Elephant's Journey by Jose Saramago ~ November Bookclub Online

[JoanP]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  everyone is welcome to join in.

The Elephant's Journey
by Jose Saramago

"History attests that in 1551, an elephant made the journey from Lisbon to Vienna, escorted first by officers of King João III of Portugal, then by officers of the Archduke Maximilian of Austria. Solomon the elephant and his mahout had already made a long sea voyage from Goa and spent a couple of years standing about in a pen in Lisbon, before setting off for Valladolid as a present from the king to the archduke, who travelled with him to Italy by ship and across the Alps to Vienna. In the novel, Solomon and his mahout Subhro (whom the archduke renames, with true Habsburg infelicity, Fritz) proceed through various landscapes at an unhurried pace, attended by various functionaries and military men, and meeting along the way with villagers and townsfolk who variously interpret the sudden enigma of an elephant entering their lives. And that's the story. It is extremely funny. Old Saramago writes with a masterfully light hand, and the humour is tender, a mockery so tempered by patience and pity that the sting is gone though the wit remains vital."  - Ursula K Le Guin

Discussion Schedule:  
Nov. 1 ~ 7  pages 1-46
      Nov. 8 ~ 14  pgs. 47-100  

*****

Some Topics for Consideration
Nov. 1-7 pgs. 1- 46
(ending with line:  "Well, it isn't every day that an elephant appears in our lives.")
 

1. Saramago's story is  said to be based on a little-known incident from the 16th century.  Can you find anything about the source of the story?  

2. What brought the elephant to Portugal from India in the first place?  Why does the queen of Portugal feel it would make a fitting gift for her cousin, the Archduke of Austria?  What was wrong with the gift they had already sent?
 
3. Why was the queen's first suggestion, a gold monstrance,  considered a bad idea for a wedding gift?  What do you know of the political  and religious climate of this period?  

4. Who do you see as the central character in Saramago's story so far?

5.  Have you noted examples of Saramago's vaunted wry sense of  humor? Would you call it satire?  If so, at whom does it seem to be directed?
 
 

Contact:  Joan P

[JoanK]

I've been reviewing what (little) I know about elephants. The elephant here must be an Indian elephant, since he has a mahout: I fell in love with African Elephants through watching Pete's Pond: the National geographic live feed from an African waterhole"

http://www.ustream.tv/petespond

(Right now, there's only a crocodile, no elephant in sight).

[JoanP]

That's an addictive site, JoanK.  Do you think that if we keep staring at it, we'll see an elephant?

I'm really interested in the story of Hannibal who came across the Alps...from Carthage, was it?    And why did he bring elephants with him, I had been wondering?   I see from this site, that there were such beasts as "war elephants"  Hannibal brought 37 war elephants with him - from Africa.  Here is a YOUTUBE site of fighting elephants...not for those of you who love these animals, however.

I don't think this describes Soloman, though.  I can't figure out why he is in Portugal in the first place...though I agree with you, he did come from India. We're told he came from Goa - in India.   Hopefully not on foot...how far can an elephant walk?
Was he a gift?

[JoanP]

kidsal... with more of the political...and religious background for the period.  Thanks!  Upheaval.  Conflict.

 "In 1533 Ferdinand I transferred to Vienna, making it the capital of the Holy Roman Empire."  So this will be our elephant, soloman's new home.  Will his mahout get to stay there with him?  That remains to be seen.  Mahout, the Indian caretaker who is Christian..."more or less."  What did he mean by this?

[JoanP]

WELCOME!

November 1 - already!  We've even had some snow in our area.  Unheard of!  - tomatoes were still flourishing last time I looked.  But the calendar moves on - relentlessly.

Let's begin today, right here, since there is so much good background information already posted.  It would be a shame to leave it behind in the Prediscussion.

Have you begun the book?  I'm curious - what do you think of Saramago's humor so far?

[BarbStAubrey]

Oh my cannot believe today is the fist already - full day today - be back tomorrow - just started reading - except for shorter days the sun is out and around here you would think it was only the first of October.

[kidsal]

History of Goa – Portuguese Rule
Owing to its natural harbors coupled with wide rivers, Goa served as a perfect base for the Portuguese to take control of spice trade from Middle East. The Portuguese is said to have come to Goa in the year 1510 and their stay lasted for over 450 years. During the Portuguese rule, Christianity conversions started and with the start of the inquisition, anything other than Catholicism was censored in Goa. Numerous temples belonging to Hindus were destroyed mass conversion to Christianity took place.  During the time of the spice trade, Goa reached its Golden Age and it was this time, Old Goa became the biggest city in East that had over 300 churches and a population of 40,000 people.   During the late 18th century, the Marathas had nearly defeated the Portuguese, which met strong competition not only from the British but also from the Dutch and French.
Portuguese in Goa is however responsible only not for destruction and conversion; they have also helped the state in their architecture, cuisine and lifestyle. A number of beautiful churches, like St. Cajetan church and Bom Jesus basilica have been built during the rule of Portuguese.
Though India earned her independence from the British rule in the year 1947, Goa had remained a Portuguese colony. In the year 1961, erstwhile Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, sent armed forces and under name of ‘Operation Vijay’, the Indian army took over Goa in just two days. Since then Goa became one of the Union Territories of India.

Perhaps the Mahout was converted "more or less" during the inquisition.

[JoanK]

What do I think of the humor? I love it. It's not laugh-out-loud or even chuckle humor, just a wry way of looking at everything.

He tells us that the elephant is the main character, and the mahout tied for second. but so far, we've heard very little from either of their point of view. To me, those two seem like a center of quiet and (maybe) sanity in the middle of a noisy swirl of nonsense. Do you feel that too?

[JoanP]

"Owing to its natural harbors coupled with wide rivers, Goa served as a perfect base for the Portuguese to take control of spice trade from Middle East. The Portuguese is said to have come to Goa in the year 1510 and their stay lasted for over 450 years"

kidsal, thank you for that information.  It explains several things.  First of all, we are told that soloman came from Goa.  Goa has a natural harbor, the center of the spice trade.  It makes sense that soloman came to Portugal by boat from India - he didn't walk!  

The idea of a gigantic lumbering elephant walking a great distance makes no sense to me.  (Though  the link to the fighting elephants explains that they are really light on their feet - and can move quickly - when they feel like it.)  

Maybe the only parallel between Hannibal's elephants and soolman is their ability to walk a great distance.  soloman will walk from portugal to spain.  It isn't clear yet how he'll get to Austria, is it?

Is the question still on the table?  How far can an elephant walk in a day? 

[JoanP]

"The Portuguese is said to have come to Goa in the year 1510 and their stay lasted for over 450 years. During the Portuguese rule, Christianity conversions started and with the start of the inquisition, anything other than Catholicism was censored in Goa."

This is interesting too, kidsal.  It explains how the mahot became "christianized" in India.  He was baptized, but it seems that was the extent of it.  To be able to say christian, more or less during the time of the inquisition should come in handy for the mahout.  Do you think the mahout will feel more comfortable in Austria than in Goa, Portugal...or Spain?

[JoanP]

JoanK, I'm wondering if others appreciate Saramago's "wry way of looking at everything," as you do.  Those looking for "laugh-out-loud comedy  may not get his humor right away. Can you share an example of  what made you notice it?

You're right - we hear nothing from the main character.  Not surprising, though I am guessing that we will come to understand soloman as the story goes on. But I  sense that the mahout - subhro, is making more of an impression on the proceedings than you do.   Can you figure why he is called subhro, which means "white"?  Am I missing something?

[kidsal]

From various sources:
The distance an elephant walks in the wild can vary greatly and is primarily influenced by the availability of food and water. Asian elephants are jungle animals, usually they have abundant food and water nearby,  so they cover a limited distance on a daily basis. African elephants live in a variety of habitats and frequently need to cover greater distances in search of food and water, particularly on a seasonal basis. They have been documented travelling as far as 50 miles in a day, but this is definitely the exception. Typically they will walk several miles in a day, generally spending much of their time near a water source.
Elephants normally walk about 4 mph.
They are able to swim for long distances
Each elephant is an individual, but on average the elephants that live at the Sanctuary walk 3 - 15 miles each day (Elephant  Sanctuary in Tennessee)

[PatH]

I'm finding Saramago's style absolutely delightful.  You have to put yourself into it, surrender to its rhythm, and then it just catches you up and carries you along.  Practically every sentence has some tiny wry twist or amusingly roundabout way of looking at things.

Look at the conversation between the king and the queen about a suitable present on page 2.  She suggests a monstrance.  He finds this unsuitable because of Maximilian’s Protestant sympathies.

“…Vade retro, satana, exclaimed the queen, crossing herself, such a thought had never even occurred to me, now I’ll have to go to confession first thing in the morning, Why tomorrow in particular, my lady, given that it is your custom to go to confession every day, asked the king, Because of the vile idea that the enemy placed on my vocal cords, oh, I can feel my throat burning as if it had been scorched by a breath from hell itself.  Accustomed to the queen’s sensory excesses, the king shrugged….”

There’s so much implied there.

 I didn’t know what a monstrance is.  It turns out to be a vessel for displaying the consecrated Host.

Monstrance

[PatH]

Given the religious background Kidsal has supplied, I think the mahout's answer is excellent:

"Does that mean you're a christian, now think carefully before you answer, More or less, sir, more or less."

Subhro strikes me as a real adept in the survival skills of the powerless, and this is a good play for safety.

I agree that he is starting to make an impact.  Solomon, on the other hand, may be one of those characters whose impact is caused by his mere presence, not by his actions.

[JudeS]

My internet is failing and  my replies to the posted questions destroyed.  I will make another attempt tomorrow.

[PatH]

How frustrating, Jude, do add your comments whenever you can, I'm looking forward to them.

[JoanP]

Good morning...

Ah, Jude, I am so sorry you had such trouble last night - the mystery of  disappearing posts!  I understand your frustration all too well.  You feel that it is somewhere if you can just make the missing screen reappear!  Here's a suggestion...
You mentioned that you had addressed questions from the heading.  Since you implied a response to more than one of them, let me suggest that you reply to only one at a time...one in each post.  If one reply disappears, it is easier to rewrite, than if it had been a long one.  That seems to work for me - not as deflating as when I've spent a long time on a single post and then lose it.  The only good thing about losing a post, as far as I'm concerned - my second, reconstructed post is usually a lot briefer, tighter - to the point...I tend to ramble in the first.

We'll be looking for you this morning.  Please don't give up!

[JoanP]

In September, we visited Spain.  It's funny how things tie together when you least expect it.

 PatH - you've pictured a monstrance for those who stopped at the word, wondering what the queen was so upset about.  At first it seems to refer to a monster or a monstracity. But monstrance comes from the latin - "monstrare" - meaning "to show."  Monstrances were often used to carry the host in processions.

While we were in Toledo, Spain, we saw a real monster of a montrance! Toledo was the capital city of Spain until the 16th century, when the capitoll was moved to Madrid, but Toledo remains the seat of the Catholic church in Spain - what is called the archdiocese.

Here we saw so much of the "treasure" from the 13th to the 16th century, by the time we saw the monstrance we had reached that state where we were no longer overwhelmed or over-impressed with what we were looking at.  Like looking at the treasures of the Louvre for too many hours.

But the  Great Monstrance of Arfe!  This thing is 9 feet tall!  Enrique Arfe worked sculpted it  in the early 16th c. - originally in silver and then plated in gold!  I have to believe that Saramago was aware of this Spanish treasure...it would have been a splendid gift to any monarch, don't you think?

The Great Monstrance of Arfe

[JoanP]

PatH, thanks for that droll example of Saramago's writing - the king, observing the queen's religious excesses...but her reaction leaves me wondering why she'd have to confess the fact that she thought of giving this elaborate monstrance to the archduke who held lutheran sympathies.  Maybe it would have been a faux pas - but why did she think her forgetfulness was sinful?

I'm really enjoying the writing too -  the humor when Saramago is portraying human nature.  Maybe you're right - soloman, the elephant is above such human weakness - and therefore exempt from the author's critical eye.

So perhaps the next question - why is this forgotten elephant considered an appropriate wedding gift for the archduke?

[BarbStAubrey]

Ok I got into this and will attempt to break my thoughts into more than one post - yep, I go on and on and on   but it was great fun researching again to make sure I had my stuff down - so here goes...

My take is that Saramago saw this whole event as a bit of historical Tom Foolery as compared to today and so in a light vein he wrote it as a Satire making light of the serious political ramifications between Catholic Nations and those newly declared Protestant nations - Here he makes it appear off-hand if it is Luther or Calvin - and the Queen is being described almost as you hear comedians today make light of a person in a venerated position using their first name etc to tell a story that seems too ordinary as compared to how we imagine the venerated to live.

Here we have leaders of two of the greatest powers being described like a morning around the kitchen table. During this time in history, we have da Gama exploring from Portugal and China gives Macau to Portugal thanking them for getting rid of the pirates in the South China Sea. Portugal traders open Japan. Portugal opening lands east of Constantinople was huge. This rattled the division in the Church that was finally acknowledged in 1054 as the East-West Schism. This would have been like the US opening trading ports and given towns to control in Russia during the Cold War.  

Reading the history of these times and the history of the Inquisition the church is not as we think today, a place for worship and clergy guiding their members towards a standard of morality and spiritual discovery. The church is a political power - just after this time, the King of Portugal was a Cardinal of the Church - the concept of separation that we take for granted is not understood. Reading the history of Spain it is easy to see how the northern Spanish used the Church as a rallying cry to push their control over all of Spain. At the time Portugal is not a separate nation although a separate people. Those taking back the Iberia Peninsula are welded together all committed to one point of view under the banner of Jesus as interpreted and celebrated by the leaders of the church.

[BarbStAubrey]

This use of a unifying fighting force comes from a progression of how lands were infiltrated from early history - Among the various tomes in my library on this time in history is Netanyahu's The Origins of the Inquisition which includes a wonderful history of how the big powers of Rome, Greeks, Egyptians and Jews came to hate each other and how that hate was initiated.

Part of the story has to do with habits still with us where exploring and joining a new community leaves folks open for quick expulsion. "Toleration was rare and usually limited to brief visits of traders, who brought desired goods...prolonged with the rulers' consent, the negative reaction to their presence was lessened. But...intentions were questioned...movements were watched by both people and rulers...fear of strangers as potential enemies...virtually universal...emerged the custom for any group, tribe, or nationality that wished to settle in a foreign land to accompany that settlement by military force."

The Jews represented the Greeks and fought for them when the Greeks swept over northern Africa - The Jews decided it was better to use the protection of another nations army than to tax and build one of their own - Bible history seems to dwell on the time when the Jews were not the favored group and were down in the hierarchy of world power however, there were times when they represented nations who did not have enough man power to both fight for new territory or hold on to it and rule it after it was under their control.

As fighters, the Jews were at their peak when Rome was after Egypt. Jewish warriors held mountain passes that both the Greeks and the Romans had to pass and unfortunately, for their future the Jews allowed through the Romans and stopped their good friends the Greeks who had armed them and made it possible for them to rise in Egyptian society. This set up a hatred by the Greeks for the Jews. A hatred that reading the atrocities commuted by everyday people to each other was beyond my imagination. And so, we have Cleopatra as the Queen of Egypt by virtue of Rome by manipulation of Jewish war tactics.

Moving along, after the fall of the Caesars’ the Romans needed a legal system – someplace to settle land disputes, cow and pig ownership etc. The body in Rome with an affective legal system was the Church and gradually the people depended more on the Church for other civic tasks – during the division of Rome after the Caesars’ the Church was allotted an area that without going into the whole history grew over time to include nearly all of what is Italy today as well as, part of the South of France. The Church became a political power that was part of the cause and their exercise of power that resulted in the split between East and West along with the added historical distrust between Greek and Roman.

Back to the Jews – When the Muslims swept across Northern Africa and had their base in Morocco they took on the Visigoths who held most of Spain. Again, the Muslims did not have enough men to fight and so they convinced the Jews in Spain to fight for them. The area that became Portugal and a piece of the north of Spain was not under Muslim Rule and when the leaders of these areas marched south, they did it unifying the people under the banner of the Catholic Church.

In his tome, (yes, 1384 pages) B. Netanyahu lists book after book, library, monastery holdings, synagogue holdings etc as his research to learn that of the Jews who converted in order to remain in Spain and in Portugal less than 10% secretly practiced their Jewish religion while saying they were Catholic – the greater percentage actually converted and their children and families for future generations adopted the belief and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. The percentage that were duel religious were not enough to bring down the wrath of Rome. He carefully constructs how different from the Roman Inquisition was the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal and he, along with other historians conclude it was political, requested by the Kings.

[BarbStAubrey]

As to others persecuted in the Inquisition – as horrible as the methods they were no different than how prisoners were treated say in England during Shakespeare’s time when political death included being tied to four horses that pulled a living body apart after the prisoner was first de-bowled – awful, awful…

And then another – folks like the Cathars wiped out in the Inquisition - Most of the European nations had a state religion – it was the Roman or Latin Rite Catholic Church – Not only was the Church an equal part of the Government – remember all the artwork of groups around a king, there was always a Cardinal or Bishop in the group governing the nation. But more, just as England had their state religion that they waged war with each other over, so all these nations had a state religion. To preach heresy was no different from someone preaching the overthrowing of our system of Government today – we did not tolerate anyone preaching Al Qaeda as a way of life to replace our Constitution. We shipped such people to Guantanamo or secretly to a nation where torture was used. And so, in the sixteenth century Spain, Portugal, and a few other nations came down hard on anyone preaching heresy which was preaching against the nation state.

Also, at this time there was still a great deal of tip toeing around the issue of Jesus as God and Man versus being all Man or all God – it took the church quarreling about this and passing edict after edict during Seven Ecumenical Councils and it still was not settled for over a 1000 years when it was only finally settled for Rome during the East West Schism. The nature of the Trinity was also wrapped up in the Reformation and so anyone preaching other than Jesus was both God and Man was considered a heretic subject to the Inquisition.  

I am not trying to justify only putting out for us to consider the rational for what has become a stereotypical take on history.

As to the queen and her comments about Confession - even when I was a kid daily Confession was not so much a mia culpa taking on a veil of guilt but rather those who used the Confession had a relationship with their Confessor attempting to live their life believing we are here on earth to polish to excellence living out the virtues as the church interpreted them.

My take of the caricature of the Queen being what we consider today over the top is; not only was she supposed to show more horror over any ruler leaving the Catholic Church but then, how can she when all these kings are all related one way or another and also, the concept of humility. Where thy have the where-with-all to afford and even commission a elaborate Monstrance as a gift it tinges on her perfecting her virtue of humility versus pride. And then if she was being serious this suggestion would be like today making a gift of a beautifully made American Flag to someone who holds leadership by appeasing their citizens with the burning in effigy a figure of Uncle Sam wrapped in an American Flag.

I just see Saramago writing from 21st century sensibilities and making light of what was serious stuff in the sixteenth century.  

[JoanK]

"why is this forgotten elephant considered an appropriate wedding gift for the archduke?" That is part of the humor. Like someone today who gets rid of the "white elephant" they don't want by passing it on, and pretending to themselves that it's a wonderful gift.

Hmmmm. Wonder where that phrase came from?

BARB: thanks for all the background.The book about the sources of the hatreds of the inquisition sounds very interesting

"I just see Saramago writing from 21st century sensibilities and making light of what was serious stuff in the sixteenth century."

yes, I can see that. I alternate between finding him really funny, and finding him a smug p----. In the 26th century, people will be writing books like this about us.

[JoanK]

Here is the origin of white elephant

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/410050.html

"White (albino) elephants were regarded as holy in ancient times in Thailand and other Asian countries. Keeping a white elephant was a very expensive undertaking, since the owner had to provide the elephant with special food and provide access for people who wanted to worship it. If a Thai King became dissatisfied with a subordinate, he would give him a white elephant. The gift would, in most cases, ruin the recipient"

[JudeS]

Here I go trying to answer one question at a time.
However , in the meantime there have been really informative posts of real facts. In the book we are reading Saramago is cutting people down to size. The King and Queen are REAL PEOPLE not royal cutouts.  That sets the stage for the elephant and the mahout to be real people too even if one is from the animal Kingdom.  That is the genius of this book.
All of Saramagos previous books are deadly serious, frightingly so.  He didn't get the Nobel Prize because he doodles .Humor is hard to write.  Try it and see. Me,myself and I love humor. It brightens the day and lets us forget the horrors , if only for a short while.

OK you suggested short posts and here I just expressed my reaction to the last few posts instead of answering anything.
I'll send this and continue if this makes it through.

[JudeS]

After some concentrated help from my husband I got my post through so I'll take a chance on post two.
An example of the author's humor.i.e. setting the atage for future developments.

From page nine:
""The king, meanwhile, was standing on a rustic ladder that had been proppped against the stockade, and was observing the spectacle with an air of repugnance and , regretting having given in to that early -morning impulse to pay a sentimental visit to this pachyderm,to this ridiclous proboscidean more than four ells high, who god willing, will soon be depositing his malodorous excretions, on the pretentious austrian city of vienna."


This is cetainly satire. Pointed towards the royals, their manners and their customs. It scrapes away the pretence that  covers up the outward life of the nobility and turns the king into a living, breathing human being.  not particularly likeable but very real.

[PatH]

Definitely satire, but somehow in the process still respecting the people he's laughing at.  You laugh, but you also sympathize with them and feel sorry for them, stuck in their rigid system.  This is a matter of tone, hard enough to catch even without the additional veil of translation, but I feel that even though he is going to skewer everything about these people and their system, he feels affection for them and sympathizes with them, stuck in their roles.

[JoanP]

Such interesting posts!  There is so much more to this little story than meets the eye, isn't there?  It's like peeling an onion - you discover something new with each reading.  Something new in each post as well.  It's wonderful when you comment on what's been posted, contributing yet another level of understanding.  

Barbara,  so glad you decided to break up your findings into different posts.  Could never have absorbed all of that in one sitting!  And what if you had lost that post after all the time you put into it!  I plan to chip away at the information you provided as we move along  with soloman...

You have clarified some of the questions I had - knew much about Spain during this time - but Portugal's history always blended into Spain's -

I was particularly interested in your conclusion - "I just see Saramago writing from 21st century sensibilities and making light of what was serious stuff in the sixteenth century."

Yes, I see that too, Barb...Saramago interrupts his discourse  from time to time, interjecting 21st century comparisons - I think he's making certain that  we realize what he is up to.  But I have another question for you.  Do you sense that he is including us in his satire as well?  All mankind, all humans, no matter when we live... as he finds the human common denominator in his characters in all of us?
 -  I'm feeling that.

JudeS - "The King and Queen are REAL PEOPLE not royal cutouts.  Saramago "scrapes away the pretence that  covers up the outward life of the nobility and turns the king into a living, breathing human being.  not particularly likeable but very real."

This isn't wicked satire, though, is it?  PatH, writes that he "respects the people he's laughing at - you also sympathize with them and feel sorry for them, stuck in their rigid system. He feels affection for them and sympathizes with them, stuck in their roles."

Do you get the idea that he feels the same way about those of us in the 21st century as well?  I feel that.  Wonder if you are squirming in recognition of your own personal shortcomings...

Interesting information, JoanK - more on white elephants later -  but my little terrier needs to go on a little journey right now...

[BarbStAubrey]

Jude I love the quote you chose from the text - I had a chuckle again, re-reading the posts from yesterday. Even without the story just the choice of words so archaic brings a knowing smile.

JoanP I think you are right - we are included - someplace I am vaguely remembering doesn't humor have to include the audience or it doesn't work. I have not looked up Satire yet but is all Satire written with humor? I am wondering so much Satire to me is written tongue and cheek - would that be considered humor I wonder?

Anyhow Saramago does bridge with humor in this account - I can almost see him telling it with a large bit of winking to his collected audience.

JoanK thanks for the photo of the white elephant - I've never seen a white elephant even in a documentary on TV so it was nice to have an image.

Found this site that I am loving - it has photos of most European nations but more important there is a series of maps from the 1st century and every century there after - seeing the change in the map is marvelous - you can almost names the skirmishes and wars that preceded all the changes.

Here is the link to the photos of Portugal - I wonder JoanP can you tell us about any of them - were these taken in areas where you visited?
http://www.euratlas.com/Atlas/portugal/index.html
And here is the page where you can look at the map of Europe for each century
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1/index.html

[JoanK]

See if I can get the link to take us directly there:

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/index.html

This is fascinating. "Portugal first appears in 1200, before Spain is unified. Then, after Spain is unified (14-1500), Portugal disappears in 1600 and reappears in 1700.

[JoanP]

Love those pictures, Barb, but we didn't visit Portugal - just Spain and then London this trip.  The pictures could have been taken in Spain though.  My sister loved Portugal on her visit.  Maybe I can get her to turn on her computer...

JoanK, those dates seem to indicate the upheaval between Spain and Portugal - Spain's control over Portugal.  I noted something from Barbara's post that probably answers the question of what happened to Portugal during this period -

 "Reading the history of Spain it is easy to see how the northern Spanish used the Church as a rallying cry to push their control over all of Spain. At the time Portugal is not a separate nation although a separate people. Those taking back the Iberia Peninsula are welded together all committed to one point of view under the banner of Jesus as interpreted and celebrated by the leaders of the church."

[JoanP]

JoanK, soloman sure fits the definition of a "white elephant."  Somewhere in these pages, we read that once accepted, this gift cannot not be returned - or gotten rid of without hurt feelings.  I remember being gifted with a huge painting.  White background with a big black circle floating in the center.  Framed in a black frame.  Was told it was for my living room right over the couch.  Had to keep it there - until we moved.  The artist was quite a temperamental friend.
Who gives artwork to a friend?  Well, who gives elephants? I found this -


"Elephants disappeared from Europe after the Roman Empire. As exotic and expensive animals, they were exchanged as presents between European rulers, who exhibited them as luxury pets, beginning with Harun ar-Rashid's gift of an elephant to Charlemagne."
history of Elephants in Europe

Here's how soloman came to Portugal...

"Suleiman was transported from the Portuguese colonies Kotte in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Goa in India to Lisbon,
This young elephant bull was born in captivity in the royal stables of Bhuvanekabahu VII (r. 1521-1551), King of Kotte (Ceylon). The elephant came as a small baby to Lisbon with the entourage of the Kotte Ambassador Sri Ramaraska Pandita, sent to Portugal on a special diplomatic mission in 1542. This was the first Asian embassy to ever come to Europe and the baby elephant was seen as both a diplomatic and auspicious gift for the Portuguese monarchs, John III and Catherine Suleiman the Elephant

Notice that the king and queen paid no attention to their gift for two years.  No wonder they were happy to pass him on to the archduke.  Do you think the archduke really wants this "gift"?

[JudeS]

Oh Joan, you hung that painting over your couch and had to look at it every day.

The King will do what we all do when we get a white elephant; Say "Thank you so much. What a wonderful gift" and then will not pay any attention to it again.

I have a lot of experience with "white elephants".  Every year I have a Hannukah party with about 25 guests. Each must bring a white elephant gift. Something they can't use but are SURE someone else is pining for. The imagination of man is umbeleivable. The rules are simple : numbers are chosen and number one chooses  a well wrapped gift.  Now this gift can be taken away by any of the next 24 guests.  Say it is a nice new shiny cup and not an old pair of slippers, then another guest can remove it from its owner.  Three transfers and the gift stays and can't move again.
This game goes on and on with people begging others not to take the gift they want from someone who has temporary custody.  Afterwards people swap and change with freedom. Hopefully everyone goes home happy.  Just in case there is a long face we vote on the two people who got the worst gift and they receive a nice gift from the Party Hosts (Us).

You might think that those folks that consistently find their gifts voted the worst, year after year, would learn something but they never do.

[PatH]

Do you think I could persuade people that the "white elephant" objects in my attic are worthy of worship and they should take them away and venerate them?

[JudeS]

PatH
Wrap them really nicely and people will be lining up!

[JoanP]

"The King will do what we all do when we get a white elephant; Say "Thank you so much. What a wonderful gift" and then will not pay any attention to it again."

Sometimes I think I understand things too literally.  I saw the king and the queen really quite pleased with the gifted elephant when they received it.  It was a sign that someone thought they were quite important, quite worthy of such a rare and magnificent gift.  The gift makes them look good and important.   But you're right - once their importance was recognized, the elephant had served his purpose.  He AND his mahout were left on their own in the stables, out of thought, out of mind - for years.

But now this same king and queen are wracking their brains for a suitable gift - the monstrance is out - though it would have been quite remarkable a gift for this king and queen.  But they must be careful about giving such a gift to the archduke, considering his Lutheran leanings.  Don't you think the archduke would be just as pleased at they had been receiving this rare and luxurious gift?   He will look good and important to everyone who flocks to see this animal - he'll think they are coming to see him.  But what will happen to poor soloman once the novelty wears off?

I was a bit puzzled about the queen's feelings, once soloman was gone.  Was that all an act?  Was she truly saddened at his leaving.  I know she came up with the idea of giving him to the archduke.  How could she have cared for him? - She had never once gone to see him in the two years since he'd arrived.  But we read how hard she took it when it comes time for him to leave.  Maybe she'll miss the attention - the respect  as owner of such a beast when he's gone?

PatH - I've been trying to remember just where I stashed that painting.  I received it in the late 60's, early 70's.  Maybe there are some who would consider it "important" today.  And admire me as one with such discerning taste for having acquired  such an important piece of art...  Now you've got me wondering if it's in my attic still.  

Jude - you seem to have thought up all of the possible problems associated with your "white elephant" party.  With my terrible memory, I might rewrap and bring along my "prize"  the following year.  Would that be a real "no no" at your party?

 

[JoanP]

During our prediscussion of this book, Jude posted this comment from the author -

"If  I had not been having supper in a restaurant called The Elephant this book would not exist. Certain unknown fates came together that night in the city of Mozart in order that this writer shoud ask:What are those carvings over there?"
The carvings were small wooden sculptures lined up in a row, and the first of them was Lisbon's Torre de Belem. This was followed by representations of various European buildings and monuments that clearly marked an itinerary. I was told that they illustrated the journey from Lisbon to Vienna made by an elephant in the 16th century,in 1551 to be precise, when Joao the third was on the throne of Portugal..............
I sensed that there could be a story in this......"

I found the restaurant - in Salzburg.  It's still operating.  Remember it  the next time you are in Salzburg.  It sounds delightful!

The Elefant Restaurant - Old Town Salzburg (note the elephant in the window?)

Have you been wondering what attracted Saramaga to this relatively unimportant historical incident in the first place?  Certainly not just to retell a story overheard in a restaurant -

When we look for a central character in these opening chapters, we seem not to agree on that.  Saramago writes that the elephant is the main character, followed by the mahout and the archduke.  We haven't met the archduke yet.   Should the question be - is there a central character?  Or do you feel it will turn out to be soloman?

[BarbStAubrey]

Wonderful photo Joan - thanks

Here is the historical background on the Jerónimos Monastery, Solomon's enclosure followed by the link with many photos of the Monastery in Lisbon.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/portugal/lisbon-jeronimos-monastery

there is a 'next' button on top of each slide that I cannot find if you view the large version of these photos

photos Jerónimos Monastery

Interesting - not sure yet the year of this journey to Valladolid past the River Tagus because in 1550 the river was moved -yes, moved at the behest of the King's Brother whose lands were being flooded by the river - here is the story River Tagus 1550

[JudeS]

JoanP
In answer to your question about rewrapping the same "prize" from last year.. You are close to reality.  there are certain gifts that reappear year fter year brought by different people who forgot its source.  Lots of laughter around all these events.

Now to get down to serious busines. "Is there a central character?"
My answer is a strange one....The historical period is the central character. A time when most people have never encountered an elephant. A time when the Catholic church was in power in many places but not everywhere.  A time when the NEW WORLD of the Americas and the Pacific isles had been discovered but were still"dark" to ordinary folk. NO means of mass communication, very little literacy and yet the Mahout is wise in the ways of man and beast. But does he understand Solomon or does Solomon understand him? Who is the leader and who the follower?
This trip is an eye opener in understanding the world of that time, its peculiarities, its power brokers and it's people.

[JoanP]

Golly Barbara...I had envisioned solomon and his mahout languishing away in a dim and dirty stable somewhere out of sight on the palace grounds.  Wasn't solomon filthy when they checked  his condition to see if he was fit for a gift?

I have to change my view of this, now that I see where he was kept for two years at the Jerónimos Monastery.  Am I understanding this correctly?  Were the royal stables at this sumptuous monastery?  I found this photo of the interior of the royal stables...now the National Carriage Museum -

Imagine the mahout living here with solomon!  In this monastery.  He must have kept a low profile, don't you think - considering the times?  A lonely life he must have led as an Indian among Christians?  Although he is "a Christian more or less."  [We find out more about what he means in the next chapters -]