The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie


Salman Rushdie is one of the foremost Indian English writer who received the prestigious Man- Booker Price for Literature. He criticized the dominant ideologies which constitute the psyche of Indian nation, especially in his celebrated work “The Midnight's Children”. He provoked the conservative religious and political leaders across the globe with his pen. You can feel the power of his pen in the novel “The Enchantress of Florence”  also. 
 
The background of the novel is an incident happened in the court of Emperor Akbar; a young, yellow-haired European traveler calling himself 'Mogor dell' Amore' visited the court by claiming himself as the kin of the Emperor.  Then, the traveler narrates the story of the late Princes of Mughal court Qara Koz, the sister of Babar who is taken captive by different warlords. This story, with a touch of history, is served as a critique of the values of the so called progressed society, in the hands of Rushdie. 
 
Rushdie is always celebrated as the critique of the dominant ideologies of the modern society, but how far this novel deconstruct those notions or he simply serves as a tool to strengthen the same ideology which he is trying to resist. 

Reinventing History:

The novels of Rushdie are famous for his treatment of history and his reinvention of characters and events. Against the celebrated Grand Narratives of emperors and war lords, he wrote about the history of common man. However, in this particular novel he used the mighty kingdom of the Mughals. Even then, the central character is Niccolo Vespucci, an ordinary man from Florence. Rushdie used the post modern literary concept of “Historiographic Metafiction”. It is a term originally coined by literary theorist,Linda Hutcheon.

According to Hutcheon, in "A Poetics of Postmodernism", works of historiographic metafiction are "those well-known and popular novels which are both intensely self-reflexive and yet paradoxically also lay claim to historic events and personages".

The historic personages like Akbar, Jodha, Birbal etc are present in the novel, but apart from that what is the purpose of these characters in the novel. If the author used some of controversial ideas into the mouth of a common man, it lacks authenticity whereas if the criticism comes from the mouth of “Shelter of the World, Akbar”, it has the authenticity. Then, whether, he is against these power-centers or in favor of them. It is a question that worth answering.

The one central criticism that may arise against this novel is the treatment of woman in the novel. For some, it is the story of a woman's adventure in man's world. For some, it is a patriarchal narrative attempting to idealize woman. Since the freedom loving Qara Koz is a central icon, we can say it is a feminist novel, at the same time, the words and deeds of the charecters in the work give the other option. Both extreme is possible. For example, the lyric, “If she was a letter I would have sent her, If she was a coin I would have spent her”, was nothing but pure romantic lyrics. The words of Akbar also note down the same kind of ideal sexual body. That, the female body is nothing but a sexual device for the man, to enjoy, to crucify.

When analyzing whether Rushdie is accepting or resisting the hegemonic ideology, one more thing need to be questioned. His treatment of religion, and mainly the question of incest. Throughout the narrative we feel that, he is against the established religion. When he uses the symbol, Akbar, he is presenting two extreme pictures. On the one side there is Akbar who challenges all the orthodox belief system, who wants to synthesis all the major ideas in all religion and on the other hand the there is the conservative Baudauni, who favors strict religious dogmas. The point is the conservatives do not get much voice in the novel and the voice of the revolutionary Akbar is very weak(!). He is weak in the sense that whenever someone questions his core values, he became defensive and throw away the revolutionary aspect. The way he handled the revolution by using Birbal, without addressing the questions they raised is an example. “Because God is everyone and everything, it follows that all acts are divine acts, and therefore, because all acts are godly, there is no difference between right and wrong, good deeds and evil ones, and so we may do exactly as we please”(314). He didn't answer this question, but answered the other question, that of incest. The narrative of Rushdie is weak is at this point.

Akbar at this time decided, almost, to take the foreigner as his heir, but did not. He thought that Veppucci is a son from an incestuous relationship. There is no proof or ideas to believe so. Then why did he invent such a tale. The Akbar who thought about his grand aunt Qara Koz day and night, is worried about the birth of that foreigner. This is because of the strict religious faith he has. In Quran it is forbidden to think about the kins in sexual motive. “Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: … two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed” [al-Nisaa’ 4:23]

Here, more than the religious notion it is the purity of the Mughal blood that compell him to take such a decision. The re-enliven Qara Koz says that this traveler is not her son in an incestuous relation, for royal bloods never commit such an act! So, the purity of the royal blood is assured and the traveler was being transported to some other country.


Redefining Colonialism:

The main argument of Said's “Orientalism” is to unravel the colonial missions of the European travelers and writers and how they constructed the notions of exotic, barbarian east. Contrary to that, in this novel, it is the eastern king, Akbar, who thought about the west in that way;

"The emperor, listening to Mogor dell'Amore as he told the story, understood that the lands of the West were exotic and surreal to a degree incomprehensible to the humdrum people of the East. In the East women worked hard, lived well or badly, died noble or ignoble deaths, believed in faiths that engendered great art, great poetry, great music, some consolation and much confusion. Normal human lives, in sum. But in those fabulous Western climes people seemed prone to hysterias- such as the Weeper hysteria in Florence- that swept through their countries like diseases and transformed things utterly without warning."


The emperor thought about crowning Mogor dell'Amore as the king if Hindustan, to realise his idea of a global kingdom on earth, were all beliefs are united.

"It would be a further step in the culture of inclusion..........in which all races, tribes, clans, faiths and nations would become part of the one grand Mughal synthesis, the one grand syncretization of the earth, its arts, its loves, its differences, its problems, its vanities, its philosophies, its sports, its whims."

The Hindustan under Akbar was a superior force than any other European countries, may be that is what Rushdie's conclusion.



View all my reviews