Biblical Myths in Borislav Pekić`s Time of Miracles

Biblical Myths in Borislav Pekić’s Time of Miracles
Angela Richter
Martin Luther University (Halle-Wittenberg, Germany)
Let me begin with two quotations. First from Pekiç:
A myth is one of the forms of estrangement. It is through myths that
we become estranged from our own history or that we estrange our
history from us…. As I see it, dealing with myths involves dealing
with history. 1
The second quotation comes from the German book Bible and Myth:
“Usually it is the purpose of the story told in a myth that the audience should
identify with it.”2
To define the specific features of Pekiç’s approach, it is necessary to look
at some characteristic extracts from the stories he is telling.
In the prologue to Vreme ãuda, Pekiç briefly sums up the Old Testament
myth of the creation of the world, the prophetic legends, and the New
Testament legends about the coming of Jesus. He closes with the words:
This is the true story of Him, of His teachings and His disciples, of
His miracles and His suffering. This is the true story of how His
kingdom of all kingdoms was born. 3
To put his own interpretation of the “true story” across, Pekiç decides to
divide his work into two parts, Vreme ãuda and Vreme umiranja (Time of
Dying). While the first part focuses on Jesus and his miracles, the second part
1
B. Pekiç, Vreme reãi (Belgrade: BIGZ, 1993), 32.
F. Beisser, “Mythos und christliche Theologie,” in Bibel und Mythos, ed. B. Jaspert
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht:,1991), 163.
3
“Ovo je istinita pripovest o Njemu, Njegovom uãenju i uãenicima, Njegovim çudima i
Njegovom stradanju. Ovo je istinita pripovest o tome kako se ra∂alo Njegovo carstvo nad
carstvima.” B. Pekiç, Vreme ãuda (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1965), 10. All following quotations are
taken from this edition.
2
Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies 15(1): 25–33, 2001.
26
ANGELA RICHTER
gives more prominence to the figure of Judas. To illustrate the strategy, I have
chosen the following examples:
1. Čudo u Jabnelu (The Miracle at Jabneel; a reference to the healing
of a leper, Matthew 8: 2–4)
Pekiç chose Egla, a female leper, whom Jesus meets on his journey. Initially,
Jesus has some difficulty finding out what Egla’s problem is. To encourage
her and to explain his urgings, he tells her about the destiny that lies ahead for
him. “I must become God, Egla,” he says to her in Pekiç’s account.4 Under
the impression of such arguments, Egla calls his offer of help into doubt and
instinctively replies: “Whom do you want to help? Me or yourself?”5
When Jesus returns many years later, he cannot recall his miracle or the
woman he healed. The narrator notes with bitterness that, following her cure,
the woman did not find any happiness. She was subsequently repudiated both
by her second husband in the village of the unclean and by her first husband
in the village of the clean, because both stood in fear of the other residents.
The only thing the two warring factions had in common was their hatred of
this woman, whom they pelted with stones, driving her to the no-man’s land
between the two villages. At this stage we are offered a glimpse of Egla’s
thinking:
It was ridiculous that at this juncture, instead of fleeing, she
contemplated the fact that the clean and the unclean, for all their
insistence on what separated them, were using the same stones to
lynch her.6
To escape the hail of stones, Egla fled into the dried-up bed of the Jabtel
river, using stones to build a shelter, “and surviving on a diet of nettles,
carrion, and snake’s eggs.”7 In Pekiç’s version, Jesus regards Egla merely as
an instrument on his way to divine glory and by no means as a pathetic
creature in need of help. From a subjective angle, he describes the motives for
helping the woman as anything but noble or god-like. By emphasising what
happened after the miracle, Pekiç shifts the emphasis of his narration to the
4
“Moram da budem Bog, Egla.” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 46.
“Kome da pomogne‰? Meni ili sebi?” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 46.
6
“Bilo je sme‰no ‰to je u ovom ãasu umesto da beÏi mislila kako se prilikom linãa neãisti i
ãisti, ma koliko im je stalo do razlikovanja, uvek sluÏe istim kamenjem.” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda,
79.
7
“[H]raneçi se koprivom, strvinama i zmijskim jajama.” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 80.
5
BIBLICAL MYTHS
IN
BORISLAV PEKIĆ'S TIME OF MIRACLES
27
consequences of Jesus’ miracles. Egla is worse off than before because the
miracle produced unexpected results that were at odds with the objectively
humane character of the act.
2. Čudo u Vitaniji (The Miracle at Bethany; reference to the raising of
Lazarus from the dead, John 11: 1–45).
In recording the episode of Lazarus, a figure occurring only in the Gospel
according to St. John, whose resurrection is seen as the greatest miracle
wrought by Jesus, Pekiç presents what may well be the most drastic
misunderstanding between Jesus and his miraculous works, on the one hand,
and the people, on the other. Pekiç’s version of this miracle is similar in
importance to other tales, but differs from them in its philosophical
dimension.
As depicted by Pekiç, Lazarus is accused by a Sadducee named
Nicodemus of having entertained in his home the Nazarene, a man spreading
the poison of heresy. Lazarus is arrested, interrogated by the Sanhedrin, and
ostensibly released, only to be stoned by the populace. Lazarus from Bethany
meets his death, but Christ raises him from the dead to demonstrate that the
doctrine of the Sadducees, who reject the idea of the resurrection of the body,
is untenable. Accompanied by his disciples, Jesus raises Lazarus three times
from the dead. The point is to prove the Sadducees wrong and expose their
faith as erroneous. In a most compelling fashion, Pekiç relates how Jesus’
extraordinary deed causes enormous distress to Lazarus. Reduced to the state
of extreme exhaustion and fearful of Jesus’ skills, the sorely tried Lazarus
asks his servant Hamrije to arrange for the cremation of his body after his
next death and before the disciples Matthew the Tax-Collector and James the
Less can inform their master that he has died again. The narrator’s
commentary on Lazarus’ situation reads as follows:
It was clear that the Sadducees would not allow him to live, but it was
also clear that the Christians would not allow him to die. He became
the lofty centre of the battle for the redemption of the world. His
wretched, frail, and emaciated body, which had to endure both the
pangs of death and the pangs of rebirth … had become the latter-day
valley of Ilion, a bone of contention once contested and crushed by
the armies of the Israelites and the Philistines, now by those of the
28
ANGELA RICHTER
Sadducees and the Christians, and tomorrow by who knows whose
armies…8
Lazarus finds himself thrust into the centre of the battle for the
redemption of the world and becomes a victim of this struggle or, more
generally, a victim of opposing views or ideologies. He is repeatedly taken
prisoner and tormented. Brainwashed, he ultimately pleads guilty to all
charges. As the Serbian literary scholar Nikola Milo‰eviç pointed out as early
as 1984, the trial scene “might be transferred, with some alterations to the
historical backdrop, to our own century.”9
The content and structure of the episode of Lazarus play a key role within
the novel. Their philosophical potential becomes all the more apparent when
seen in parallel to the closing tale from the part Vreme umiranja.
3. Smrt na Kosturnici (Death at Calvary)
In this most ironic of all episodes, Pekiç gives us the full measure of his
interpretation of history and the forces at work in it. According to Pekiç, the
homo novus, the ideal of a New World, is just a chimera, a utopian vision of
mankind. In his account, the necessary requirements are not met. It is not
Jesus who is nailed to the cross at Calvary, but Simon of Cyrene, who
according to Luke 23: 26 has just returned from the fields and is compelled by
the soldiers to carry Jesus’ cross to Calvary. Jesus exploits the general
confusion and hubbub to escape unnoticed. Here we have the crowning
highlight of the parody, projected directly into the myth of Christ. In Pekiç’s
account, Jesus ultimately does not fulfil the words of the Scripture, for he is
not crucified. In other words, Calvary is the scene of a divine fraud. Jesus
evades his predestined fate. Suffering in his stead is someone who has not
been chosen and whose words of despair are eloquent enough:
O radiant sun… Calvary is the scene of a tremendous misunderstanding between heaven and earth. Simon, you are a miserable worm
caught in a trap, a worm who sets out to fool the whole world with his
8
“Bilo je izvesno da ga sadukeji neçe ostaviti u Ïivotu, kao ‰to je bilo izvesno da ga hri‰çani
neçe pustiti da umre. On je postao veliãanstveno popri‰te bitke za spasenje sveta. Njegovo
jadno, staraãko, izmrvljeno telo, koje je u ravnoj meri iskusilo bolove umiranja i bolove
ponovnog ra∂anja . . . be‰e postalo savremena dolina Ili, o koju su se gazeçi je otimali: nekada
vojska Izrailjaca i Filistejaca, danas sadukeja i hri‰çana, sutra ko zna ãija.” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda,
228.
9
N. Milo‰eviç, “Borislav Pekiç i njegova ‘mitomahija,’” in Odabrana dela Borislava Pekiça,
vol. 1 (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1984), 12.
BIBLICAL MYTHS
IN
BORISLAV PEKIĆ'S TIME OF MIRACLES
29
martyrdom. Has it not been said that the world will be saved? But for
the world to be saved it is indispensable that Joshua ben Josif rather
than Simon, son of Eliazar, should be redeemed from his sins through
martyrdom at the cross, it should be the Nazarene, not the Cyrene. All
has been in vain: the miracles, the prophets, the sacrifices, the
hardships. The world has not been saved, the sin of our forebears has
not been cleared.10
In the midst of these reflections, Simon dies. The captain orders a
messenger to report that Jesus called Christ has just taken his last breath.
Fearful that the procurator of Judaea might punish him, he covers up the fact
that an innocent man has been put to death and that Jesus has disappeared.
Pekiç depicts the Christians as incapable of seeing through the fraud. As a
result, they establish their Church on the wrong foundations. This critical
dimension, which implies a sound dose of sarcasm, is compounded by the
unusual, polemical conception of the figure of Judas, which can be only
briefly touched upon here.11
4. Smrt na Hinomu (Death in the Valley of Hinnom)
For this extensive story from the second part, the author chooses the
perspective of Judas, this time as a first-person narrator. Pekiç handles this
character with great care although he is little more than a marginal figure of
the New Testament. He presents Judas as a conspirator, as a martyr, as a
dogmatist and fanatic, and as a sceptic. The basic tenet of his thinking and
acting is slavish obedience to Scripture:
10
“O sunce jarko—pomisli najednom sasvim ãisto, i po tome je znao da upravo sada umire—
pa ovde se na Golgoti de‰ava veliãanstveni nesporazum izme∂u neba i zemlje. Ti jesi
nasamareni crviç koji se sprema da svojim stradanjem ceo svet povuãe za nos. Nije li pisano da
çe svet biti spasen? A da bi bio spasen, bilo je neophodno da muãeniãkom smrçu na krstu
njegove grehe iskupi Jo‰ua ben Josif a ne Simon sin Elijazarov, ne Kirenjanin, nego
Nazareçanin. Sve je, dakle, bilo uzaman: ãuda, proroci, propovedi, Ïrtve, li‰avanja. Svet nije
spasen, praroditeljski greh nije spran…” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 361.
11
For further information, see A. Richter, “Judas Iskariotski—Varijacije knjiÏevnog lika u 20.
veku,” in Srpski jezik. Zbornik u ãast prof. Îivojina Stanojãiça (Belgrade: Nauãno dru‰tvo za
negovanje i prouãavanje srpskog jezika, 1996), vols. 1–2, 477–84.
30
ANGELA RICHTER
My only concern is that the Holy Writ be fulfilled to the letter, for if
just one letter remains unfulfilled, this means that none has been
fulfilled.12
Judas, who is invariably treated as a damnable and reprehensible creature in
the legends and tradition of all nations, appears here as an ambivalent figure.
To enable the reader to understand this, Pekiç deals at length with his inner
turmoil and conflicting emotions. Again and again, Judas contemplates
passages from Scripture, later asking himself—given the lack of solidarity
shown by the other disciples—what purpose his personal sacrifice has served
and whether there is a way of escaping a predetermined fate. The answer on
behalf of the disciples is given by Peter, who argues as follows:
If His prophecy remains unfulfilled, if you do not kill yourself, no
one will believe in the power and in the truth of the one you are
following. People will say: It must be a pathetic god indeed who
allows others to put him to death or to ignore his instructions with
impunity. What else is there to build our faith and our Church on. 13
Slowly, Judas begins to realize that he is doomed. After a prolonged
exchange of words with the disciples, his confusion, and indeed despair,
know no bounds:
From apotheosis to anathema, from godlike veneration to ostracism,
from fame to curse, from heaven to mud, only recently more than
God, now less than Satan. What is truth, you sons of a bitch, or are
there two kinds of truth—one as authentic as the other, two opposing
authentic truths rolled into one, contradictory but ready to prove true
in one and the same world, in one and the same place, at one and the
same time with the same claim to truthfulness?14
12
“Meni je jedino stalo da se Pismo doslovno ispuni, jer ako se i jedno slovo ne ispuni, kao da
nijedno nije ispunjeno.” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 267.
13
“Ako se Njegovo proroãanstvo ne izvr‰i, i ti se ne ubije‰, niko neçe poverovati u moç i
istinu onoga koga si sledio. Ljudi çe se pitati kakav je to jedan bedan Bog koji dopu‰ta da ga
nekaÏnjeno pogibljuju i nekaÏnjeno mu zaboravljaju nardebe. âime onda da odrÏimo veru, na
ãemu da saznujemo crkvu.” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 294–95.
14
“Od apoteoze—anatema, od obogotvorenja—o∂avoljenje, iz slave u kletvu, s neba u
kaljugu, malopre vi‰e od Boga, sad manje od sotone. U ãemu je ona istina, kurvini sinovi, ili je
ima dve? Dve istinite, dve neprijateljske istinite istine, jedna u drugoj, spremne da se,
protivureãne u istom svetu, na istom mestu, u istom vremenu obistine pojednakom istinito‰çu?”
Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 295.
BIBLICAL MYTHS
IN
BORISLAV PEKIĆ'S TIME OF MIRACLES
31
Torn between his (self-)awareness of being part of the divine scheme of
salvation and his radical doubts about the purpose of his action, he meets his
doom because the disciples also cling to dogma (scriptural text). “The Holy
Writ must come true at all costs,” reads one passage in Pekiç. 15 An intriguing
feature is the form of death intended for him by the author. Instead of dying
by his own hand, Judas is killed by the disciples who see to it that the
requirements of the Scriptures are met.
It should be added that no one gives any thought to the place where Judas
must die. Judas has to choose the place himself. He experiences a vision of a
sensation-seeking crowd—a vision that surely conjures up familiar scenes
from the twentieth century in the reader’s mind. This passage differs starkly
from the near-biblical style employed elsewhere in the novel:
There are always people who like to see fellow humans suffer. They
bring sandwiches, place a blanket on the lawn, and follow the
proceedings. Sometimes they vomit, but this is a risk worth taking.
Sometimes soldiers come to drive them away, and they leave without
protest, but only to return from the other side… Sometimes they bet
on who will be the first to die or to have his shinbone crushed by the
impatient soldiers. Calvary, spectators, press, death rattle, described
down to the last detail, photos, late-night editions, special editions,
regional editions, an interview with the glass-blower on a blanket…. 16
In my view, the following brief conclusions can be drawn from the author’s
narrative strategy. His “true” story of Jesus and his miracles and the
requirements for the kingdom of all kingdoms radically call into doubt the
sense of exclusiveness contained in the biblical image of Jesus. The saving
power of Jesus is denied or even mocked. The benefits of a miracle for the
person concerned take an absurd turn. According to Pekiç, the miracles serve
a specific purpose, namely to underscore the role of Messiah.
15
“Pismo se po‰to-poto mora zbiti.”Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 313.
“Uvek ima ljudi koje vole da posmatraju stradanje. Ponesu sendviãe, porazme‰taju çebad na
travnjaku i posmatraju. Ponekad povraçaju, ali to je rizik na koji su spremni. Ponekad ih vojnici
oteraju, oni bez protesta odlaze pa se vraçaju s druge strane… Ponekad se i klade. Ko çe prvi
izdahnuti, a kome çe nestrpljivi vojnici morati da lome goleni. Golgota. Publika. ·tampa.
Ropac opisan do kliniãkih pojedinosti. Fotografije. Veãernja izdanja. Specijalna izdanja.
Izdanja za provinciju. Intervju onog duvaãa stakla na çebetu…” Pekiç, Vreme ãuda, 300–01.
16
32
ANGELA RICHTER
The outcome of the Crucifixion as described in Pekiç’s novel casts doubt
on Jesus’ saving power generally. Conceived in this way, Jesus cannot be a
focus of identity. In Pekiç’s account, the shared mythologem of the prophets
that salvation, the great age of salvation, will only come about through the
intervention of Yahweh,17 loses its relevance. To explain the world, the author
does not rely on the biblical myth, but employs parodistic, anti-mythical
elements, which are also designed to highlight the realities of present-day life.
It is precisely in this context that the conception of the figure of Judas must be
assessed. Judas has stooped to assume the role of Satan in the interests of a
noble cause. He sees to it that every word of the prophecy is fulfilled. His
stance is “the result of his constant preoccupation with a text that is not his
own.” 18 His attachment to written dogma seals the doom of what is the only
really active person. The disciples retain their sense of inner unity, for which
purpose they needed Judas as an inner enemy. However, they are unable to
prove that right and truth are on the side of Jesus’ followers, because in
Pekiç’s version the Chosen One evades the consequences of his calling.
Subsequent statements by the author reveal that he was rather uneasy
about his radical approach to biblical myths. In 1991, when he was asked if he
would then design the figure of Jesus any differently from what he had done
in 1965, Rekiç replied that,
Certainly I would. Nowadays, I wouldn’t write this book. I wouldn’t
commit such a sin, not because of my religious beliefs but because of
a human being’s point of view, because even back then I believed in
God—the only problem I had was with the holy nature of Christ. If I
would have chosen for my literary effort to get straight with the
communist Messianism, with every ideological Messianism, or any
other historical paradigm, then I would have expressed my truth using
Aesop’s language, which, at that time, was the only language I had
access to. I made the worst choice possible. For a long time I wanted
to distance myself from the book. However, I recognised that such
acts are worthless. What’s done is done. You cannot delete something
that has become part of the Book of Life.19
His radical account served to disclose his view of history and its agents.
He relates his parody to elements of literary material that are well known. In
17
Cf. W. Beltz, Gott und die Götter (Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau-Verlag, 1988), esp. 260.
A. Jerkov, Nova tekstualnost (Nik‰iç: Unireks; Belgrade: Prosveta; Podgorica: Oktoih,
1992), 20.
19
Cf. Pekiç, Vreme reãi, 304.
18
BIBLICAL MYTHS
IN
BORISLAV PEKIĆ'S TIME OF MIRACLES
33
other words, he reshapes existing material to create a “sounding-board for an
attack on extra-literary, mostly social phenomena.”20 In this way, the reader’s
associations are channelled into a familiar real-life context. In his later works,
Pekiç’s polemical view and parodistic treatment of biblical myths or texts is
extended through inter-textual references to an entire corpus of philosophical
and literary works which are seen as the collective memory of human
civilisation and which reflect the author’s doubts about human faith in the
future and progress.21
Borislav Pekiç in the hospital in 1965
20
Cf. G. Giesemann, “Theorie und Praxis der Parodie,” Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 39
(1977): 270–97, here 275.
21
For further information, see P. Pijanoviç, Poetika Borislava Pekiça (Belgrade: Prosveta;
Gornji Milanovac: Deãje novine; Titograd: Oktoih; Belgrade: BIGZ, 1991), passim.