet emulates Satan in his original refusal to see things the way God envisioned them. Salutary change, states Edmundson, becomes possible when poets attempt new metaphors--a new language that helps to orient them in the quixotic universe of possibilities (70). Rushdie and Bulgakov embrace and illustrate these possibilities by beginning with their archetypal poets. |
| The ability to control one's identity begins with language. Yet words have always been dangerous and have, therefore, been strictly controlled by those who have little tolerance for blasphemy. Words have the ability to repress and rebel, mythologize and mystify, imprison and emancipate. Proffer suggests that myth can represent a powerful, negative force; she cites the Spanish Inquisition as the cause of many deaths in the name of God (541). One could also add to that example the many Islamic jihads and terrorist atrocities used to further the goals of Allah. Yet Rushdie and Bulgakov do not question the need for religious expression in humans, but do wonder at the efficacy of organized, myth-centralized religion (Proffer 541). Rushdie and Bulgakov begin the process of reclaiming language with the master's novel and Gibreel's dream. |
Ostensibly, Rushdie and Bulgakov are "taking the devil's part against the God of orthodoxy" as many artists, e.g. Byron, Shelley, and Milton, have done throughout the history of literature (Khan 253). Or, as Proffer submits, Master is the "gospel according to the devil" (525). Williams and Khan suggest that Verses "is healthily blasphemous," drawing on "a long line of literary opposition to the fictions favored by the state and church" (253). Not only is it healthy to cast a skeptical eye on traditional morality and dogma, it is necessary to question the unquestionable, to doubt rather than embrace blindly if individuality is ever to be realized. Perhaps Rushdie, and to a lesser extent Bulgakov, is so hated by the "true believers" not because he invented heretical lies, but told the uncompromising truth. This, as mentioned above, is the role of the artist, and Bulgakov and Rushdie, as well as their archetypal inspirations Jesus of Nazareth and Muhammad, want to tell this truth. Rushdie defines this responsibility: "A poet's work [is] to name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going to sleep" (Verses 97).8 A trenchant example of this truth is Rushdie's portrayal of the biblical story of Abraham and his wife:
In ancient time the patriarch Ibrahim came into this valley with Hagar and Ismail, their son. Here, in this waterless wilderness, he abandoned her. She asked him, can this be God's will? He replied, it is. And left, the bastard. From the beginning men used God to justify the unjustifiable. He moves in mysterious ways: men say. Small wonder, then, that women have turned to me.9 -- But I'll keep to the point; Hagar wasn't a witch. She was trusting: then surely He will not let me perish. After Ibrahim left her, she fed her baby at her breast until her milk ran out. Then she climbed two hills, first Safa then Marwah, running from one to the other in her desperation, trying to sight a tent, a camel, a human being. She saw nothing. That was when he came to her, Gibreel, and showed her the waters of Zamzam. So Hagar survived; but why now do the pilgrims congregate? To celebrate her survival? No, no. They are celebrating the honour done the valley by the visit of, you've guessed it, Ibrahim. In that loving consort's name, they gather, worship, and above all, spend. (95)
In this way Rushdie sets the scene for Mahound's world of dubious actions, questionable authorities, and shifting uncertainty, a world not much different from a contemporary London or Moscow. |
| Bulgakov would undoubtedly agree with Rushdie's summation of the artist's duty, evidenced by his penetration into the degradation of society, and Woland's refusal to let anybody rest by fantastically upsetting the quotidian and pretentious Muscovites. Bulgakov also sets the Jerusalem scene with many façades, including concealing scents of attar of roses and the obfuscating haze of the city, which shroud political agendas of corrupt clergy and agent provocateurs. Therefore, suggests Lur'e, one of the most prevalent themes in Master is "of the superiority of truth over official morality [and] . . . every power" (209). The poets must then have the courage and imagination to transgress and blaspheme against the norms in an attempt to create their own individualities (Bardolph 4). In this light, conformity to the corruption of society and morality is the true evil in both novels. |
| Who, then, are the poets? This question has previously been, up to now, implicit, but it should be stated beyond doubt. Arenberg states that "Bulgakov places his artist in a direct line of descent from the prophets and Christ, and they, in turn, receive their inspiration from God, the original or paradigmatic creator" (109). The inclusion of "prophets" makes it clear that Muhammad is also considered in a direct line of descent from God; it would then seem that the same is true of Rushdie's artist. Therefore, the origin of all creativity is God (cf. footnote 1). Yeshua and Mahound, for the purposes here, represent the "earthly" paradigmatic artists; and further along are history's artists leading up to the master and Gibreel (and Saladin) who rediscover or reinvent the truth of the original "earthly" creators, again, like Plato's magnet from Ion. |
| The adjective "earthly" carries significant weight in each novel. Both Rushdie (Gibreel) and Bulgakov (the master)10 present Mahound and Yeshua simply as men who are capable of human error and doubt. Mahound is just a man, as Hamza reminds Bilal: "keep your faith for God. The Messenger is just a man" (105). Indeed, Mahound, the businessman, succumbs momentarily to temptation in his acceptance of Simbel's deal to acknowledge three other idols alongside Allah. Likewise, Frank states that the master portrays Yeshua strictly as a man not above realizing fear and doubt, and not Christ, or the Messiah of orthodoxy (292). This removal of Jesus and Muhammad from the status of the divine11 has several implications, two of which are particularly important: they are not infallible, and they can empathize with humanity, sharing that common state (Ericson 23). Ericson stipulates another reason for removing Jesus and Muhammad from deification: it removes the trite and "stale doctrinal formulas" and lets the reader look at them in a new way (22). In effect, Rushdie and Bulgakov demythologize Jesus and Muhammad allowing the reader an opportunity to reevaluate the men and not the myths. These poets are "thoroughly human" (Hart 171). An all-too-common fault among Christians, avers Ericson, "despite their theology, is to think of Christ as God but not to be able to visualize Jesus as man" (23). Woland said that Jesus, the man, did exist, and the master's story is the proof. Both Bulgakov and Rushdie remove these artists from any lionizing or deification and present humanity with humans. |
| When Yeshua Ha-Notsri is first introduced in the chapter "Pontius Pilate," he has been arrested and beaten for his simple vision that "there are no evil people on earth" and that all "will pass into the kingdom of truth and justice" (Master 29, 32). He wears the "shabby, torn, blue chiton" of a poor man as he stands before Pilate with an air of "anxious curiosity" (22). Addressing the Procurator as "good man" inspires a thrashing by Mark Muribellum, leaving Yeshua pale, confused, and terrified. During his subsequent questioning, Yeshua discloses two important details: that he has realized his own personal truth, "I reached that conclusion in my own mind" (29), but that that truth has been "untruthfully" transcribed, or fictionalized, by Matthew the Levite, Yeshua's only follower (24). |
| Pilate first asks Yeshua about his alleged attempt to incite a crowd to destroy the temple. Yeshua denies having said this despite the fact that "It is clearly written down" (24). This represents the first of numerous suggestions in this chapter that if something is written, then it becomes official, Roman truth. Rome's truths are official "facts" and judgments that only need to be recited by those in power to secretaries to become truth: "It only remained to dictate this to the secretary" (30). Pilate's secretary is present throughout Yeshua's interrogation, writing down the conversation until it grows beyond what official Roman interrogations should sound like.12 |
In the middle of his inquisition, Yeshua uses his obviously honed intuitive powers to empathize with Pilate's headache, his thoughts about death, and his longing for his loyal dog (Haber 396):
At this the Procurator thought, Ye gods! This is a court of law and I am asking him an irrelevant question . . . my mind no longer obeys me." Once more he had a vision of a goblet of dark liquid. "Poison, I need poison. . . ."
And again he heard the voice:
"At this moment the truth is chiefly that your head is aching and aching so hard that you are having cowardly thoughts about death. Not only are you in no condition to talk to me, but it even hurts you to look at me. This makes me seem to be your torturer, which distresses me. You cannot even think and you can only long for your dog, who is clearly the only creature for whom you have any affection. But the pain will stop soon and your headache will go."
The secretary stared at the prisoner, his notetaking abandoned. (26)
Yeshua's personal truth is incompatible with the official Roman vision which explains Pilate's initial thoughts and the secretary's surprise, causing him to forsake the official record. This passage also emphasizes the importance of the individual and his situation in determining the truth. If one, like Pilate, lives in pain from an inner conflict, that pain will ascribe the reality of his truth. Yet, if a person unfetters himself from ties to government and responsibility, then he is free to discover his own truth; Pilate's sin, then, is cowardice in choosing official truth over his personal freedom. Yeshua's empathy and his appeal to the hegemon's humanity almost succeeds in exculpating him from this situation, that is until Pilate discovers another written allegation accusing Yeshua of speaking against Caesar--a treason punishable by death. Yet, Pilate likes this "philosopher" and implicitly offers him a compromise: lie or die. |
| Yeshua will not, even on pain of death, compromise his truth. This choice represents a double-edged sword for Yeshua, for it will mean his death guilty of treason, and also test his own faith in the goodness of the very people sentencing him to that death (Krugovoy 207). But Yeshua never gives in to temptation, even through the graphically painful crucifixion he maintains his courage; he does not compromise his truth in spite of any threat or hope of saving his life. Yeshua's vision is unacceptable to his society, especially the leaders of the Sanhedrin, represented by Caiaphas. The latter requests the release of a murderer over Yeshua, knowing that one who kills people is less of a threat than one who could incite philosophical rebellion: "I shall not allow the faith to be defamed and I shall protect the people!" (38); therefore Yeshua, an enemy of church and state, is unmercifully killed, but not without first leaving an impression on Pilate and, more importantly, on Matthew the Levite.13 |
Mahound,14 like Yeshua, is also unyielding in his truth. He has been asked by Abu Simbel, the Grandee of Jahilia (which means, appropriately enough, "darkness" or "ignorance" in Arabic), to include in his religion three, of the over-three-hundred, idols as worthy of worship to win all of Jahilia's souls (Verses 105, 107). Unlike Yeshua, Rushdie examines Mahound's dubious inspiration--the inspiration that produces the satanic verses. Gibreel must answer as the angel in his dream, for he is dreaming of Mahound, Jahilia, and this situation; yet he is full of profound consternation: "I'm just some idiot actor having a blaenchud nightmare, what the fuck do I know, yaar, what to tell you, help. Help" (Verses 109). Gibreel, possessed by some force, utters the answer:
Not my voice I'd never know such words I'm no classy speaker never was never will be but this isn't my voice it's a Voice.
Mahound's eyes open wide, he's seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that's right, Gibreel remembers, me. He's seeing me.15 My lips moving, being moved by. What, whom? Don't know, can't say. Nevertheless, here they are, coming out of my mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words. (Verses 112)
What is uttered are the satanic verses of the Qur'an:16 "Have you thought upon Lat, Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other? . . . They are the exhalted birds, and their intercession is desired indeed" (Verses 114).17 This concession to Abu Simbel violates the major tenant of Islam: "There is no god but Allah" (Guillaume 130). |
Mahound's revelations are now cast into question. Seemingly, Mahound has made this decision, to embrace the three idols, pragmatically, for he would gain power and economic security without a struggle--so if he acquiesced on this small point, i.e. conformed to the standards of society, then he and his God would reign supreme. At one point Mahound states: "Often, when Gibreel comes, it's as if he knows what's in my heart. It feels to me, most times, as if he comes from within my heart: from within my deepest places, from my soul" (106). This observation suggests that Mahound's desire is influencing Gibreel, his supposed muse. Paradoxically, proposes Simawe, Mahound's own desires influence his aesthetic sensibilities and represent a revelation that is a highly complex phenomenon based on historical and psychological pressures (101). Like Plato's poetic madness, Mahound is inspired and possessed by Gibreel, who seems "actually inside the Prophet," with whom he erotically wrestles for enlightenment:
It happens: revelation. Like this: Mahound, still in his notsleep, becomes rigid, veins bulge in his neck, he clutches at his centre. No, no, nothing like an epileptic fit, it can't be explained away that easily; what epileptic fit has ever caused day to turn to night, caused clouds to mass overhead, caused the air to thicken into soup while an angel hung, scared silly, in the sky above the sufferer, held up like a kite on a golden thread? The dragging again the dragging and now the miracle starts in his my our guts, he is straining with all his might at something, forcing something, and Gibreel begins to feel that strength that force, here it is at my own jaw working it, opening shutting; and the power, starting within Mahound, reaching up to my vocal cords and the voice comes. (112)
| Simawe suggests that the passive Gibreel acts as a channel for Mahound's political, psychological, and moral needs (190). Does the individual, then, derive his own truth without the help of the absolute Forms or God? Bardolph asks: "When can one be sure that the cosmic vision is not just a narcissistic projection? Or even the projection of other people's dreams and desires which the angel-poet, sponge-like, has absorbed?" (4). Neither Bardolph nor Rushdie ever answer these questions, but certainly the individual desires of Mahound seem to motivate the words of Gibreel. In addition, there is a third, dubious entity narrating the quotation above; the unknown narrator is the "my" in "his my our guts," "at my own jaw," and "my vocal cords." Since this is the revelation that inspires the so called satanic verses, then a most probable narrator is Satan, implying a satanic element in Mahound's revelation. However this revelation is interpreted, artistic inspiration and epiphany remains a mystical experience that cannot, for Rushdie, be explained absolutely, but that contains certain passionate, almost erotic, embraces, and hypnogogic states of consciousness resembling Plato's poetic madness. |
| It now appears to Mahound the businessman that Allah has granted his divine sanction to Abu Simbel's deal. This "desolating triumph of the businessman" turns Mahound's world into chaos, precipitating violence against his followers in "a night of masks" (Verses 115, 117). These masks parallel Bulgakov's smoky hazes and attars of roses in Jerusalem that obfuscate truth and confuse direction. These masks also represent the oppression that conceals individuality and truth. |
Ironically, Abu Simbel's wife and priestess of Al-Lat, Hind, provides Mahound with direction:
"I am your equal," she repeats, "and also your opposite. I don't want you to become weak. You shouldn't have done what you did."
"But you will profit," Mahound replies bitterly. "There's no threat now to your temple revenues."
"You miss the point, . . . If you are for Allah, I am for Al-Lat. And she doesn't believe your God when he recognizes her. Her opposition to him is implacable, irrevocable, engulfing. The war between us cannot end in truce. . . . Between Allah and the Three there can be no peace. I don't want it. I want to fight. To the death; that is the kind of idea I am. What kind are you?" (121)
Hind realizes what Mahound does not: an idea needs an adversary to keep it strong. Since Hind worships Al-Lat, she requires her opposite, Allah, to keep her strong. Mahound has accepted Al-Lat destroying any contention, making his idea weak. Hind, because she is the Yin to Mahound's Yang, teaches him about the devastating effects of compromise. There can be no peace between Mahound's vision and the past: the ties must be broken; Mahound must assert his new metaphors--water must wash away the sand. Allah must not accept Al-Lat, but must embrace the opposition and cast her out of his garden. |
Mahound returns to Mount Cone, the scene of his communion with the Archangel, for another session of revelation that resembles the first:
Gibreel and the Prophet are wrestling, both naked, rolling over and over . . . then he did his old trick, forcing my mouth open and making the voice, the Voice, pour out of me once again, made it pour all over him, like sick. (123)
Muhammad realizes his mistake, the legend relates, when he again meets with the Archangel Gabriel who tells him that it must have been Shaitan that gave him the suspicious verse (Guillaume 35, 189). This is also true of Mahound and Gibreel; Mahound also repudiates this verse whose author he knows is Shaitan. Yet, in Rushdie's (Gibreel's) novel there is ambiguity: "From my mouth, both the statement and the repudiation, verses and converses, universes and reverses, the whole thing, and we all know how my mouth got worked" (Verses 123). Gibreel's statement alludes to the initial uttering of the verse as well as the dubiousness of the source. Was his mouth worked by Mahound's desires, the mysterious narrator, or both? Mahound will no longer be tempted by compromise--the businessman has been silenced, and the satanic verses have been repudiated: "The last time, it was Shaitan" (Verses 123). |
| The discovery of self, here, seems to be the result of a dialectic between what exists and what is attempting to find a voice. The latter, what Arenberg calls the "daimonic," contains a seed comprised of a passion to survive and grow. The growth of ideas, or an individual truth, will survive to fruition if it can withstand the attack of the question: "What kind of idea are you?" This question must be answered beyond doubt if the poet's truth is "the kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be smashed to bits; but, the hundredth time, will change the world" (Verses 335). The poet must decide if his truth is "the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive" or the kind that is "uncompromising; absolute; pure" (Verses 335, 500). |
| Mahound's voice breaks the dichotomy and is less ceratin: he represents a golden mean between excess and defect (Simawe 194). Mahound, like Yeshua, is more human, not absolute and pure. While considering the expression of this vision, he concerns himself with the needs of his community as well. Yeshua wants to help Pilate alleviate his suffering, he even shows compassion for his torturer Mark Muribellum: "If I were to talk to him, . . . I am sure that he would change greatly" (Master 29). Yeshua offers to help his torturer like Mahound shows compassion to those in Jahilia that attempted to wrong him. These deeds of compassion answer Rushdie's second question that he puts to the new ideas of poets: "What happens when you win? When your enemies are at your mercy: how will you act then?" (Verses 467). |
| Mahound displays his magnanimity to those who embrace Allah and Submission, his new religion (Verses 125). Mahound leaves Jahilia after repudiating the satanic verses and stays away for a quarter century; when he returns, he has become more powerful and easily takes the city, destroying the heathen temples. Graciously, he pardons Abu Simbel, Salman, his former scribe, and Hind, his arch enemy who also killed his uncle. He did not, however, pardon Baal and his twelve wife-whores, who remained connected to the whorish past of Jahilia.18 Baal remained faithful to Al-Lat and Hind and converted a local brothel into a parody of Mahound's harem. Basically, Baal remains a compromiser tied to the past. Mahound kills him and his whores, "Writers and whores. I see no difference here," like he did the Jahilia of old (Verses 392). |
|
