Is the challenge of prohibition the oldest narrative device after And then… And then… And then…?
The Tree of Knowledge by Robert Fathauer
One of the very oldest stories we know (which has plenty of And thens…) turns on a prohibition.
And the LORD God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Genesis, Ch. 2. 16,17 (NIV) (my emphasis)
Everything has been hunky dory in Eden up to that point, and the LORD God has pronounced it very good. But as soon as you hear those words “you must not…”, you just know in your heart there’s trouble ahead.
Or what about Bluebeard?
Illustration for 'Bluebeard' by Arthur Rackham
“Here,” said he, “are the keys of the two great wardrobes, wherein I have my best furniture; these are of my silver and gold plate, which is not every day in use; these open my strong boxes, which hold my money, both gold and silver; these my caskets of jewels; and this is the master-key to all my apartments. But for this little one here, it is the key of the closet at the end of the great gallery on the ground floor. Open them all; go into all and every one of them, except that little closet, which I forbid you, and forbid it in such a manner that, if you happen to open it, there’s nothing but what you may expect from my just anger and resentment.”
‘Bluebeard’, by Charles Perrault
from The Blue Fairy Book edited by Andrew Lang (my emphasis)
What a set up! He actually gives her the key! It can only end in tears.
[I was delighted to come across this illustration by Arthur Rackham - it's clear he had been reading The Arabian Nights, probably Andrew Lang's version, still being published.]
What does the promulgator (fictional or factual) of a prohibition seek from their edict?
In Bluebeard’s case, we are never left in much doubt that he actively desires a breach, and puts the prohibition in place precisely so as to incite that breach and thus provide justification for the actions that he has intended to carry out all along.
And the LORD God? Tomes have been devoted to examining his motives in forbidding Adam to “eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and what, precisely, that phrase might mean. Did the LORD God really wish to protect Adam from the dangers of knowing about the possibility of evil and to keep him in eternal blissful ignorance? Or did he hope that Adam would be curious enough and brave enough to go for the breach?
Quickly stepping back from that particular theological quicksand, let us return to our three lovely ladies and the porter, as their day of delights draws to a close.
We get the prohibition three times, to make sure we don’t miss it.
Whoever talks about what does not concern him will hear what will not please him.
Written up above the door in gold leaf, no less.
And like Adam, like Bluebeard’s wife, the porter and the three one-eyed dervishes and the Caliph, his vizier and his executioner (the latter trio in disguise) – who have all turned up as evening comes on – all solemnly agree to be bound by this prohibition and ask no questions, in return for a bed for the night.
Oh dear.
The frolics are over, now something much stranger and darker is afoot. There is bizarre cruelty to animals, and many tears, and rending of garments, and tragic lovelorn poetry (a lot).
The amazed visitors are no longer enjoying themselves. But the Caliph cannot restrain his curiosity to know what on earth these women are up to. The hapless porter is unwillingly detailed to ask the dangerous question.
In a trice the penalty falls and the visitors who had been so generously offered a free bed are imprisoned and imperiled.
Is this what the housekeeper, the doorkeeper and the lady of the house intended all along?
oh my. I wonder if “intention” is ever simple? Most people I know wrap their actions in so many levels of self-mystification that I wonder if they ever know what it is they want in life. (Do I? Not sure.) Clarity, the sort of rational clarity where one acts as logic insists, and never allows curiosity to lead one astray – what could be more rare? It seems to me that we humans are much more driven by curiosity than by self preservation.
One can argue that warlike scientific breakthroughs are a matter of “self preservation,” but when you read the writings of the scientists they typically are engaged by curiosity, and restrained only lightly by the notion of their inventions misuse for war.
Only later do they wring their hands and say “if I’d only known!”
So I wonder. I wonder about the self-preservation skills of those who ask forbidden questions. But I also wonder about the self-knowledge of those who create the game of “thou must not.” Do they have knowledge of intending ill? Do they see curiosity as the enemy of self-control and worth stamping out, and therefore see themselves as righteous upholders of morality?
Thou shalt not think of a pink elephant…
How difficult is that?
[...] 14, 2010 With seven people caught in the prohibition trap set by the three beauties, we expect a feast of death deferring stories. Our dear porter, utterly [...]
[...] now, at last, we’re going to find out (we hope) what all that carry on with the black dogs and the self flagellation is [...]
[...] the two jealous brothers who got turned into dogs? We now learn that a similar story underlies the mistreatment of the black bitches. Maybe the jinnis have to follow magical best practice guidelines over [...]