Ja‘far the vizier, having narrowly escaped execution for failing to identify the perpetrator of a heinous murder, now discovers that a slave in his very own household has played a pivotal (though entirely accidental) role in the unfolding of that tragedy. So he must die, of course.
And of course, a slave is a replaceable commodity, and that the slave should pay with his life for a foolish but minor misdemeanour that led to the death of an innocent woman is surely preferable to his master paying with his life for no misdemeanour whatsoever but simply as a blood tribute to his master’s reputation as the defender of justice.
Ja‘far seems less than totally comfortable with this watertight proposition, however, for he offers to buy a stay of execution for his slave in the traditional manner – with a marvellous story. The Caliph is doubtful that any story could be more amazing than what has just transpired, but it will be a great surprise if in the course of this voyage through the Arabian Nights we encounter anyone immune to the persuasions of fiction.
Perhaps Ja‘far is a little lacking in imagination as a story teller, electing to tell us a story about viziers, but then he moves in somewhat restricted circles. And his story doesn’t tell us much about viziers, as such. It tells us how fraternal love can rather readily transform into fraternal hate.
The love of these two brothers is so close and fond that they not only plan to marry on the same day, but to consummate on the same night – specifically so that they may produce a boy and a girl whom they will later marry off to each other in order to bond the family even more closely than before. But their love is quite undone by the matter of the dowry.
The modern feminist reader (me) could get hot under the collar about several aspects of this scenario – arranged marriages, dowries, disregard of women, consanguinity – but it’s more intriguing that the bone of contention that divides the two brothers is nothing more than a figment of their imaginations.
They made it up.
And isn’t that just how it is with many a family fall out?
"Family constellations could be described as living family trees. These constellations reveal inner images and behaviors that exist below our consciousness, and whose hidden dynamics motivate us throughout our lives." -- Scott Bader, DC
Family members who’ve grown up together assume that they know each other well. They know what, and how, each of them thinks and feels. Or so they think.
Psychologists have explained to us how different family members adopt or have imposed on them particular ‘roles‘ to play in the family structure. This is generally an unconscious process and will occur even in families who think they are ever so consciously promoting the independent individuality of their members.
While everybody plays along with the family myth, things are manageable and predictable – just what you want in family life – thus making it more likely that the myth, and the pigeonholing associated with it, will be perpetuated. “I know what makes my brother tick!”
But you don’t know what makes your brother tick, unless you consciously make the effort to ask him, and then listen very carefully indeed when (and if) he tells you.
Shams al-Din Muhammad and Nur al-Din ‘Ali may love each other dearly – but they haven’t asked each other these questions. And that means trouble.
We don’t know our brother, how true this is…
We only have our own point of view, very different from the viewpoints of the other members in the same family.
I rather think that what you say about family relationships here is a natural phenomenon in human beings, almost a necessary one, except when one has the strength and detachment to transcend it, and that may not always be a good thing.
A child’s security, for example, depends on the parents living their parental roles. Anything which goes outside this (e.g. extra-marital interests) is bad news & better concealed. To a lesser degree, the roles between siblings become fixed and ritualised, so long as they have to live together; after that it may be too late to change.
In fact it’s not just blood-family relationships but any group where the members have not chosen one another. You are all thrown together and somehow you have to find a way to get along, as a team obliged to fulfil a defined project (e.g. two siblings of different ages obliged to share a bedroom whilst growing up, because of large family or small house). You don’t have to like each other. You don’t have to know what makes the other tick – that might make it even harder – only how to coexist.
I agree that this is a natural phenomenon, and even a necessary one, from the perspective of survival. But everything has its cost, and the cost here is limitation and blinkering. It seems to me that many people live successfully and even happily behind their blinkers, and I don’t say this as a criticism, or suggest that they ‘ought’ to take their blinkers off. I am just noting that this partial view cannot help but be skewed – and that has its own costs.
[...] are a-sizzle in Ja’far the Vizier’s tale of the fateful working out of a family quarrel among [...]
[...] few posts back I wondered how well you know your brother and posited that, generally speaking, we really do not know those whom we think we know very well [...]