Skip to main content

The symbolic structure of 'At the Pike's Behest'



If you come across something strange enough, it will transform your identity. 


Emelian the fool was a fool and lazy. He was given the chance to better himself by working, but only after some haranguing did he consent to work. His task was to carry water, but when he drew up the water he also drew up a pike. In exchange for not being eaten, the pike said he would grant any wish. And it was so: Emelian wished the buckets to carry themselves home, and they did. In this, we see the ability of a marginal character, the fool, being able to harness chaotic feminine potential, as there is a closeness between the fool and chaos. It is harder for chaos to get the better of the fool because he is too simple, contains too little higher meaning and thus cannot be easily questioned. And so Emelian becomes the identity that directs the potential whereever he desires, and the carrying of water is a perfect representation of this. 


The choice to eat the fish is analogous to naming it, integrating it into your being. However, the consequence of naming something that works by hidden or implicit means is that it loses its power. This is the same pattern as that of the Elves and the Shoemaker, where the hidden work by the elves is lost when they are clothed - that is, given a covering identity. By not eating the pike, Emelian holds the power of the implicit, though he takes the necessary step of making the implicit thing work before trusting it. We could think of this in terms of tribute: a nation promises not to invade another so long as they deliver tribute. Though the taxed nation still retains its identity, it is in debt to the dominant nation. 


As Emelian continues to have his work done by the pike, word reaches the tsar of this magician and he commands a solider to bring him to the palace. The solider is rude and so Emelian orders his cudgel to beat the solider up. The Tsar then employs cunning by sending a noble who attempts to persuade him. Specifically, the persuasion is in the form of offering a kaftan - that is, the Tsar is offering some identity to clothe Emelian. 


Emelian visits the Tsar's palace and upon seeing the Tsar's daughter, wishes her to fall in love with him, which she of course does. We can see in this that the feminine possibility of the Tsar or 'body' is attracted to the fool because it can see it provides something the tsar is lacking. Thus, the seed of the fool has found a potential landing place, some good ground in which it could grow. 


Emelian then leaves, leaving the Tsar to be pestered by his daughter who wants to marry Emelian. Driven to distraction, the Tsar invites Emelian back to the palace. Some versions of the story have the pair being married while others do not, and some mention the Tsar being disgusted at the lack of manners by his son in law. In any case, the Tsar either puts both the daughter and Emelian in a barrel and throws it into the ocean, or banishes his daughter to an island and only Emelian ends up in the barrel. In this, we can see how the centre is unable to cope with something from the margin and seeks to exclude it. However, there are two problems here. The first is that the fool, Emelian, has already captured part of the Tsar's kingdom, and the second is that when a system encounters something extremely weird, the system will be forced to change: its identity will be altered. 


In response to the question that the fool poses to the Tsar, the Tsar does not accept the opportunity to integrate the fool by having him as a son-in-law. He does not make a nest for Emelian, the way that the nations of Europe did for the Vikings by giving them land. Instead, he attempts to bind and exclude him, throwing him into death (the barrel can be seen as a kind of tomb, and water is a symbol of death also). By exiling his daughter, he also removes that part of his kingdom that sympathises with Emelian, though this speaks to a problem - the Tsar is giving up body and does not recapture the imagination of his populous. An example of this kind of behaviour can be seen in the attempt of European nations to execute the leaders of religious dissenter groups, and make life as difficult as possible for the laity. However, the fact that the Tsar does not kill fool speaks to the fact that he has a power beyond the Tsar, which is why he tries to restrain him The barrel is a kind of binding, similar to enforcement being used to prevent the seed of the fool propagating


The Tsar has not really dealt with the problem. He as attempted to cut off the marginal thing which questioned his identity, even though he had the chance to make peace with it. The power of the fool is precisely that which will pop up in a forgotten part of the Tsars land and grow so much that the Tsar will be forced to accept its reality: suppressed things always return in force. In the end, the fool gains the Tsar's entire kingdom, just as the Vikings became the kings of Europe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review of "The Language of Creation" by Matthieu Pageau

The problem we face today (and the problem that nearly all my reading, thinking and writing is centred on) is how to be the Church in the face of modernism. This was a really important book for me and I hope this essay goes some way to explaining why. I will say at the outset that I am simplifying here: pre-modern conceptions of the universe have persisted in the West, but nevertheless, the general trend has been towards abandoning such perspectives, and I am concerned with the overall downward trend, not exceptions. The general problem can be called scientism, that is, that matter is all there is, and thus the scientific method defines all there is to know. This is our basic outlook, and it manifests itself in many different ways, from ideologies as a concept, to consumerism and popular culture. In this way, all metaphysics, religion, spirituality and morality are seen as not based in material reality, and therefore not real, but rather imagined: they are social constructs, complet...

My (current) map of reality

This is a highly condensed version of how my map of reality developed; much is left out, and clarity is sacrificed for a packed sentence. My journey began in a tradition that has a deep respect for scripture, especially interpreted 'materialistically' or 'literally'. While there's problems with this, it has the strength of honouring the word of God: I was never persuaded by liberalism, which thinks it knows better than the Bible. My thought has always been that if God has spoken to us through Scripture, perhaps he knows what it means and we don't always, and to hold something in contempt is to place yourself in a position where you cannot understand it. But before I get in really deep, I should explain the basic problem I had, which was essentially a feeling of cognitive dissonance with my experience of the world, knowledge of history, literature, art and science etc, and what the mainline reformed-evangelical protestant church (I will use the word '...

Review of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

The Coen brother's Netflix film, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, moves from the humorous to the profound, but also, as others have pointed out, from a romanticized version of passage to the afterlife to a chillingly serious one. **Spoiler warning** It is beautifully produced. All the scenes are splendidly shot and the acting is perfect. Despite being composed of six stories of varying lengths, the film coheres. The film could firstly be read as a somewhat cynical, albeit well-rounded tribute to the western genre in all its diversity, since the main characters are often anti-heros, and the stories are all haunted by tragedy: the normal order of things is often reversed. However, just as the book of Revelation refers to essentially every book of the Old Testament, but almost never with direct quotes and nearly always with modification and re-contextualization, so the Coen brothers do the same with Westerns, attempting a metareading of the genre. The effect of this technique is to rev...