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
       Nov. 15 - 21  pgs. 101- 154
       Nov. 22 - 30  Final week   

   

*****

Some Topics for Consideration
Nov. 22 - 30 

1.  What was the mahout's more grievous offence, training the elephant to kneel before the basilica in Padua, knowing he was creating a "false miracle" or selling the elephant's hair for profit -  to cure baldness?   Do you see his relationship with Solomon changing after this?

2.  Why is the archduke  concerned that word of the "miracle" will reach Trent?      What did you understand by the reference to   his "painful melancholy" What is his relationship with the hierarchy gathered in Trent?
 
3. Did you notice the narrator's comment regarding a storyteller's use of periods, and sometimes even a comma?  Are you getting used to their absence in Saramago's novel? 

4. Was the act of heroism, saving the little girl,  due to Suleiman's quick thinking, or did  his mehout prod him to do it?  What was the outcome for the elephant and his mehout?

5.  Do you believe, as the narrator tells us, that history is selective?  Why is it better to be a novelist? What does he mean when he calls the novelist a "liar"?

6. As he considers the political situation in Europe, is it understandable why  Fritz is worried about his future in Vienna?  Why does he think of himself as a parasite?  Do you think Soloman notice if he was replaced?      

Contact:  Joan P

[JudeS]

JoanP
I am aware of Saramagos "Infantile political attitude"but I will give you an analogy.

Last week I went to a marvellous exhibit of Camille Pisarro's art. It was simply magnificent (Palace of the Legion of Honor San Fran.CA). Now Pisarro was, all his life, an extreme Anarchist-Socialist. Circumstances of his life brought him to that belief.
I did not go to that exibit to judge Pisarro's political beliefs but to enjoy his art.
Perhaps that is not everyone's attitude but it is mine.
Should we judge Tolstoy's work by his peculiar political beliefs? I don't think so.

I love Saramagos writing despite his politics. This is the forth book of his I have read and his talent is enormous. Perhaps he is not everyones cup of tea but let's get back to his book.  Although I am a therapist and could analyze this person and his book to death I have kept away from that because this is not a site for psychologists  but for literary comment.

[JoanP]

Jude, I love Camille Pissarro's art too!  My husband will tell you that he is probably my favorite impressionist painter - I think he was Portuguese too, wasn't he?  I don't understand why he was not popular during his lifetime, sold so few paintings.  (Maybe because he was an "extreme Anarchist-Socialist."  Juuust kidding!)

What I love about Pissarro's work - it is so peaceful and calming, the trees, the sunlight - One of my favorites was one he did in Pontoise.
Never was there a hint of his political views.  Saramago, on the other hand, invites us into the political world, asks us if we've noticed his attitudes.  His views are just below the surface, sometimes surfacing.  You can't help but wonder what he's up to - because he keeps surfacing...

That said, I agree with you - I too am eager to get back to the story - and will repeat my morning's post - directly preceding yours -
Would love to hear your thoughts on these questions - or any other aspect of the story before we turn to the final chapters of the book -

Repeated from this morning's post -

 

But we need to get back to our story, Solomon/Suleiman is moving slowly on the path to Austria...though swiftly to a conclusion.

Harold Bloom referred to Saramago's novels are "endlessly inventive, endlessly good-natured, endlessly skillful."  
Do you get the feeling that the elephant's future in Austria is not promising?  As much as I'd like to believe this is a charming tale of the relationship between an elephant and his mahout, it appears that both of them are about to leave the friendly Portuguese convoy for the unknown north.  Wasn't that a touching goodbye between the captain and Subhro - even Solomon got into the mood? - as if he knew what was going on...  The captain and the mahout have become friends - because of Solomon we are told.  I hadn't noticed this growing friendship - had you?  Perhaps the responsibility of shepherding the elephant on the walk, defying the army and delivering him into the archduke's hands, had led to the friendship.
As we walk into the concluding chapters of the tale, who do you see as the narrator?  Who is telling the tale?  What is the mahout's role here?

[JoanK]

JUDE: "Should we judge Tolstoy's work by his peculiar political beliefs? I don't think so."

I don't think so either. I love Tolstoy, but I also love the picture of him given by Jane Addams, the founder of the famous settlement house in Chicago. She was a great admirer of Tolstoy and journeyeed to Russia to meet him. They had dinner out on the lawns of his estate: a long table covered with fancy linens and silver where servants served the Countess and the guests an elaborate dinner while Count Tolstoy and his daughter, true to their adulation of the peasants and peasant life were served crude brown bread and home made beer.

Addams came back saying maybe I should make my own bread, but when would I find the time?

I am told that Tolstoy is blamed for much loss of Russian soldiers' lives during the World War, because the Russians believed his crazy theories of history. Good grief! I can't believe anyone was that stupid. tolstoy is great in spite of these beliefs of his, not because of them.

Thank you for reminding us to read Saramago in the same way.

[BarbStAubrey]

I hear you Jude and yes, you guessed it - I am not able to agree - I see Saramago using satire and a delicious ability to write comedy - he even makes us smile as he compares what we know today to what may have been experienced during the Medieval march from Portugal to Austria - However, I see this book as Saramago proselytizing his beliefs using satire to make his points rather than knocking on our door with the latest copy of Watchtower.

I can admire his ability to tell a story, paint pictures with words, put together engaging sentences, write a page turner as we say to describe his ability to convey curiosity and our anxiety to find out what happens next - however, a piece of literature, especially for literary acclaim, I expect to touch my feelings, my values, and my thoughts, even challenge my perceptions - either adjust or shine a light on what I have taken for granted.

Now that is what I expect from a book by a world renown author - it is not what I expect every reader to expect - In light of my expectation reading this book by Saramago I cannot help but see his references to - yes, brilliant - thanks for finding the connection in his bio - authority and the Catholic church.  

He has enticed me to do additional reading, to learn more about this time in history. I did not know his views were based in Communism and I do like what Bloom says - not a quote but to the affect Saramago's views are elemental - and so, where I do not read Tolstoy's, satire the History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev,  or Sterne's, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, or Chaim Potok's, The Gift of Asher Lev, or another satire about politics in religion, Anthony Trollope's, Barchester Towers without being cognoscente of the political and religious views of the author just as, I could not see a discussion limited to the talent of the author to create an artistically written novel.

In these discussions I am delighted that we do have Senior Learn folks, like you Jude,  who can see and remark on the artistic talents of an author, often seeing things I miss and yes, it would be nice if Saramago was only writing factual history but he makes all sorts of snide comments that cannot be ignored or, maybe that I cannot ignore. Also, true to most of the books we choose to discuss we include placing the story in historical context.

None-representative art is not as easy to define as political however, there is much 'Great Art' that carries a political message – example, in Mesopotamia the portrayal of kings was to propagate a positive message – Howgarth  paints both moralizing and satirical art - Diego Riveria's and Picasso’s murals, Goya, Military art of battle scenes glorifying the victors, Religious art, John Steuart Curry’s, Tragic Prelude, Benton’s Cut the Line, Ilya Repin’s, Beggar - the political art commissioned by Stalin or, here in the States, the art depicting the rise of Unions – even Andy Warhol created political art.

I think we enjoy visual art as we do literature if we knew the background and history of the times depicted and if the artist was expressing his thoughts or the thoughts of whoever commissioned the art. There are some visual artists like Portugal’s Cardoso, Da Silva and Isaura  Xavier – whose art was not political or religious where as, early Portuguese artists were limited to academic art supported by the King, that propagated religion. I would imagine that narrow view of academic art is another burr under Saramago's saddle that he may see as, 'but for the grace of when I was born in history there go I'.

I wonder if Saramago was one of the last true Communists – not Stalin’s version but the theory of Communism that many intellectuals saw as a fair and equitable system.

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow – OK here is some history that at first blush I thought was one individual author’s perception of history – but no – it is like there are two histories that run side by side and we only have common knowledge of one history.

Seems in the 8th and  9th century the Moslems dominated North Africa, Southern Spain, Sicily and the Tyrrhenian Sea cutting the Mediterranean off to Christian Trade and clogging Europe. The only solution was to break the Moslem blockade - but how with no Navel Force.

Narbonne, at the time part of Spain, was at the end of the route by which goods came from the East. Jewish merchants acquired products from Europe and moved them to market establishing suppliers East as faraway as the Orient.

Jewish sailors is not a vision that comes easy – I have pictures in my head of Jews being intellectuals, scholars, bankers, merchants, tailors, financiers even classical musicians. I know from some movies and logic there were Jewish farmers, wine makers and shepherds but Sailors just never crossed my mind. I did read a few years ago that when Isobel and Ferdinand kicked the Jews out of Spain some became pirates who sailed with the likes of Blackbeard and that was not an easy picture to make.  However, Jewish sailors and agents reached India long before Vasco da Gama and China long before Marco Polo. Jewish merchants and sailors were known to Charles, his heirs, the kings of the Holy Roman Empire as builders of cities and masters of the wholesale trade.

The International Jewish merchants, were known as Radhanites whose exploits are known and shared among scholars – Look it up – even Wikipedia has a page about Radhanites - Amazing - B. Netanyahu includes pages about their importance in The Origins of the Inquisition and in God’s Crucible Islam and the Making of Europe by David Levering Lewis, the Jews of Narbonne after Pepin are called the children of Ishmael.

Lewis explains in the 8th century in Cordoba, Sephardic Jews owned apothecaries and Jewish merchants brought cork from the east. During the late 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas is using phrases like, “Jews and Moors of Spain” all while Arabized Jews are moving goods across the Mediterranean from Iran and further east.

El Cid is battling Moors, taking back Spain, the massacres of  Muslims it enshrined in Chanson De Roland and Pope Innocent III convenes the most important council of the Middle Ages, the Fourth Lateran Council authorizing crusades for the Holy Land and prescribing compulsory dress code for Europe’s Jews and Muslims.

[BarbStAubrey]

Problem – During the Reconquest in Spain and Portugal re-population is needed to keep the enemy from regaining land lost in battle. Every class of delinquent, homicides, abductors and Jews are given royal forgiveness. The Kings invite Jewish settlers to their kingdoms, especially, those willing to man garrisons and work fields adjacent to the forts; and craftsmen needed to keep clothes, weapons and troop equipment in good shape. Fighting wars leaves little time to train as a craftsman. Most important Jews are needed for their expertise as merchants to keep a steady flow of goods to the reconquered areas.

For 300 years Jews enjoy the appreciation of Christian Spain ignoring the directives of the Forth Lateran Council. As Christians took on the mantel of the occupations engaged in by Jews the circumstances of the Jewish community changes.

Then the biggie - the issue of usury is the cause célèbre of the marking and expelling of Jews - money lending is an illegal activity for Christians! The huge need for credit increases with urban expansion and financing the trade needs of an increased population.

Netanyahu for several chapters brings to the reader a rich history of securities leading to pawn to banking, tax farming [the collection of taxes is privatized] onto the guidance and supervision of the treasurers of the realm which invariably are Jewish advisors. Netanyahu tells us how, because of financial-need, Kings defend certain, usually wealthy, Jews from the Church leadership bent in their drive against Jews. Individual rejections and jealousies between members of the clergy, cities, between kings and clergy and the ongoing power struggles between nations and empires related to commerce all play a part in bashing Jews as the fall guy and using the Inquisitions as a tool of power more than a tool of war or religion.

Narbonne a city built on the road to Gaul connecting Italy to Spain is home to an important Jewish religious school mentioned in the Talmudic and is one of the centers for Troubadours and Courtly Love. Courtly love is a by-product of knights, chivalry and the crusades including the Knight Templers and so it seems fitting that the Portuguese Commanding Officer should own a copy of Amadis of Gaul

But more, I wonder if Saramago was alluding to the story that Narbonne played in the history of Jewish merchants having trade routes to the Orient long before da Gama sails around the horn into the Indian Ocean and the irony of the protection of some Jews by the Kings who were Monarchs subject to the church.

[PatH]

Goodness, Barb, thank you for going to so much trouble to clarify the background of the time.  That's fascinating, especially the Mediterranean situation, I'll have to read more about it.  Presumably all this background is more familiar to Saramago's countrymen than it is to me.

One can certainly enjoy this book on several levels.  I don't agree with Saramago's politics, and I don't know a lot about the history, but I'm enjoying it on a different level.  His remarks about human foibles and rivalries are pretty universal, and his skill at composing amusing scenes and confrontations, and his clever one-liners are entertaining.

[JudeS]

Oh dear Barh, you are erudite and a scholar!
I was a teacher of Jewish History for a number of years but I kept away from that part of my brain since I wanted to stay focused on all the things that Pat mentioned (human foibles and rivalries, amusing scenes etc.).
I will add two sentences to your background since this is not about the Inquisition or Jewish history (who knows if Saramago was even aware of that period of history?).
1)Since the Jewish population was not allowed to own land they turned to Medicine (the great Maimonedes was Doctor to the Spanish Kings), Banking, Poetry (known as the Golden Age of Hebrew Poetry) , Trade , Mathematics and sailing (Columbus's Navigator was Jewish).(900 AD to 1492 AD)
2) During the Inquisition Jews were given three choices Convert, Die or Exile. There are a million stories there but I will desist.

You also say you want a book to challenge your perceptions well this book challenged mine concerning elephants, mahouts, royalty, and most of all the relationship between man and beast.

Joan P:
Pissaro was born in St Thomas when it was a Danish Colony. His parents were Jewish. He was educated mainly in France and also spent much time in Venezuela before settling in France where he married his Mothers Kitchen help and had eight children .
I will try to respond to your questions about the book but this came first.

[BarbStAubrey]

Yes, Jude I too had heard that Jews were not allowed to own land however, it appears that was adjusted in Iberia in order to have the recaptured land populated and to supply produce, agriculture and manual trade was the prime early need. Folks were thanked by the government with land. Because of land ownership the rise in local politics was possible that led to government positions which 200 and 300 years later is evidently where much of the tossing back and forth and purging Spain of Jews took place.

I realize when I read how Charles took little notice of the decrees enacted against the Jews by the Christians legislatures and granted the Jews of Narbonne basic freedoms and full protection of his government that were extended to all other Jews who wished to trade in his realm, continued by his heir, Louis of France that this was a small part of the Jewish history and a small segment of Jews - Seems like we do horrible things to each other because of the way we practice our faith and history is peppered with these horrors.

What blew me away was how far reaching the trade across Europe, Asia and Northern Africa was and how there is no mention of this trade as if Dom João the Third was the first and then, to read in just about every account available how da Gama was the first and St. Francis Xavier was the first in Japan and Marco Polo the first in China as if the Radhanites never existed. How did history become so altered?

I am reading how Maimonides was the physician to the court of the great Sunni sultan Salah al-Din and leader of the Jewish community of Ayyubid and writer in Arabic, in addition composing the book that would represent the highest triumph of Arabic Aristotelian scholarship. That his medical tracts remained standard reading in Europe until the Renaissance.

In school we do not hear about the greats in history except for those in European History and in our own National history - with all the TV programs we no longer have programing that puts us in touch with the history of man - too bad because there are more role models like Maimonides that walked the walk than having to turn to fantasy heroes like Captain Marvel plus, we could all have a helping of appreciation for the greats in all cultures that rival those we do study in the western culture.

I still would like to get to the bottom of why it took me two months shy of 79 years of life before I even heard of Jewish merchants connecting the East all the way to the Orient with Spain and France and why there is no word of this in the history I easily find online.

If Saramago did nothing more than chase me to research more history based on his snide and satirical remarks his book about an elephant and his master did well - and in fact that relationship between the elephant and his mahout may be 'the' metaphor for leaders trying to move a society or   move God to match their concept of God which Monarchs believe they master both God and society. I can even enjoy the metaphor of leaders in many a religious body today trying to move the faithful to their version of God.

Looks like just getting the most from an animal by providing, forage, rest, shelter from the elements and a time to show off as well as, a time to play, works for getting a group of folks to tackle a shared march to their goal. I wonder are those the lessons the Portuguese Commanding Officer learned although, if I remember it was the lessons from reading his book that had the biggest affect on him -

[JoanP]

"I will try to respond to your questions about the book but this came first."  JudeS

Judy, please don't feel that my questions in the header are all that important.  Your own questions and comments would be much appreciated.   The heading questions are just there to prod ccnsideration of some of the specifics in the story that we might not touch on.  For example, the relationship between the the man and the animal, between the mahout and his Solomon.  

I'm not sure how many of us have finished reading the book yet - will assume that by tomorrow we will all be done and we can talk about the rather surprising ending - without giving anything away.

Such posts here today!  Am going to go now and read them over once more before I can gather my thoughts.  
I would like to add one more thing regarding Camille Pissarro - (funny how these seemingly unrelated threads pull together and become related to the novel at hand) - -  I thought Pissarro was from a Portuguese family, so just now did a quick search -

"Pissarro was a descendant of a family from Braganza, a Portuguese medieval fortified city near the Spanish border. The family were Marranos - Sephardic Jews who had been prohibited to practice their own creed and forced to convert to Christianity or suffer at the hands of the Inquisition. Pissarro's parents, Frederic and Rachel, had married away from the synagogue. Pissarro's father had come from France to Saint Thomas in 1824 to serve as the executor of his late uncle's will and to help the widow sort out the affairs of the estate. Frederic's liaison with Rachel, his uncle's widow, resulted in their expecting a child, and they soon announced their intention to marry. However, the elders of the synagogue refused to acknowledge the wedding, which in some ways contravened Jewish religious tenets; it was not until 1833, eight years later, that the synagogue agreed to recognize the marriage officially."

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/fourpaintings/pissarro/life/jewish_ancestry.html

[JoanP]

"Presumably all this background is more familiar to Saramago's countrymen than it is to me." PatH

Pat, I don't doubt they were familiar with every reference and nuance in Saramago's  tale.  I had been feeling from the very beginning that I was missing something...starting with the relationship between JoaoIII and the archduke - why was it so important that that he be given just the right gift - the monstrance would have been offensive.  Now we know about the relationship - the struggle for secession after Charles V and the impact this had on the fragile religious and political situation.

Barbara has brought the period of chaos and unrest  under Portuguese reign to our attention...and Jude has just added to it.  And how about the Ottomon Empire?  Remember how we puzzled over Solomon's name change - to Suleiman.  Someone mentioned Suleiman the Magnificent - but why would the archduke Maximilian give this particular name to the elephant?  To some, this is not important.  To me, it was another unanswered question.  If you are interested, here's what I found -

"Under Charles V and his brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, the Habsburgs reoccupied Buda and took Hungary. As a result, in 1529, Suleiman once again marched through the valley of the Danube and regained control of Buda and in the following autumn laid siege to Vienna. It was to be the Ottoman Empire's most ambitious expedition and the apogee of its drive towards the West. With a reinforced garrison of 16,000 men, the Austrians inflicted upon Suleiman his first defeat, sowing the seeds of a bitter Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry which lasted until the 20th century.

"tall, but wiry, and of a delicate complexion. His neck is a little too long, his face thin, and his nose aquiline. He has a shade of a moustache and a small beard; nevertheless he has a pleasant mien, though his skin tends to pallor"  

[JudeS]

JoanP
Off the topic completely....
You are just two months shy of 79..SO AM I!
Perhaps we came from the same star?

Back to the book
One point I have been meaning to mention. The Elephant has the name of Solomon, one of the wisest of men in the Bible. He is a Jewish King.  Suleiman was a great leader of the Arabs. Was this change made to find favor in the eyes of the Austrians?
Changing Subhro to Fritz seemed a way to put the mahout down.i.e. "You are an ordinary fellow with the most common name on the street.  Just because you command that giant beast doesn't mean you're anything special".
This name change had to be symbolic.  But of what?
The only thing I came up with was this name change was made by the Archduke because he could do it and his word was law. It also seems to say "Careful now.  No matter what you seem to be you are still my chattel and I can do with you as I please."

[JoanP]

Jude - uncanny!  We're posting within a minute of one another, on the very same issue - Solomon's name change to Suleiman.  Now we know that Suleiman has recently been conquered - Is Maximilian celebrating the defeat?  He's parading the newly named Suleiman through towns - and will pen him up in Vienna.

I'm beginning to sense what PatH is  talking about - "One can certainly enjoy this book on several levels.  His remarks about human foibles and rivalries are pretty universal, and his skill at composing amusing scenes and confrontations, and his clever one-liners are entertaining."

It is very possible to enjoy the depictions of human weaknesses, foibles, rivalries, without understanding exactly what Saramago is referring to -  But some of us are curious to know the background of the story - and feel that the author is inviting us to do so.  Maybe he's inviting his Portuguese countrymen  to his conclusion since they are more aware of the background?

I particularly appreciated his conclusion - "Archdukes, kings, and emperors, nothing more than mahouts or elephants."  

ps  Jude, you and Barbara share the zodiac similarities.  I'm a Gemini - can't you tell?

[BarbStAubrey]

I wonder if both monarchs were trying to make a point with their retainers - on page 15 we have the secretary to the king of Portugal explaining the elephant's name as suleiman, named after Suleiman the magnificent, sir, the ottoman sultan,  and the King answers with a gesture imposing silence, and then said, Solomon...

[BarbStAubrey]

I'm not going to embark on yet, another book but after the holidays i have always wanted to read about book about Suleiman and this has wet my appetite.

Jude I am the end of January - are you also a January birth? Actually I am an Aguarian

Interesting Joan we have a town just south of Austin that is beginning to be a suburb to Austin called Buda. It is an area where many Czechs settled, doing more farming than ranching.

OH yes, my Grandfather's name was Frederick and only English speaking folks used Fritz as an offensive slang way to acknowledge someone or put them down that I remember the mumbles between my Grandfather and my Father when it happened - I just looked it up and evidently Fritz was not considered an offense by the Portuguese either.

[JoanK]

BARB and JUDE: who knew I was so much younger than you. Won't be 79 for 9 whole months!

The name change is confusing. I had assumed that Suleiman is the Arabic version of Soloman. And Fritz! I'll bet there's all sorts of things here I'm not getting.

In fact, I feel that there are all sorts of things I'm not getting in the book as a whole. It's clever, funny, pictorial, but I keep feeling there is a whole different level that I just can't see. What EWALLY is the elephant's journey? Is it some kind of spiritual journey? Is the journey in the minds of the people around him, while the elephant stays rhe same? Is the elephant just a mirror where we see ourselves? What?

maybe I'll understand more when I read the end.

[BarbStAubrey]

JoanK we all have our interpretations - for me I tend to see analogies and metaphors in most novels - I wonder if you could actually nail down what is the elephant's journey - we know it took place during the middle of the sixteenth century - there is information online of what happened to the poor thing after being kept safe through the Nazi era -

What I am thinking is just as we put all sorts of meaning behind the bits and pieces picked up north of Houston from the capsule that exploded upon re-entry - the explosion, the space program and the bits and how and where the bits and pieces were found became a topic connecting Bible versus for many minister's Sunday Service for months - and so we humans seem to see messages in anything new and startling different than everyday matter or manner.

Certainly we read how Saramago uses the elephant as a symbol for some of his musings which seems to give the reader permission to do the same allowing us to realize this is not a story of simple straight history. There is a lot of conjuncture about what, how, where with only the when and the who narrowly defined. And even the who are being described with a broad stroke that is meant to make us at least smile - and so what does the elephant represent - Saramago at one point says God - and the question of time - who knows - String Theory would have all of us traveling time in a parallel universe so that the elephant could be on his journey now as we discuss the journey as if it was in the past.

[JoanP]

"In fact, I feel that there are all sorts of things I'm not getting in the book as a whole. It's clever, funny, pictorial, but I keep feeling there is a whole different level that I just can't see." JoanK

Maybe it's not important that we know of the historical events that were going on during this period - or even what each of the characters represented.  But the elephant.  We really ought to consider Solomon and his journey.  Or why retell the story?

Join the club, JoanK!    Barbara, so true- "Certainly we read how Saramago uses the elephant as a symbol for some of his musings which seems to give the reader permission to do the same allowing us to realize this is not a story of simple straight history."

Let's talk more about that poor elephant.  (Before we're done, I'd like to hear more about what happened to the real elephant, Barbara - and how long he lived after reaching Austria.)
But let's talk about Saramago's elephant today.  How old would you estimate he lived.  I read that Asian elephants lived 60-70 years.  What do you think caused Suleiman's death?  Sheer exhaustion - a broken heart?  I, for one, was speechless with the end of the story.

What did this elephant represent in the story?  He never spoke a word, or gave any real sign that he was doing anything more than respond to his mahout's training.  His actions were interpreted for us either by Fritz - or by the narrator - or by those spectators who viewed his miracles and heroic acts.  Is this Saramago's way of describing God and our interpretation of his actions?

[BarbStAubrey]

According to our book, that does agree with information available online, the elephant only lived two years after arriving in Vienna - evidently Solomon remained a curiosity stuffed on exhibit at the National Museum till WWII when for safety he was stored in the basement - sad and almost hate to say it aloud but the damp was too great and he was in no fit condition to ever see the light of day again so he was sold for shoe leather.

And yet, as awful as that sounds metaphorically if he was representing God and had any of the powers we associate with God, better to give a God like energy to our feet to help us walk confidently, powerfully, humbly in the right direction.

If Solomon was a metaphor for God as Saramago indicates then the value Solomon has for anyone not living where elephants earn their keep is as a novelty, a curiosity. Then if the elephant is to accomplish anything, even to mosey around on his own without eating the local orchards and gardens or banging into buildings he needs a mahout -

Not sure if Saramago is suggesting the clergy or the church authority [any church authority not just Catholic] or the faithful are represented as the master of God, as the mahout, who is not only Solomon's keeper but also, Solomon's master -

That part to me has legs - I see so many who decide who God is, what he wants from us, when he wants certain activities, or when God will look upon us favorably by certain acts, where acts should take place and how - we have given God a social role with expectations for God's behavior as we expect for our own behavior because of God.

As Joan Chittister says, "What is the role of religion? Should it be a private refuge or a public presence and how will we ever know?"

Using the precept that a book 'becomes' and as a reader we are part of that movement of becoming we can each see metaphors and allegories because we bring to the written page our own life experiences - personally I saw the elephant as the role we give any novelty or curiosity - lots of fame, we are curious but for the long haul we want what we believe will benefit us in our lives. Reminds me of a celebrity who gets their 20 minutes of fame.

I was intrigued with the notion of leading separate lives on the way to a goal. Going through the pass it was safer protection from being buried in an avalanche by bounding along in small separate groups rather than in the 'stay-together-line' suggested by the King. And maybe that is the message - to use your own sense of the world around you. If there is danger, according to the danger act accordingly.

And be aware if we choose a path that risks us to ice and driving snow a curtain of ice may cling to our backs - wow what a metaphor there - you could have fun for a week with that one.

Then the whole question of why we give or want such hoopla for our leaders. Even in a democracy we elevate the status of leaders by conferring on them and expecting certain valued accoutrement's.

With all this I see Saramago raising some interesting questions - Bottom line with Thanksgiving two days away I can only be thankful I am living in a place and a time when I can read and think and choose the who, what, where, when and how I pursue my spiritual life.

Happy Thanksgiving folks - I have to get with it now - my son will be here for our family celebration of  Thanksgiving followed by packing and getting the house buttoned down to be off for the next round of holidays.

JoanP thanks - this was fascinating for me because I do like to learn - and this little book was an open port to learn so much history and appreciation for other cultures. I've really enjoyed reading all the posts - November flew by as I looked forward each day to what new thoughts y'all shared - again, Happy Thanksgiving...

[JudeS]

Interesting how each of us are pursuing different threads in this story.  Weaving them together is the thing that is beautiful and fulfilling. It leaves us feeling warm and at peace even though there are colors that clash they somehow blend together    under our warm blanket. Something exists that wasn't there before. Lovely.

Now I pursued the thread of Ganesh the Indian God.Here are some tidbits from that reading.

In the Hindu religion, Ganesh, the Elephant headed God, brings joy and happiness to the family. He also may remove all the obstacles to  acheiving that joy and happiness.
Reading many legends about Ganesh I came across this interesting tidbit.Hindu Gods , when they take human form, do not perspire, do not have shadows and the flowers that adorn them never fade.
Of the many legends I read I chose this one to share since it may apply to "our" elephant, Solomon.
When  Ganesh had his head cut off in battle, his mother, the goddess Shiva,told her men to bring her the head of the first animal they come across..It was an elephant which symbolizes wisdom and she attached the head and made Ganesh  God of wisdom and happiness.

[JoanP]

Oh Barbara - that's the saddest story - My heart broke reading that the real Suleiman wasted away in a dark basement - alone and apparently untended. If he lived in Vienna for two years, in Portugal for two years and had come from Boa as a baby, I figure he was quite young when he died - 5 or 6 years?  Most likely with the same mahout all of his life?   Where was the mahout that got him all that distance to Vienna?  Do you think he was paid off with a bonus, bought a donkey and left Suleiman to himself, just as Fritz did?  There cannot have been other mahouts in Vienna who knew anything about the care of elephants.

I've been reading an informative site about Asian Elephants - Saramago must have done extensive research on elephants for this book -

"Many elephants do reach the age of 60, but few elephants reach the age of 70 because the teeth will be worn down and decayed to the point of them not being able to eat any more resulting in death by slow starvation."
"Once a captive elephant is weaned at the about the age of three, it begins life as a domesticated elephant under the care of its keeper or mahout.
A mahout traditionally is a highly experienced and knowledgeable individual with excellent elephant rearing skills.  A mahout must have an intimate understanding of his particular elephant and develop a bond of trust and affection that allows him to control the animal with simple verbal commands and touch.

Elephants are very loyal to their mahouts and they are often associated with supernatural powers because they control such a big animal. Ideally, this relationship will not end until either the elephant is sold or the mahout dies."   http://www.honoluluzoo.org/indian_elephant.htm

Were you as dumbfounded as I was to learn that Fritz had taken the money and left?  What did this mean?  Was it significant?  Was Saramago telling us something?
Judy, thank you for bringing up Ganesh...He was significant in this story too, wasn't he?  Will be back with thoughts on your post.
I'm trying to "do" Thanksgiving - plan to come in here whenever I need a breather... Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

[JoanK]

There was a program on last night on PBS about elephants. I couldn't watch: I was busy with something else, but I got snippits. They were talking about training mahouts (still called that ven though these were African, not Indian elephants). they said it took a year: the mahout had to develop a real bond with the elephant.

I found the end of the book a downer. It felt like he got tired of writing it, andf just reverted to a bare statement of the historical facts. maybe the climax is going through the Kyber pass, and it goes downhill from there.

[JudeS]

Joan P
Was that a joke-"going through the Khyber pass and downhill from there"?
It was sad at the end but truthful. Not all endings are happy.  That is why ,I imagine,  the book is called "The Elephant's Journey" and not something that promises happiness.

My house guests are arriving for a five day stay and tomorrow twelve more will join us at our Thanksgiving meal. So Happy Thanksgiving to you all.  I'll be in touch on Monday.

[JoanK]

That was me, not JoanP. A joke but also that's the way I felt

[JoanP]

Our site seems slow today, doesn't it? Too much celebrating yesterday, perhpas?  Hope you all had a happy Thanksgiving - whether you had a small turkey or a crowd.  Jude, were all those people at your house?  Hopefully it was warm enough to spill over outside in sunny CA?

Yes, it was your little joke, JoanK ...to convey your thought that Saramago was just too tired to do anything but send Fritz off on a donkey for a  warmer, friendlier climate - leaving Suleiman in the care of someone who knew nothing about caring for an elephant -
Personally, I thought the author had spent too much time researching elephants and history to just end it.  The real Suleiman only lived two years in a basement confinement, unbathed, uncared for.  Clearly his mahout was no longer caring for him either.  I felt the author was trying to make a point about the mahout and his feelings for his elephant.

I keep thinking about how Fritz "used'  Suleiman for his own profit.  Remember how he led people to believe the miracle was real, that the elephant's hair had supernatural powers?  Was this the first time we saw Fritz do anything that called his ethics into question?  I felt his so -called "love" for the animal was not so much based on concern and care for the elephant, but on what was in it for himself.  Come to think of it, Solomon was in pretty bad condition back in Portugal too when the king went to look him over as a possible wedding gift.  Remember how filthy he was?  In that same  link on Asian elephants above, I read this-

"The skin is about 1 inch (2.5cm) thick, however it is paper-thin on the insides of the ears, around the mouth and the anus. The skin contains no sweat glands and is soft to the touch. Skin care is an important part of an elephants lifestyle.  Wallowing plays an integral role in elephant society; it also serves as a way to protect the skin from insect bites, sunburn and moisture loss. A bath is important to both captive and wild elephants.  It not only cleans them, but is also relaxing to them.  Working elephants have to rely on their mahouts to give them daily baths.  Rubbing against trees and bathing are equally important in maintaining healthy skin."

So an alternative suggestion to the author's tiring of his story, perhaps we have the mahout revealing his true colors.  What do you think?

[BarbStAubrey]

I keep thinking about how Fritz "used'  Suleiman for his own profit.  Remember how he led people to believe the miracle was real, that the elephant's hair had supernatural powers?

JoanP I saw that as a direct slam on the Church - selling indulgences and venerating Saints is what if I remember were problems that helped spark the reformation - To this day pieces of bones, hair what have you of Saints,  at times, compared to cannibalism, are used by the church for special veneration that donations are asked - it was worse before the reformation in that indulgences - prayers and acts of piety, like a score card are given so many days of indulgence each - were actually sold and gobbled up by folks who were frightened of going to hell or purgatory and the number of days on an indulgence was supposed to be the number of days you were able to lesson your sentence so to speak.

Also, these human bits or even clothing that was attributed to have been worn by the saint were encased and sold like amulets that was supposed to keep you safe - like many folks had St. Christopher medals hanging on the visor in their vehicle - the amulets was usually worn on a chain or cord around your neck and a really powerful Saint the whole body was encased in glass - frankly that is a mystery because some of these powerful Saints the body never decomposes - anyhow, the faithful would come by the thousands, adding up to millions over the years or, like the route to Santiago de Compostela in Spain, the faithful would make a pilgrimage praying for cures and blessings - we have a modern version in Fatima where all the cures that involved crutches and wheel chairs are hanging and piled up and then there is a place in Czechoslovakia the same thing.

And so all this is selling bits and pieces or even the medals that were caste as a token and worn as an amulet were sold along with the blessings - frankly they did not fool around and hide the fact these sales were used to support the church - a shoe store sells shoes, polish and other aids for your feet - the Catholic Church sells miracles.

There are many priests who complain expressing that the faithful treat the religion like a cafeteria and yet, bottom line that is what the Catholic Church is - filled with all sorts of ways to express reverence and adoration as well as all sorts of ways to bring comfort on top of which there are 52 rites to the church so that there are 52 traditions some the Pope in Rome is not their supreme leader - some do not send a representative to an enclave of appointed church leaders - some are still to this day struggling with if Jesus was all God or all Man or both which the Roman Catholic Church struggled with for over 1000 years and anyone that wrote that Jesus was one or the other and not God and Man was condemned as a heretic.  

Oh shoot could go on here - one thought leads to the next so that soon there is a litany of anomalies represented in the church.  But bottom line Fritz was simply selling the hairs as any monk or local priest or bishop would have done at the time. My only guess is the Bishop needing a miracle to keep his people from straying as he would call it into the local Lutheran church was not seeing the marketing possibility of the miracle he arranged.

Some churches maintain themselves by tithing and others sell indulgences, prayers, candles, bits and pieces of God only knows what that is supposed to be a bit or piece of some saint, take up Collections or offerings during service, charge for Masses or Weddings or whatever the church and priest is used for - and then the practice of getting the rich and powerful to make up for their sins by building or repairing a church or even a whole monastery - on and on it goes - we are often uncomfortable with the economics of our spiritual life and yet, it is a factor that to the clergy is an ongoing issue like the National Debt that we know exists but few of us know specifics of how we personally benefit from what is paid for in the National Debt.

And JoanP from what I understand the elephant was on display for a couple of hundred years in the museum in Vienna and was only put in the basement to keep him safe during WWII which is when the damp took its toil. And another interesting note - Fritz returned to Portugal where he died - I think I read  he also died within 2 years of his return.

[JoanK]

My understanding was that Fritz didn't leave until after the elephant died. Did I misread it?

[JoanP]

Well, JoanK, I could have misread it too.  That would change things.  I remember how Suleiman saved the little girl he almost trampled.  Did the mahout have anything to do with this?  I read in the elephant link above that elephants have very poor vision.  I imagine Fritz had to prod Suleiman to let him know the little girl was in his path.
Saving the little girl is the miracle Fritz was hoping for to restore him to the archduke's favor.  And the archduke shook his hand, "ordered a generous tip, and with that money, he bought a mule on which to ride and a donkey to carry the box containing his possessions.  He announced that he was going back to Lisbon, but there is no record of him having entered the country..."

I suppose this could have happened two years after the arrival into Vienna.  It just felt as if he was rewarded and bought the money and left - earlier.

"Fritz returned to Portugal where he died - I think I read  he also died within 2 years of his return." Barbara

Now I'm confused.  Saramago writes "there is no record of Fritz having entered Portugal.  He must have either changed his mind or died en route."

It's good to know that Sulieman did not die in a basement, Barb, but he did die two years after arriving in Vienna, which was quite a premature death for a young Asian elephant who had an average life expectancy of 60 years or so- with proper care.

[JoanP]

Did you read about this - or see the report on TV? Yesterday, not hundreds of years ago...

MOSCOW — Braving sub-zero temperatures and a line stretching several kilometres, almost half a million Russians lined up this week to venerate a relic of the Virgin Mary brought to Moscow from Greece. The Moscow authorities said 400,000 people had waited outside Moscow’s vast Cathedral of Christ the Saviour since The Belt of the Virgin Mary relic arrived on Saturday. Around 82,000 were queuing on Thursday alone. In an extraordinary display of the strength of Orthodox Christianity in post-Soviet Russia, the faithful have stood in a line stretching five kilometres. The Belt of the Virgin Mary is believed to help women’s fertility and cure illnesses. It toured ten other Russian cities before arriving in the capital.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a fine difference here - one man, knowing that the "miracle" was not a miracle at all, decides to take advantage of the situation and sell elephant hairs as a cure for baldness and line his fat purse from those who believed.  This is something I hadn't seen in Fritz until now.  Perhaps it had been part of his makeup all along.  Or maybe he has changed since the Portuguese had turned him over to the archduke.

 

[JoanP]

Are you finding the site incredibly slow today?  Maybe it's all the Black Friday shoppers tyining up the lines. Are you having trouble in the west?  Maybe it's just a regional thing.

Will be back tomorrow - really want to chat about some  of the points you've made.  

[PatH]

It's so slow I don't even want to deal.  Same with other sites; Black Friday is swamping us out.  See you all tomorrow.

[BarbStAubrey]

S-l-o-w is even slower than slow - holy Hannah - dedication is our name today to try and chat with each other -

Anyhow I guess I do not see in Fritz a failing for selling the elephant hairs - he is learning how to be part of a culture very alien and so all he can do is follow the example of those around him - Plus his own situation appears to be tenable - he has to consider his future - there is no retirement benefits - his only hope is to be kept on as mahout in Vienna - he already is concerned suspecting he will be let go - he has no savings and it appears his income is low and so that and watching how his superiors attract money I just see him as an example of someone who is taking care of himself rather than throwing himself on the charity of others - he has no contacts or job skills so the best he could hope for is to sleep in some barn and beg for food as those in the song Good King Wenceslas where annually the large houses set up a shed on the road to leave food and clothing for the poor. Very few kept the shed all year.

As I recall without checking in the book it was the villages that approached him for the hair and he is smart enough to see opportunity - I just do not see him even as bad as the Bishop hoodwinking the folks in believing there was a miracle just to keep attendance up and for his flock not to abandon his preaching even though everyone is trying to head in the same direction regardless which church you pray - they are all heading to their version of God. 

Or maybe we expect the people to be better and more virtuous with a higher moral code than the clergy - Interesting to me is how economics, God and the church intersect. The church preaches lilies in the field but they do not live by lilies in the field and are as subject to competition with each other and their interpretation of a moral code as any shop or today's corporations.

[JoanP]

OK, I am going to try to amend my  perception of Subhro/Fritz - to me, he had been sort of an objective observer of the European culture, the church, the ruling monarchs, moving easily from one class to another, maneuvering and sometimes manipulating...not really fitting in anywhere.  Maybe he was like Solomon, the elephant, in this way.  For some reason, I had been considering the mehout  as someone above it all...Saramago's alter ego, maybe?  Until he began to act like the natives...

Barbara, you suggest him as an immigrant, making his way the best he can in a foreign culture, with strange ways that he must learn in order to survive.  Somewhere in the book, Saramago writes of the immigrant who adapts to his new land with an energy he did not possess in his homeland.  Does anyone remember the context?  I know I'll never find it.
If we think of the mehout as someone who is trying to survive so that he will be able to make it in this new environment - and continue to care for Solomon, as only he can.  He's doing it FOR Solomon, perhaps?

[JoanP]

Before we broke for Thanksgiving, we were beginning to share our observations of Saramago's elephant.  I was thinking at the time that it was too bad Elephant's Journey was Saramago's last novel, published posthumously.  It would have been really interesting and helpful, to track down interviews in which he let us in on how he saw this elephant.  Or maybe he would have avoided such questions.

Barbara, you see Saramago's elephant as representing God.  Personally you "saw the elephant in the role we give any novelty or curiosity"-

I enjoyed watching the elephant's position in the convoy throughout the journey.  Sometimes he was up front in the lead, jockeying for postion with the archduke.  And sometimes the army led, as when they entered Vienna.  Was Saramago saying  these are the changing positions that God, or religion play in our lives?

Jude I remember you were likening Solomon to Ganesh, an elephant symbolizing wisdom...and happiness.  It's true that Solomon was greeted with great joy and happiness as he passed through the towns and villages. And then he became associated with the miracle - and his popularity increased.
It became clear to those in the know, that Solomon's miracle was not what it seemed.  There is no proof that he was capable of the supernatural, worthy of reverence...
Jude added that Saramago wrote a sad, but truthful ending.  "Not all endings are happy."  I don't know how Saramago could have provided a happy ending to his story.

Let's continue today to consider both the elephant and his mehout.  Some of his critics have called this novel, "Saramago-lite."   Do you agree?



 

[BarbStAubrey]

Joan it is the villagers who think that the elephant was being cast as God...They woke the priest with their concern and the priest says that God is in all creatures - however, they parse words when they say that none of them is God.

Just as Saramago describes the ladder as a symbol, like an small reliquary worn round the neck or a medal bearing the figure of some saint. With that the reader realizes metaphors, analogies and symbols are meant to abound in this story and I see the elephant as the church, any church more than as God.

I am thinking of that story of the nine blind men in India who are asked to touch and describe an elephant and that is how I see most religions when they decide the who, what, when, where and how of God. I do see them so busy deciding what God wants and painting pictures of who God is and when it is most pleasing to God to do this or that or how to revere, adore, honor, and even obey their interpretation of God that I see most religions as man made inventions of novelty or curiosity.

However, within most religions are theologians that help us understand our soul and our relationship to the universe and to each other. St. John of the Cross helps us really understand Hope in the context of Faith, Hope and Charity. Meister Eckhart really helps us understand the gift of grace, our soul and our soul's relationship to God.  

I see too many trying to define God with heightened human facilities like; goodness, love, wisdom, morally perfect, healer, compassionate, mastery, just, forgiving, as if God is some super human blown up symbol like Burning Man of the annual Arizona desert celebration.

For me, I can buy better Whitehead when he describes God rather than being the chief exemplifier God is the whole of reality that is "becoming" as the universe expands and we continue to expand our knowledge and tap into the power of the universe.

As such, I describe God as power and see God much like the power of electricity - when we decide we need some electric energy we plug in - we do not plug in expecting the energy to guide us how best to utilize the power - that is our free will.

We do not expect electricity to be kind, wise, virtuous etc. - these are all characteristics agreed upon by society with one group often defining for instance kindness differently than another.

When Joan Chittister, Benedictine explains that religion is only a way to get to God and the rest is our journey she uses a Sufi example  - As the Sufi says, "If you leave us Master how will we know what to do?" "I am nothing but a finger pointing to the moon, perhaps when I am gone you will see the moon." She further says, "It is God that religion must be about, not itself. When religion makes itself God, it ceases to be religion. But when religion becomes the bridge to God...every time dogmatism reigns, religion is diminished."

I see many religious in agreement with Saramago except they have come to different conclusions for themselves - but then, we do not really know the heart of Saramago only what and how others describe him upon reading his work.

The season is taking us by storm again as again we have many who bemoan the lack of understanding what we are really celebrating and so if ever the example of religion being a curiosity and novelty this is it...

As to Saramago-lite - I am not sure I understand what that means - I do see his reference to several of his other novels in this story and so maybe that is what they mean.

[PatH]

My understanding was that Fritz didn't leave until after the elephant died. Did I misread it?

That's how I read it too, though it's hard to be sure.

[JoanP]

Golly, things are moving so slowly - feels like we're pushing through snow with the elephant's convoy!  
Does anyone have any idea why the archduke chose this time of year to make the journey?  With his pregnant duchess, no less?  I liked Saramago's little aside, in which he talked about how selective history is - It is on record when the journey took place, but none of the particulars.  Do you agree with Saramago, that history is selective in what is recorded, and therefore not the whole truth.  Smiled when Saramago said Fiction was better than History, but also called himself a "Liar."  He did that, didn't he?  I'm not misreading what he wrote?  I'm wondering how close to the actual truth Saramago's tale of Solomon's real mahout actually was...  My guess is that the archduke's journey at this time of year, had something to do with the Council of Trent - and his efforts to calm the Lutherans in his land. 

It makes me feel better about the mahout - if he did stay and care for  Solomon those two years in Austria.  They can't have been very happy years - or why the premature death of the elephant?

I'm going to look more closely at your comments, Barbara.  I see that you are clarifying - that you did not say you saw the elephant as a god, or God, but you were referring to the villagers who regarded him this way.  Will be right back - if post will reload before it times out.

[JoanP]

I see many religious in agreement with Saramago except they have come to different conclusions for themselves - but then, we do not really know the heart of Saramago only what and how others describe him upon reading his work. Barbara

Again, I find myself wishing that S. lived beyond the publication of his book.  He might have revealed what was in his heart when he wrote this book - in interviews.  Others who have read many of his books have referred to this novel as "Saramago-Lite" - but as we try to understand what he is saying here, I find it is anything but "LITE" -

Consider what he has accomplished here.  We are talking seriously about God and how we view him.  Anything but light conversation. And look at the questions he has us thinking about.  We aren't sure what the elephant or the mahout represent.  How did the archduke really regard Solomon?  Did he leave him to languish in captivity until he died an early death, as JoaoIII did in Portugal let him spend those two years in Portugal?-  Is there a message here?  Who do you see as the central character?  Is there one?  I guess I'd have to say it's the mahout...but really want to hear from you, once Marcie and Ginny figure out how to clean the molasses out of our engines...

[JudeS]

After a trying but loving four days I am returning to the arms of Senior Learn. Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving.

I am rereading the whole last part of the book with an eye to its religous undertones.It is somewhat  a different story when read with this mindset. Beforehand I had seen only the scene with Solomon learning to kneel for the "miracle" as the only religous part of the book.
If read in this light the book may very well be taken as a satiric view of Catholicism. However there are barbs about so many things: The life of the rich as acompared to the fate of the poor, fate itself, animals and men, the weather, the mountains, the lives of soldiers etc., etc,

I will venture a guess that Saramago lite means that he is shooting his barbs at many oblects not with one specific target in mind. The other three books I have read of this author are definitely all shot at a specific target though the target is different in every book. it also may mean that this is basically a humorous approach to a book with a tragic ending.
Many critics compare the author to Cervantes. Not having read that author leaves me at a disadvantage.