Toni Morrison said that things don't go well for her characters when they mix with Western myth, and it's pretty clear that many characters get the shaft in this book. But her use of Western imagery and naming sequences is particularly interesting, especially when compared with the other names characters end up with, like Guitar.
First, the cave. Caves are an important feature of Greek Mythology as well as Song of Solomon. In Song of Solomon, events in a cave set off much of the tension in the book. Here, Pilate and Macon kill their father (probably), and leave gold behind, which causes the split between Macon and Pilate. (The gold also highlights a deeper split in their natures over their philosophy on money in general. Macon thinks it's the only true freedom, while Pilate and her family are happy to live without-- Hagar constantly gives away her winnings).
Flight: Professor Miller suggested that Milkman could be compared to Icarus, who flew too close to the sun, crashing and burning on his arrogance. I think that the hero's journey Milkman undergoes demonstrates his success rather than failure.
However, when looked at from a woman's perspective, Song of Solomon does not appear so triumphant. One person who always struck me as a depressing figure in Greek myth is Penelope, the wife of Odysseus. Penelope is the soul of loyalty, diligently turning away a hundred eight suitors while Odysseus philanders with Circe and other women. Worse still is Ariadne, who helped Theseus navigate the labyrinth and was abandoned by him. In Song of Solomon, many women are held back by a double standard or abandoned, like Hagar and Sweet.
Circe, too, one of the most powerful people of myth, is sort of left haunting her own house.
While concepts in Song of Solomon come mainly from Greek mythology, many names are biblical. For example, Saul, the man Milkman fights with a broken bottle, is also (sha'ul)
שָׁאוּל, the bitter king of Israel who was fated to be succeeded by David. Milkman's fight against Saul makes him a David-like figure, though one wonders if Morrison is combining the story of David and Saul and David and Goliath, since David never fought Saul directly, and Milkman won with an unconventional weapon, just like David's slingshot in the latter fight.
Hagar's name, too, comes from the second wife of Avraham (Abraham) in the bible. Like the biblical Hagar, Song of Solomon's Hagar was cast out by her lover.
King Solomon is also referenced in Song of Solomon's title. King Solomon was gifted with wisdom, though he was punished for taking too many wives and had trouble with his children, who split the kingdom in two. In Song of Solomon, Milkman's great grandfather Solomon supposedly flew back to Africa, leaving his wife and 21 children. Later issues in the family may also hearken back to Biblical Solomon, such as the split between Macon and Pilate.
Though three books in the Hagiographa are attributed to Solomon (Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes), Song of Solomon probably refers to Song of Songs, which ostensibly deals with issues of love.
However, Song of Songs isn't the only book from its category mentioned in Song of Solomon. Milkman's mother is named Ruth (which is unlikely to be coincidence in a book that includes names like Milkman and Guitar). Biblical Ruth is another paragon of loyalty and love, who follows her mother-in-law into a foreign land after her husband dies, eventually remarrying to Boaz. Ruth is the ancestor of Solomon and David, connecting Song of Solomon's Milkman further to David. However, it is hard to see how Song of Solomon's Ruth herself compares to the biblical Ruth.
Though Song of Solomon's Ruth's husband never died, Ruth might have been better off if Macon was dead. It seems like Ruth has to deal with her husband being a living dead person- his name is Dead, their relationship is dead, but still he lives on to torment her. (Interestingly, Macon seems get more use out of his full name, Macon Dead, than any other Dead relative). Ruth seems to have an obsession with death-- it even says in the book that she dealt with death far more strongly than anything in life. It's almost as if Ruth is made to contrast with biblical Ruth, and to envy her for the love she gave and got. SOS Ruth has lots of love, but no one to accept it.
So, does anyone have any more allusions to Western concepts from Song of Solomon?
Riva, Great post! There are a few things that I just wanted to point out. Specifically I wanted to take note of the Biblical associations you pointed out. It makes sense that the characters you reference are exactly who Morrison would have been trying to mirror in her story. However, I do have a few criticisms with Morrison's comparisons.
ReplyDeleteFirstly with the comparison to Hagar. There are HUGE differences between the Hagar cast out by Avraham and the Hagar cast away by Milkman. Milkman's actions were done out of pure lust, disregard, carelessness, and a major lack in good character traits. Avraham's actions on the other hand went completely against his nature. In fact, if one is to view this through the eyes of "the hero cycle" this was one of Avraham's major test. He had to go against his natural inclination towards kindness and send Hagar away with her son, as her son was being a very much negative influence on Avraham's son Issac. This was a test for Avraham as he had to make sure that his kindness was being placed correctly. (For example, someone who gives all of his money to charity and leaves himself penniless without food, has misplaced kindness--there is a time and place for everything.) In fact, viewing Hagar as Avraham's lover is a complete perversion of the true story that occurred revolving around Avraham. (I am not criticizing you Riva, rather I am disagreeing with Morrison's choice of parallel.)
Secondly, the Solomon reference is additionally, an incorrect adaptation of the Bible Solomon. Solomon in the Bible married many wives and had many children, and he is criticized for it. However, he never ever abandoned them as Solomon did in this story. Additionally, he did not act in such ways 'just because' as it appears Solomon in this story did. He was working towards a goal of spreading wisdom (and G-d) to the rest of the nations, and this was how he proposed to do it in the most effective manner. If he would be able to transfer that to his wives, they could then transfer that knowledge to their respective countries. He did not succeed as he imagined he would, as when it comes down to it, he should not have married so many women, however, he did the best he could with the choices he made, and never ever abandoned them while trying to 'escape' from the reality himself, as Solomon in Song of Solomon does.
Lastly, Saul, in the Bible, is a terribly misunderstood character. He was not an evil man at all!! He was anointed to be king of Israel because he was such a righteous and fantastic individual. Some say that he does become a bit crazed towards the end of his life, and did make mistakes, however to depict him in the manner that Song of Solomon does, does not depict him in the manner he rightfully deserves. King Saul was truly a righteous individual whom we can all truly look up to with great admiration.
Your observations are very observant Riva! And if this is what Morrison intended by her name choices, I think the personifications of the Biblical characters were not done in a manner that serves justice to the incredibly righteous individuals in the Bible. I do not believe that portraying them in such a manner is a correct manifestation of reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks, Tamar. I'm happy you added the Biblic side of the story, since I didn't feel it fit with the original blog post but it definitely needed to be said. I'm not sure how much of what we know about the bible Tony Morrison knew, but I'll bet she knew she was using positive names for rather immoral characters. Tony Morrison did say something about her characters not doing well when they encounter Western myth (though when I tried to look up the actual quote the first thing came up was this blog post!), and I wonder if the names is meant to highlight that. These people are sort of squeezed into these names that don't fit; holdovers from a culture that wasn't originally theirs. People that don't have names from the bible get even more demeaning monikers like Guitar and Milkman. These borrowed names are almost tangible evidence of the culture that the characters in Song of Solomon lack.
DeleteI want to add to Tamar's analysis of the Hagar comparison. I love her point that Avraham was being tested and found it hard to push away Hagar as opposed to Milkman who did it willingly. I would like to add to this one more possible parallel, that I am not sure about how I feel about it. We know that Hagar is sent away and returns to Avraham at least once, and according to the Midrash, a 2nd time, after Yishmael has grown and Hagar improves her ways. This could be a possible, very flawed, parallel to SOS where Hagar returns at the end to try to get Milkman's attention.
ReplyDeleteTo return to Riva's analysis of Ruth, she seems to be the opposite, a foil perhaps. The Biblical Ruth is faced with the choice of money and material comfort without love or following Naomi, who needs her and being a recipient of charity. Ruth there choses to do the right, but difficult, thing and goes back to Israel with Naomi, becoming a beggar. Ruth in SOS lets wealth hold her in her position of unhappiness, and remains with her husband because of this. These two characters are faced with similar choices, and while the Biblical Ruth choses the harder of the two, SOS's Ruth takes the path of least resistance.
I think that Morrison did chose many of her character names from the Bible, but perhaps with less analysis and reading in depth (especially of the original) than we are doing
Hi Riva,
ReplyDeleteReally good overview of the meaning in the names of SOS, and what Morrison meant for them to reference. I really enjoyed the pictures too. I will not add to Tamar and Shuli's analyses, though I want to point out that Morrison would have been referencing the characters as she understood them from the Old Testament, the English translation of Tanach. She would not have had access to the biblical commentaries and exegetes that we have been learning, in the original Hebrew, all our lives. You can think of it as similar to the Karaite or Sadducee sects that had existed in history, who only recognized Tanach as an authoritative text, while rejecting Rabbinic commentaries. Basically, I don't see the point in dissecting exactly how much of the Oral Jewish tradition Morrison doesn't know. As far as I know, she's Catholic, and she's not a biblical scholar.
I'm going to be blunt: I don't see the point in pointing out all the flaws in her parallels.
So once again, thank you Riva for this concise summary of the meaning in the Western imagery and Western names in SOS.
A Western allusion that I thought Morrison could have been referencing is the Greek Myth of the Golden Fleece, where the hero is sent by the king on a quest to recover this fleece from a golden ram, which is supposed to bring glory and authority to the king. Likewise, Macon sends Milkman to steal Pilate's bag of gold, his symbol of authority in the world. Or maybe the golden ram is Hagar, and her status of a rejected lover brings Milkman the pretense of authority he desires. The fleece could be a reference to her coarse hair, that she obsesses over in the last few days before her death.
The pictures you included in your post add a story book quality. The comparisons you drew between the characters names and their biblical or historical origins gives deeper understanding to the novel. In using a persons name, and making the character similar to his or her namesake, it allows us to draw on other aspects of their personas that are not explicitly stated in the novel as a method to better understand the characters. Toni Morrison probably did this intentionally to allow her characters to be bigger than they are. At the same time, the focus of her novel was not to make a comparison to the bible as has been said above. It is good to draw on the fact that she did but it should not be the sole focus of analyzing the book. In your naming analysis you are missing the new testament related names, but if one doesn't know about something it is better not to write about it than write incorrectly. Or perhaps learn about it.
ReplyDeleteHi Riva, I loved your post about Song of Solomon and myth/ biblical sources, but I especially liked the pictures that accompanied it. I thought it was really interesting how you compared the characters in the novel to legendary figures we learned about in elementary and high school, such as King David, Saul, Solomon, and Hagar. I think that according to what Professor Miller said in class, this lends the book a classicism that puts it on par with higher works known for their universality. It was a smart move on Morrison's part, for she draws these parallels that virtually anyone with a little bit of biblical knowledge can understand. It was fun to be 'in on the secret' so to speak, to think about the characters and then apply them to their biblical namesakes, much in contrast to the allusions in TS Eliot's The Wasteland, which had numerous references to high academia, all of which I did not understand and pick up on. Although great literary scholars are able to decipher his coding, the common reader probably can't, and thus, is one more reason why I especially liked Song of Solomon over any other novel we read in this course.
ReplyDelete