Dear diary,
Having finished rewriting The Song of Songs, I’m left with two main impressions. One is of the text being a surrealistic collage. And the other is that the poem seems to take place in an age before Genesis chapter 3 – prior to the “original sin” fiasco, the forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden. Although the poem’s other characters belong to our familiar world outside of paradise, Solomon and the Shulamite seem to predate the first created human beings.
Now I’m thinking about Genesis. Why did Adam and Eve feel ashamed of their physicality after eating from the tree of knowledge?
The parts of the body that facilitate reproduction become an embarrassment. They prove that we are not complete in ourselves but rather links in a chain of contingent beings.
Also, compared to the face, the genitals are ugly. Is that an individual judgment that not everyone would agree with? No, I think it’s universally true. The genitalia cannot compete with the face: the face has been left uncovered for generations upon generations, and, over that time, via the methods engineered by Darwin, it has had the opportunity to perfect itself; whereas the organs of reproduction remain secluded behind sackcloth underpants, and nothing is expected from these organs beyond performing their duty: it’s not important for genitalia to please the eye or the mind – if they can manage to make a baby, they’ve done their job.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7)
That’s what happened after the first couple ate the forbidden fruit. Before they did so, the record states that
. . . they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25)
The absence of shame is not the same as the flaunting of sexuality; the genitals simply have their place amongst the rest of the body’s organs. This is the attitude of the lovers from Solomon’s Song – to them, the neck and limbs, the shoulders, hands, and hair, are just as delightful as the organs of generation. Sexual feelings are balanced with the rest of physicality. But once sexuality becomes the focus and the preoccupation, it becomes at once shameful AND tantalizing. That’s why one of Blake’s Proverbs of Hell says “Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.” It is the religious banishment of sexuality from polite society that produces the impolite society of the red-light district. To focus on sex at all, whether you call it good or bad, is to blow it out of proportion. It’s like food; the better practice is to eat healthy meals regularly, rather than to starve or overeat.
Now I want to return to the garden of Eden and see what’s happening, since the first couple ate the forbidden fruit:
And Yahweh God called unto Adam, and said unto him, “Where art thou?”
And he said, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid my self.”
(Genesis 3:9-10)
Adam says “I was afraid” and then gives a reason for his fear. He does NOT say “I was afraid because I assumed that you would murder us, O Yahweh, since you yourself said that, if we eat of the fruit, we shall surely die.” Instead, Adam says “I was afraid, because I was naked.”
I wish I could ask Adam: Why does your nudity cause you to fear God’s presence? Moreover, at this point, you and Eve are wearing your leaf-aprons, thus you remain in full compliance with the dictates of modesty.
This situation makes me wonder what God’s relationship with Adam and Eve was like before their moral eyes had opened. Why would the human couple hide their sexual organs from the sight of God?
Also: what was God wearing? Anything? This is yet another question whose every possible answer is enticing. I’d be shocked to find that God was fully clothed while his naked humans were walking about in innocence. And I’d be equally shocked to find that God was unclothed . . . does God possess genitalia? Again, the answer of “yes” is as unsettling as “no.” The sight of a naked God’s private organ(s) is obviously disconcerting, but would it be better or worse if the unclothed God were shown to be devoid of sex and thus smooth-crotched? Or if he had some unknown newfangled sexual appendage that only deities possess?
And, returning to the story, if God was naked along with Adam and Eve in the beginning, did God remain unclothed after the fruit-eating episode? Either possibility disturbs me: for if God remained nude while the humans stood before him fully covered, then, according to church morality, God is the indecent one. Whereas, if God made haste to clothe himself after seeing that Adam and Eve had clothed themselves, then it looks like God is just as guilty and ashamed as they are: “Oh, you two covered up? I guess I better cover up as well.”
And there’s also a detail, which I find intriguing, about the precise moment when God would have made the decision to put some clothes on: for if he got dressed after the humans were dressed, then the Creator would be following the lead of his creatures; and yet if God dressed himself prior to discovering the newly clothed couple, then . . .
I wonder what God was wearing, if he did in fact wear anything in the garden. I assume that he was clothed at least in a camisole. As the scripture said earlier, the first couple sewed themselves aprons from fig leaves; but then later God provides them with a change of attire:
Unto Adam also and to his wife did Yahweh God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (Genesis 3:21)
Now I wonder: did God, as well, wear a “coat of skin”? From what animal? A bear? An angel? Why not make it from fabric like rayon, polyester, or nylon – that way, you avoid having to slay a beast.
But God apparently favors the taking of life: that’s why, later on in the story (Genesis 4:3-4), God does not respect Adam’s son’s offering of “the fruit of the ground,” whereas God is quite pleased and shows respect when Adam’s other son offers God a dead baby animal from his flock.
If I were to create men and women from the dust of the earth, I would make their epidermis tough enough to withstand the environment that I had created for them, so that they would not need any additional accessories.
The Devil took off his green coat, gave it to the soldier, and said, “If thou hast this coat on thy back and puttest thy hand into the pocket, thou wilt always find it full of money.”
—from the Brothers Grimm story “Bearskin”
Also, while I was researching some point in The Song of Songs, I stumbled upon this fact: The word “textile” is used by nudists to refer to clothed folks – “Nudists, go with Yahweh; textiles, with his Lamb.” I thought that was funny.
Putting something on, wearing a garment over the top of one’s skin, is considered polite and ethically sound, but it’s actually a type of lying. That’s why I love clothes; they’re like an imagination on the outside: an exterior fancy. They give the watchers a hint at what one wishes one were – how God should have fashioned one.
And the soul: what is that? Is the body the clothing of the soul? The answer to these questions is that the soul is nothing, nada, nonexistent. But this does not mean that the body is like an empty tuxedo wandering about the world. The body is filled with blood and guts.
Now, horses and cats are not ashamed of their nakedness, because they own enough hair to cover their comely parts. What little fur humans have upon their genitals, many decide to trim away. If only there were pelvic wigs available for purchase. Then, pants could join hats among the items of human costume considered optional.
I realize that my point about animals hiding their generative organs under fur is not altogether convincing, because often you can see the manhood of horses obviously dangling; and also there are creatures like elephants and pigs that lack sufficient cover, thus resembling humans in this respect. So I wonder if elephants and pigs were ever ashamed. They do not seem ashamed at present. Having met them frequently on the sidewalk in front of my house, I can attest that most wear nothing beyond the occasional sweater.
. . . all in naked communion communicating as now our clothed vision can never communicate.
—from “Grapes” by D.H. Lawrence
Intermission
I have more to say, specifically about The Song of Songs, but I got sidetracked talking about God’s immodesty, dishonesty, and immorality, and now I ran out of time. So let me continue today’s entry on the morrow.
In the meantime, I leave you with the following outpouring voiced by Countess Charlotte Malcolm in the film Smiles of a Summer Night (1955) by Ingmar Bergman – I imagine that, if one could travel back to the garden of Eden and conduct an interview, asking Eve to speak for herself, she might say something along the same lines about Adam or perhaps even Yahweh God:
I hate him! – I hate him! I hate him! I hate him! Men are horrid – vain and conceited. And they have hair all over their bodies. He smiles at me – kisses me. He comes to me at night, driving me insane with his caresses. He speaks kindly to me and brings me flowers . . . Love is a loathsome business. In spite of it all, I would do anything for him – anything, do you understand! – just so he’ll pat me on the head and say, “That’s a good dog.”
No comments:
Post a Comment