The second half of Leo Africanus continues to engage in the idea of leaving a legacy behind to one’s descendents and people in general after one’s death. The preface of the novel makes the theme of legacy very explicit, since it is the narrator speaking to his son about his life, his travels, and his learning. The second half of the novel begins to elaborate on this theme, since Hasan begin his own family with his own wives and children and worries continually about the legacy, both in monetary and less tangible terms, that he will leave to them. Hasan is deeply concerned for the well-being of his family after he is banished into exile for two years when Harun kills the Zarwali, so much so that he organizes a grand parade and gives out money to people so that he and his family will be remembered kindly in Fez. The idea of legacies is a also a more general theme in the novel, not specifically tailored to the life of Hasan and his family. At one point the narrator describes the two sieges launched against the Portuguese, one by the Sultan and the other by the Lame Sharif: “Both were repulsed, with heavy losses, no trace of which can be found in the poems composed in their honor,” (201). This seems to be an expression of two things: first, it shows how legacy, tradition, and even history are subject to distortions and misrepresentations. Both sieges were unsuccessful and incurred heavy losses, yet the poetry written to honor them glossed over these negative details and played up the positive ones to glorify the deeds in the eyes of the Muslims. This historiography and problematic history is a theme that Leo Africanus continually grapples with. The other theme that this particular incident highlights in the novel is the power of literature to create a certain legacy. At some point all of the people who were in these battles or witnessed them will be dead, and the only means of remembering the events will be through poetry and written records. This small incident in the novel is just one of many examples of Amin Maalouf demonstrating the power of the written word over the minds of people, both in the present and in the future.
I think the idea of legacy is a very important one that is illustrated as important to Hasan through his description and care of his two sons. Nur’s son obviously is obviously only Hasan’s by marriage and while he does care for him the time that he has him, Hasan’s reaction to Maddelena’s son is very dfferent. Upon seeing his young son he exclaims that here is his first-born son, even though he technically has Beyazid. He is fighting to keep his identity alive through his sons and family. Hasan is ever changing and doesn’t seem too upset about his conversion, and his lack of a homeland, however, he is always concerned with his family and their safety.
This post brings to mind, for me, a concept of literary immortality. We traditionally like to see literature, at its best, as a sort of time capsule, preserving a moment of the historical past, giving us insight into the particular perspectives and biases of the author at the time it was written (regardless of whether said literature is fact or fiction). This idea certainly pervades Leo Africanus, to some extent. Leo's concern with physical immortality, in the form of his bloodline, hints at a basic, human desire to remain upon Earth, in some way, shape, or form, forever, and to a certain extent, other characters seem to attempt likewise. Artists such as Raphael could be said to be purposefully leaving behind "signatures," their artistic works, left behind to be enjoyed by future generations.
And yet, there is a suggestion that this type of immortality is impossible. Leo does not maintain a "steady" family throughout the novel. He desires to sire an heir, but his multiple relationships yield him no such thing, or, at least, not without a great degree of difficulty. As well, the literature with which Leo may be familiar is, often, incorrect. Leo, at various points, recalls bits of folklore which he believes are facts. Off the top of my head, I recall the incident where Leo describes lions, and women who can tame them by revealing their bodies. This outlandish cultural exaggeration and folklore pervades Leo's conception of the world around him, and suggests that we can never fully comprehend the past, or indeed, the world around us.
The depiction of the papacy in Leo Africanus is fluid, changing as Leo (Hasan) encounters Popes Leo X (from whom he receives his titular Latin name), Adrian VI, and Clement VII. Today, we know the Pope as the face and voice of Christianity, and a figurehead who, despite being embroiled in discourse with an increasingly secular world often hostile to the tenets of Christendom, serves what is primarily a symbolic role. Although the Pope is head of state of Vatican City, the media certainly does not emphasize the undoubtedly political nature of the papacy, and many people are probably unaware that there is a political component to his leadership at all.
Thus, I was particularly intrigued by the scene in the final chapter of Leo Africanus, in which Pope Clement VII musters the Roman defense against the Lansquenets during the Sack of Rome. Here, we see the Pope assuming a role similar to a Commander-in-Chief. Clement VII was forced to adopt a militaristic leadership in the face of destruction. It stands to reason that the Pope must therefore, as a leader, act according to the particulars of a situation, and he can either attempt, in vain, to prevent change (think of Pope Adrian VI's papacy and Leo's imprisonment) or negotiate and present Christianity as an organization espousing tolerance and openness of opinion.
Soon, the cardinals will choose another Pope, and his leadership will depend largely upon the events of the next few years. Christendom is victim to bad press; the media (as well as many irreligious persons) are quick to air Christendom's dirty laundry, and to be fair, it has a lot of dirty laundry. However, as proven by humanitarians such as Pope John Paul II, who espoused tolerance, Christianity is capable of great things. Keep in mind that a religious argument here is moot; people will believe what they believe, and religious conflict in some form or another will always be an issue. However, Christendom has the opportunity to present itself in a new, more secular and humanitarian light, and it is only in doing so, and in working alongside Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, the irreligious, and people of all faiths that the next Pope can maintain the integrity and potential of the Church.
While the position of Pope is certainly a political as well as religious position, the power of the Pope is incomparable to what it was in the 16th century when this novel is set. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) established states as the primary actors in international relations, and since then this role of state sovereignty has been solidified. The actual power of the Pope as a transnational actor is extremely limited: he may encourage goodwill towards other religions and therefore influence Catholics, but the ultimate power of both foreign and domestic policy is up to the state, and any significant changes in how different cultures treat each other will be a product of state interaction.
I found it really interesting how you brought our current situation (as of Tuesday) of being between Popes, into the context of Maalouf's novel. It's true that the Pope is in the position to alter the global identity of the Catholic Church, and either present itself as a force of acceptance, tolerance, and modernity or classify itself as either conservative or corrupt. The stark contrast between Leo X and Adrian the Barbarian within Maalouf's novel proves that point. It will be interesting to see how the new Pope fares as he enters the position. Although, as a Latin American, he brings a new viewpoint to the Church, will he be as conservative as his predecessor?
Upon finishing Leo Africanus a number of things stood out to me immediately. I found the quote by W.B. Yeats on the page that follows the Table of Contents to hold a significant amount of meaning having finally finished the novel. I believe that Amin Mallouf’s inclusion of the quote was extremely brilliant, given that Yeats was an Irish poet who’s main theme throughout the course of his poetry seemed to suggest a loss of culture for an Ireland which in reality may have never existed. In terms of this novel, Hasan, seems to be in search of some kind of home, or a place to belong to up until the very last pages, after being exiled from his original home in Granada. From this point on, we watch Hasan move from establishment to establishment, in certain cases even being exiled as he continually searches for a place to settle down and ultimately live his life, and yet he is never satisfied. He is consistently expelled for one reason or another from each home he attempts to inhabit, taking on a number of wives who all eventually leave him or unfortunately die. Furthermore, he acknowledges the fact that he has a son given that this novel is written as a kind of guide for him, but until the final section of the novel, his wives and mistresses all fail to grant him this heir.
It is not until he meets Maddalena, that Hasan’s ultimate search for a reason to live or even his search for a sense of stability in life, is finally achieved. This is done when Maddalena finally bares him a son, who will live to carry on his family line and possibly even return to Hasan’s original religious practice. In connection to Yeats, his poetry suggests that over the course of time, the true Irish culture had been forgotten and lost, which is undeniably the case for Hasan. From the very start of the novel, Hasan is forced to abandon his home, the very root of his culture, and identity. From there he travels, however instead of mourning this loss like Yeats, he acts in a very different way. We watch he him incorporate each culture, essentially becoming a blend of them all, further using his vast knowledge of these cultures to his advantage.
Another similarity to Yeats I found interesting, was his obsession with symbols, and the way he cleverly used characters within his poetry and plays to represent the essence of Irish nationalism. This is a tool also used by Mallouf, in that he includes a vast amount of characters who are depicted as stereotypical versions of the cultures and ethnicities they represent. For example, the character of Hans, who is given a stereotypical German name embodying stereotypical German characteristics. Hans is used more of as a symbol than an actual realistic character.
I agree with your interpretation of the importance of the Yeats quote, and I'm glad you mentioned it because I was thinking about it, too. The novel can be seen as a post-colonial or diasporic kind of text, where the protagonist has lost his home to conquerors and is forced to be an exile wherever he ends up. I like that you linked this to the loss of Irish culture that Yeats portrays in his work, and I would say that Maalouf may be trying to point out the importance of understanding the East as products of Western imperialism. Hasan had lived in what is now considered a Western country, but was forced out through conquest. By creating displaced people in the original people of Granada, the West doomed these people to a life of identity issues, which we obviously see in Hasan. I think i is important that Maddalena stays with Hasan because she is of the diaspora two times over, being from Granada and Jewish as well. Leo wanders, not finding a home, because he has no other choice, due to his status of an exile, or of being in-between. His son, however, will have more of a chance in life because although he was born to two of the diaspora, he gets the chance of time to either return to Granada, or to adopt Rome as a new home.
I think it's great that Maalouf includes a quote from Yeats in this novel (I'm in Doggett's Irish Lit class as well!) This really helps to contextualize the issues of loss, identity, and nationhood that we discuss in that class which are also prominent themes in this novel. I especially like the connection you made with Yeats about how there is a sense in both texts of a continual and desperate search for something that can't be found or articulated. For Yeats this something is "Irishness", and for Hasan it seems to be identity. Attempting to find the one, true, perfect identity for Hasan is as fruitless and frustrating as Yeats attempting to uncover whatever it means to be essentially Irish.
“Is it true that after having made the statue of Moses Michelangelo ordered it to walk or speak?” (305) Our protagonist addresses the artist Raphael at his baptism. Having just been officially converted to the Catholic faith, Hasan is immediately faced with defending the Islamic culture and faith to the artist. Inquiring about the prevalence of art in the East, Hasan replies “Some people do paint or sculpt, but all figurative representation is condemned. It is considered as a challenge to the Creator” (305).
Perhaps what is most ironic about this passage is the condemnation with which Raphael treats Hasan. As a Catholic, he mocks the Islamic view that demotes idolatry within the creation of art. However, the prohibition of idolatry is not strictly a Muslim belief. In fact, it’s clearly prohibited in the Bible.
One of the most memorable passages within the Bible (for me at least) was in the Book of Exodus when Moses triumphantly leads the Jews out of Egypt through the Red Sea, parting the water to lead his people to freedom. After marching through the sea, Moses leaves his people to climb up Mount Sinai and converse with God. However, the Israelite people become restless during the forty days and forty nights it takes Moses to transcribe the Ten Commandments. Moses’ brother Aaron builds an altar upon which he places a golden calf, which many of the Israelites begin to worship. As a result, Moses and his followers slaughter about 3,000 of the Israelites for idolatry and straying from the worship of God.
Thus, when I first read Hasan’s question to Raphael, asking if Michelangelo had indeed ordered his statue of Moses to walk or speak, I immediately saw the irony. The prophet Moses clearly forbids the Israelites from practicing idolatry, even going so far as slaughtering some of his people to make an example of their crime. The fact that Michelangelo attempts to make an idol out of Moses, the prophet who condemned such acts, seems to me as an attempt on Maalouf’s part to portray the Catholics as corrupt in their religious views—they do not respect the prophet Moses or his proclamations to the Israelites within the Bible. Although the corruption of the Church is portrayed in more obvious ways as well, such as when Hans shows Hasan the poverty much of Rome lives in in comparison to the wealth of the Vatican, this reference to Moses and idolatry portrays the corruption in a more subtle manner.
I find this post particularly interesting, especially given some of the information I brought up during today's class discussion. Art, throughout history, has attempted to depict the divine, whilst being entirely aware of the inherent futility of such an act. Muslims, such as Leo Africanus, see such attempts, regardless of their futility, as an affront to the Creator, whereas Christians, such as Raphael, in the novel, seems to use the futility of divine artistic depiction as a justification for doing so in the first place. There is not necessarily a right answer. What is important is that human beings have always attempted, and will probably always attempt, to express something beyond them, whether that is science, God, the paranormal, or otherwise. Arguing whether or not we should be doing so brings up fundamental, but answerable, questions about art itself: what is its purpose? To what extent to we understand it as a figurative or naturalistic practice? What are its limits? Art is a science of expression unto itself, however, and questions like these are often lost in a subjective mire. Ultimately, there is no answer. Not yet, anyway.
I really enjoyed reading this post and have to say I wholeheartedly agree with the sense of irony being proposed here by Maalouf. The story of Moses is the outline for the Mosaic covenant, or the covenant the people and God are both expected to uphold. A big part of that covenant is the dismissal and abandonment of idolatry; instead of seeing a God, there must be faith involved. The fact that Raphael is making ignorant comments about Islam while also being completely ignorant to his own faith is an idea that's not unheard of today. Many people are quick to condemn a religion that doesn't practice idolatry while their own does practice idolatry when it shouldn't do so. By adding a situation like this to the book Maalouf is making the book more readable and accessible to someone who might not necessarily read World Literature.
I like the point of irony you brought up from the Bible. Why should Rafael stand by the depiction of Moses when Moses himself preached to his followers the importance of staying away from idol worship? With this reference to Moses, I think it is very possible that Maalouf was trying to point to the story from the Bible that your brought up. By taking our attention in that direction, of the Christian's origins, he helps us to see both the similarities between the religions, and the corruption or the tendency for Christians to sometimes pick and choose from their Holy text. I'd say that this notion of selective worshiping is evident in the various branches of Christianity that exist.
During our discussion in class about this bible story and this moment in the novel I find this scene in the novel particularly telling about Maalouf's motive regarding the portrayal of different religions. Rarely do any of the characters really have conversations in which they comment upon the religions of others and argue over the superior religion. But this is the first scene in which two characters really begin to look for differences between the ideas of Islam and Christianity. Hasan clearly holds his old faith dear to him and yet seems to recognize the extreme similarities between his new and old beliefs. While Raphael looks to be making a fight, Hasan argues that the religions actually stress the same ideas. Since the story you mention takes place in Exodus, this idea of not worshiping idols is accepted in all three of the major world religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity). Thus, by including a scene remarking upon these so-called differences in artistic forms, Maalouf looks to reveal to readers that the West and East are not different at all, but in fact quite similar. Since Maalouf’s main goal is to stress the concept of global citizenship and by remarking upon a small but significant similarity he hopes readers will quickly recognize the ability they hold in finding things in common rather than forcing people apart.
Jeanne Magnetti The Improbability of Leo Africanus In Amin Maalouf’s protagonist, we see reflected his concept of the ‘global identity,’ as well as Maalouf’s hope that a world of people like this would allow us all to coexist peacefully. Hasan travels the world, and his drifter status allows him to understand and live peacefully in all the civilizations he encounters. However, while Maalouf sees strength in this character I see weakness. Hasan is loyal to no person or place he has ever encountered and faces the events of his life with apathy. He sheds his homes, families, and children the way a snake sheds its skin. Hasan built families and then moved on as if they were just chapters in a book he could turn the page on. Further, he distrusts the Turks who his people see as the saviors of his people because they pose a threat to one of his lovers’ sons. This suggests that he lacks a lasting connection to the people of his country. Moreover, when faced with his conversion to Catholicism, Hasan expressed some concern over the loss of his name and his identity, but accepted his circumstances with a minimal amount of protest. He expressed some confusion over the duplicity of his identity, but didn’t express any outrage that the people of some foreign culture could just take over his sense of self. In addition, when his Rome was under siege by the Protestants, Hasan fled the city just as he fled Granada as a boy. One would expect that once Hasan was an adult, with the ability to fight for his home, he would do so, but the novel ended just as it began, with Hasan fleeing his home without any protest. The loyalty that the protagonist showed for his identity, his family, and his country was minimal. The most Hasan did in most of his adversarial circumstances was express mild distaste for the situation, and I would argue that a character who lives his life like an impartial observer to all that befalls him is rather improbable. If Amin Maalouf expects this identity to be held as the solution to society’s faults, than I would argue that he is a utopian. People are not so desperate to stop conflict that they will shed all that they are, including their identities, their families, and their countries, and I believe that Maalouf’s hopes for everyone to share a ‘global identity’ are unrealistic.
I think you’re viewpoint on Hasan’s global identity is very interesting—before reading this post I didn’t spend too much time thinking about Hasan’s indifference to leaving behind one family after another in various parts of the world. While reading the novel, I did notice that Hasan always seemed indifferent to his situation. He never really thinks about his wives, his children, his mother, Harun, or Mariam. While in Rome he seems to just accept the fact that he is separated from his family and doesn’t think or worry about their well-being or safety. However, I disagree with you to a certain extent on Hasan’s loyalty to his country and to his family—while I was confused by Hasan’s lack of emotional response to being separated from his family so many times, in many instances he didn’t really have a choice. Taken captive as a slave, banished from Fez…in these instances he didn’t have a choice to prove his loyalty to his country because he was forced, against his will, to leave them behind.
I really enjoyed your description of how Hasan can be viewed as simply "shedding his skin" of multiple cultures and identities. I agree that he does not object a significant amount in giving up his name, given that he has been forced all of his life to adapt and turn into whatever culture is necessary of him. Furthermore, I understand the point you make as you explain how this may be considered as a fault, but for a man who has been cast out of his home from his very childhood, his identity has never been set in stone. Hasan uses his ability to become whoever he needs to be, towards his advantage, and we see this as he learns the languages of various nationalities. I agree that it is extremely unrealistic that everyone sharing a sort of "global identity" may be the solution, but in the world we live in today it is becoming more acceptable. With our easy accessibility to travel quickly from one country to another, it has become a part of life that we embrace this and gain knowledge from other cultures. Maybe as technology becomes more efficient and with time, this unrealistic "global identity" can be a realistic possibility.
In a novel of where nothing is permanent, one thing that follows the theme of change is the relationship between Hasan and Harun. Although the two were lifelong friends and brothers by marriage, their friendship suffers in the test of time. From children to adults, Hasan and Harun change from being best friends to tense acquaintances who argue over their religious identities. From the first day of school, Hasan and Harun become inseparable. “After the first scuffle we become inseparable friends, bound together in life and death” (106). Together, they explore Fez and all it has to offer. Through Harun, Hasan learns about society and their culture while experiencing all of the variety and backgrounds of the people of Fez. They saw the secrets of not only Fez, but shared themselves with each other. Harun became his confidante and ally, and his biggest supporter in saving Hasan’s sister. However after Harun flees into exile, the two lifelong friends begin to drift apart in distance and familiarity. The schism in their relationship began once Harun decided to exact revenge for his wife. When Zarwali was found near his house, Harun murders him and buries the body. Since it was Hasan who asked for pardon for Harun and for the exile of Zarwali, Hasan gets blamed for belief of conspiracy and is exiled for two years. Once he comes back, he finds that Harun has become a killer and thief and isn’t the same young Ferret he remembers. Then when they meet again, Hasan is Leo and Harun is a pasha. This interaction between the two of them shows how far apart they have drifted. As a convert, Hasan’s identity is changed and Harun no longer sees him as the young friend he traveled Fez with. Instead of embracing each other like long lost brothers, they remain apart as they are on two different sides now. Harun defends Constantinople while Hasan tries to stand up for Rome, and while the two are sent to reconcile, Harun sees that there is a distance between them. “But if you are the envoy of the Pope and I am the envoy of the sultan, then we must discuss things differently” (336). Where at the beginning of the novel the two friends were as close as brothers, their relationship grows as a result of Hasan’s change in identity. Harun’s desire for revenge and Hasan’s conversion cause them to become different people by the end of the novel. As Leo, Hasan cannot be the same person he was that Harun respected. Instead, Leo is his enemy and not his ally and therefore their friendship suffered.
I personally was not surprised by Hasan’s drift away from his relationship with Harun. Throughout the novel, Hasan doesn’t seem able to maintain a permanent relationship with anyone he meets. Hasan’s conversion was certainly not genuine, so the rift between the two men wasn’t completely based on ideology. Perhaps Hasan, who became a hero to his people and was willing to kill and die in defense of his family, and then in defense of his village, could not respect Hasan who has no lasting loyalties to anyone. How could a loyal soldier like Harun respect what Hasan has done. All his life Hasan lived in pursuit of his fortune and his desire for adventure, while Harun sacrificed his life to free Mariam from the quarantine, and then risked his life to finally gain justice for the crimes committed by Zawarli. I believe that it is the personalities of the two many, rather than their ideologies which drove them apart.
I agree that it is interesting that Harun and Hasan are no longer friends towards the end of the novel when they once were unseperable.However, it seems that throughout the novel Hasan starts to grow away from all of the people who use to be hs friends.
I can see where you are going with your point that they drift apart, however I believe that the fact that they are still as close as they are is significant. Harun marries Hasan's sister, binding them together against all odds, Harun saves Hasan's sister from the lepers. When Hasan returns from exile, he refuses to believe what he is told that Harun is accused of doing, and leaves in an attempt to convince the sultan of Harun's innocence of the additional crimes he is credited. After Hasan realizes the futility of his mission, he collects his family (saving them from their torment) and goes to where he has heard Harun to be rumored to be, with Barbarossa(sp?). When he finds Harun, they 'embrace as brothers' and Harun takes them (family) under his protection. They part after that when Hasan brings his wife back to Cairo, as a 'spy' to warn of the impending Ottoman invasion. Additionally, within the scene you last quote, they also mention that their children are soon to be married. These events to me do not seem to be of those whose friendship is impossible.
I also think Maalouf is trying to show the multiplicity of identity around the Mediterranean at the time. These are two people who share similar backgrounds and have a rich history but who still end up polarized against each other simply based on where they live and their religions. Before this class, I assumed medieval Europe and the surrounding countries were fairly homogenous, just a few steps above the structures of tribes. By showing this divergence of identity between two Muslims, he succeeds in the same way Pamuk shows the convergence of identity between a Christian and a Muslim.
I think that the way the two men grow apart throughout the novel could be representative of the common roots and subsequent branching out of the Abrahamic religions. Hasan and Harun begin their friendship in a common place with common experiences, and for that reason they are bound together. However, as circumstances change, they develop differing personal and religious philosophies and go their separate ways. When they meet again, each represents a seemingly opposing religion with, in Harun's opinion, irreconcilable differences. However, the reader is painfully aware throughout the meeting that the two men have common roots and aren't as different as they seem.
Identity and Global Citizenship in Leo Africanus By Kristen Fisher Leo Africanus, a novel by Amin Maalouf focuses on identity and the idea of becoming a global citizen. Maalouf follows a young boy Hasan as he grows up and travels, eventually becoming Leo Africanus changing from a Muslim to a Christian. Upon finishing the book I reflected once again on the opening and closing pages to the text and how these short excerpts impact the way readers interpret this extensive text. The opening and closing passages truly reflect upon the idea of not having a single identity and how it is easier than expected to assimilate into different cultures. As mentioned in class today the story of Leo Africanus that Maalouf presents his readers with can be understood as a sort of fable. The novel is extensive and follows the adventures of Hasan as he travels from land to land, from Granada to Fez to Cairo and finally to Rome. Hasan grows into a man as the story evolves and he also transforms from a Muslim into a Catholic and changes his name from Hasan to Leo Africanus. The immense variety of events and history that Hasan lives through, as he travels from place to place, illustrates his ability to assimilate into different cultures and take on new identities in order to become successful and at home in each new city. Interestingly, Maalouf’s depiction of Eastern and Western worlds is more similar than different; he portrays the faults of each place alongside images of the downfall of each civilization. Maalouf desires not to show a preference towards either part of the world to prove how the West and East are so similar, they only seem so different by the identities and conceptions people have tied to each area of the world. Maalouf’s own personal experience living in both areas of the world also may impact the text as he longs to show readers that it is possible to feel completely comfortable in each area. The novel’s main goal is to use Hasan as a prime example for readers of a global citizen. On the opening page Hasan explains, “I come from no country, no city, no tribe” revealing his ability to wander to and from Western and Eastern nations (1). Leo Africanus, also known as Hasan, also instructs his son that he should not feel the need to be restricted and identified by a simple identity explaining, “Muslim, Jew or Christian, they must take you as you are, or lose you” (360). Maalouf clearly looks to stress the possibility of becoming a true global citizen, a person not identified by home country, religion or culture. Leo Africanus is meant to illustrate to readers the possibility of doing so even in modern times and to stress to readers that they should not fear the ‘other’. It is much easier than expected to find similarities with those whom we believe to be different from ourselves, which is what Maalouf hopes readers will take from this extensive novel.
I really like the what you said about Maalouf stressing the importance of becoming a global citizen. It is true that as the novel progresses, Hasan's identity changes from being Muslim to a more global citizen. Before his conversion, he constantly referred to his culture's traditions and expectations and often went above and beyond to meet what was expected of him. However, as the story progresses he becomes more aware of how different cultures are not only different but similar. I think you did a good job of showing how Maalouf as an unbiased author who highlighted the strengths and flaws of every culture. Because of this, it is obvious that Maalouf believed that becoming a global citizen was the best way to share each other's identity and become more accepting towards others.
Your blog response made me think again of this idea that the East and West are mirror images of one another when you say, "Maalouf’s depiction of Eastern and Western worlds is more similar than different; he portrays the faults of each place alongside images of the downfall of each civilization." Hasan as a global citizen makes him almost like the Venetian and Hoja combined (from The White Castle). The idea of a true global citizen that you bring up is interesting. Is it because Hasan is a true global citizen that he has "no country, no city, no tribe"? Is he shunned from all societies because he has indoctrinated the ideologies of all of them? Is there a paradox that says he cannot be any nationality because he is Christian and Muslim combined? Do the two obliterate each other or complete each other to make him a true global citizen? Very impressive blog response!
The discussion we had in class today about Hasan and his quickness to change identity really sparked a thought in my head about the believability of this character. Is it really so simple that one can pick up and drop a religion at their earliest convenience? It seems to be almost too simple for Hasan in "Leo Africanus." The real reason that I began to feel that it was unbelievable was because of the question asked about converting to the religion you consider to be the "opposite." I don't consider myself extremely religious but there are certainly some things I could never convert to, and I don't believe I could so easily buy into a religion or ideology that completely destroyed what I knew as a homeland, like the Catholic church did to Granada for Hasan. Perhaps there is a "greater purpose" - perhaps Hasan has some foresight into the matter and wants to become a diplomat to achieve peace. This idea follows the notion that Hasan is pragmatic and practical - he is always seemingly unengaged to everything around him, using people as plot devices, breaking loyalties, moving about in a very flexible way in order to survive any hardship he might have to face. Interestingly enough, there is one thing Hasan seems concerned about losing; his namesake, and in turn, his identity. He seems to have an inner struggle regarding the notion that he will no longer be the person he has been for many years, yet it still seems incredibly easy for him to shed that idea and move on. I feel as if religion is something equally as important, if not more important, than names. It is another way in which we identify ourselves, often the largest factor in identification. Perhaps this is incorrect, but I was always under the impression that one would have to truly throw their heart and soul into a religion for it to work out, to be meaningful. If there is always the questioning, the turning away, the doubt, I would say you probably are missing something. But Hasan seems to be quite religious, even from the very beginning of the book he refers several times to some type of greater being one could perhaps call God; "I had just been born, by the unceasing grace of the Most High" (1). I suppose this is the biggest source of my doubt as to Hasan's believability. If he is telling this story in retrospect, then his faith couldn't be that far from his heart, so why would he drop it so easily and carelessly? It seems suspicious to me.
This is a very well thought out blog response that I agree with wholeheartedly. I felt a similar way both upon reading the text and during our discussions about the conversion in class. It seems surprising to me that Hasan, who is a seemingly devoted Muslim would so easily give himself over to the Catholic faith. My interpretation during my reading of the book was that perhaps the conversion was not true in Hasan’s eyes. As we see later in the conversion scene, Hasan finds the acts being performed during the conversion as utterly ridiculous. Also, in a later scene, Hasan gives in to practicing Muslim tradition and begins to pray to Mecca in his jail cell hoping to be freed. I also like how you point out the idea of names and religion as a major part of each person’s identity. I am also not a very religious person, but I do know several people who are and they definitely define themselves based off of their beliefs. I found it very important that you brought up the strange reaction Hasan has during the conversion scene where he laments upon losing his namesake and not his religion. Looking back upon the novel I feel as though maybe Hasan knew that he would have to give up his religion for his freedom, or at least appear to. But to do this he had to lose his name, the biggest part of his identity that told others who he was and hinted at what he believed. Thus, losing the name Hasan to become Leo Africanus could have been the moment at which Hasan recognized that his faith was lost to the public sphere. Never again in the novel is Catholicism truly endorsed and it seems as if Hasan somewhat dropped his strong notions of faith. Instead, Hasan this conversion scene where he loses his identity illustrated in the same way how Hasan had lost his homeland, his family and friends.
I agree with you, I also do not believe it is easy to change an aspect of one's identity so easily. As a strange example, I have always been self-conscious about an aspect of my facial features. However, one time I got hit in the face and was worried that this would somehow change my appearance. Despite the fact that it was a part of me I disliked, I couldn't grasp the idea that I would be different somehow than the person I am. This example was something as simple as a small bump on the nose, how would I feel to not only have my name be different but my belief system as well? I agree with you that it seemed to be very convenient and easy for Hasan to become someone else and to throw his old self away. Instead of merging the two aspects of his personality together, his conversion appears to be more of an identity crisis in which Hasan is no more and Leo is the future. I don't believe this change is as easy as Maalouf makes it appear to be.
I definitely agree with you that Hasan is not a believable character. He is for to accepting of everything that befalls him in the novel. He seems to react to everything in his life with the air of an impartial observer. Throughout his travels, he never seems to miss his family. He doesn’t even seem to keep up permanent contact with his family. He is not outrages to be made a slave, or have his identity taken. He is not crushed to see his city fall, either Rome or Granada. I believe that such an emotional disconnect makes Hasan a highly improbable character.
The Book of Rome is a very telling part of Maalouf's overall point about identity and global citizenship. Throughout the novel, he gives us this character who is either cast off or leaves society in order to find his identity. Leo is forced to leave the city of his birth, adolescence, and numerous other places for several different reasons. What unifies his departure is the changing face of the Muslim world. Even when he leaves by his own volition, he is usually taking advantage of a war, conflict, or business opportunity that would ultimately influence his position within Fez, Timbuktu, or Cairo. Either way, he is actively shaping his identity within an Islamic context that conflates business, religion, and politics into one unified image of the self.
Yet Leo's ability to travel from one part of the Islamic world to the other comes from his other role as an exile or outsider. Although he is Muslim and has access to the cities in Northern Africa, a major part of his identity is fragmented. He has no sense of nationhood. So his religion gives him access to many Islamic cultures but he would not go in search of those cultures if he did not have a drive to find a place that could fill in for his original namesake.
Becoming a Catholic in a Christian land seems like it would be the complete opposite of what he has been searching for his entire life. On the contrary, Leo takes it pretty well. No doubt, this new identity takes a lot of adjustment for him but it finally alleviates the major conflict of his life. Grenada is a lost hope. He will never be able to visit Grenada as a Muslim and he will never feel a sense of place as a traveler. By unifying place and religion, despite it being counter to his beliefs and customs, he regains an integral part of his identity.
During the exercise in class today, I was struck by how difficult it was to think of how I would react to the idea of conversion at the hands of some religion that was counter to my beliefs. Unlike the Venetian in The White Castle, I would probably convert. Like Leo, I would rather be considered a complete citizen in a unified land rather than a stranger in a fragmented land. Plus, as a Christian he will be able to visit most Islamic countries without suffering any recourse. As a Muslim, he would probably be enslaved if he visited any Christian land.
Maalouf presents his conversion as carefully as possible. Instead of selling Leo out as a traitor to his religion, Maalouf understands the what it meant to be a citizen of the Western world in the 16th century.
I agree that Maalouf rather elegantly expressed Hasan's conversion to Leo. While I may not be able to sympathize entirely with his reasoning (partly because I disagree and partly because I have never been in that situation before) I do think you are striking a valid point. It is easy to say what would or could do when we are distant from the situation but in the face of adversity things may change. Perhaps his lifelong quest to find identity and a place to once again call home is solved by converting to the Catholic Church. Frankly, Hasan is in hostile territory and he can either submit or defy, and Maalouf presents this argument in a way that does not depict him as a traitor or sell out. Maalouf really builds the readers sympathies around this event so they are able to empathize with Leo.
Ellen Walpole Leo Africanus – Week 2 March 12, 2013
To Convert or Not to Convert: That is the Question
While finishing the second half of Maalouf's "Leo Africanus" I began to question whether Hasan’s conversion to Catholicism resulting in losing or finding his identity. I know that we established in the beginning of the book that he did not belong to one specific place and did not have a true “home,” but what does becoming Catholic actually mean for him?
Although the Pope was friendly and welcoming to the young slave, Hasan said “he would summon me each month, alone or with my teachers to test the state of my knowledge, particularly of the catechism. In his mind the date of my baptism was already fixed, as well as the name which I should bear” (Maalouf 294). Clearly, Hasan knew that there were underlying reasons for the Pope’s forthcomings, but he still did not seem offended that it was assumed he would convert.
Although Hasan struggled after the baptism with what it actually meant, he did not blame or resent anyone. His renaming of Leo made him questions the ties he held to Granada and how he should think of himself, but he did not seem bitter, which is something I admired. After thinking about the question that we were asked at the end of class, I decided that bitterness is exactly what I would struggle with if I were forced to convert to someone’s religion without any say in the matter.
It’s hard for me to fathom the forced conversion when I was brought up to accept all religions and people regardless of their beliefs. We live in a country that gives people the opportunity to believe in whatever god or deity they see fit and I think that is wonderful. However, during the Inquisition, people, Muslims in particular, did not have this freedom. I was reminded about "Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree" and the struggle with conversion in that family. While they did not want to give up their beliefs, they struggled with wanting to stay alive. While they ended up fighting for what they believed in, the opportunity to live weighed heavily.
I think if Leo was a more devote Muslim, maybe he would have struggled with converting to Catholicism a little bit more. I also think the way the Pope treated him encouraged him to do it because it was not presented in such a violent way as that in "Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree." This leads me to conclude that the “presentation” of a religion also shapes its outlook to outsiders.
I think Maalouf goes out of his way to present us with a character whose life is punctuated by loss. Hasan ends up losing his land, wealth, family, friends, identity, etc. and it does not seem to bother him as much as we would think. He is used to it and has come to see loss as a necessary and pragmatic thing, especially when it means the difference between life or death. Although Maalouf tries not to narrate Hasan's life as an allegory, I think you are right when you imply that religious identity is not at the heart of the book. What is central is the struggle to grasp at anything to form a pastiche of an identity. Most of our identities have been fairly stable compared to that of Hasan's, so even though I am not particularly religious, I think would have the same reservations as you.
What I find interesting in this novel that the main character has some interesting choice of friends. When one is young, one tends to be friends with people that they no longer will be friends with when they are older and for many reasons. The characters that Hasan chooses to be friends with in this novel really intrigue me because they are so much different from that of Hasan. The first friend that I am recounting of is Ahmad. Ahmad seems to be an odd friend when are children but does not seem that he will multiply into a ruler that is feared by most of the country when they are older. You can see that Ahmad is a young man who does not give up easily for when they are younger he challenges their teacher and the teacher ever regrets calling out Ahmad about his so called family lineage. When Hasan goes to visit him on behalf of the sultan we see now how truly cruel Ahmad has turned. “[…] Soon, this whole country will bend the knee as I pass, and one day you will tell your sons that the Lame Sharif was your friend, that he came to your house, and that he was worried about the fate of your sister. As for me, I shall remember nothing of it.” (p.203-204) Ahmads statement is a reminder that he and Hasan are no longer boys and that they are changed men. Another friend of Hasan that I find completely different from him is Harun. Harun seems to be more bold and daring when they are children from Hasan. When they grow up though Harun seems to be more of a frightening character. When he orders Mariam to remove her clothes in front of the Zarwali, he uses such anger towards her in frustration towards the Zarwali and it seems that he is not that of when he was a child. “Undress, Mariam!’ She looked at the Ferret, her eyes unbelieving, horrified. He shouted again: ‘It is I, Harun, your husband, who order you to undress! Obey!” (p.206) Harun seems to be a completely different person from when we last see him in the book and it makes us question why Hasan and he were ever friends. Why was Hasan friends with Harun or Ahmad? I believe it was because they both, when they were younger, brought out the qualities that Hasan never possessed. But it made me more curious as to why Maalouf put both of Ahmad and Harun’s terrible behavior three pages away from one another. Was it to make Hasan look better than both of what his friends had become?
I think it is also interesting that Maalouf put the negative images of Ahmad and Harun so close together. It could be because he wanted Hasan to be shown in a more positive light, but it could also be because he wants to show the impact of the changes in their lives. When they were yougner, the boys lived in a safe and normal world, but when they are adults, their world is completely different. They have experienced endless religious obstacles and seen extreme violence. I think the characterization of the men was Maalouf's way of showing the effects of the Inquisition and they way different people dealt with it.
I absolutely agree in the point you make explaining how ambiguous Maalouf's inclusion of the two contrasting characters of Hasan's friends are. In a way, I feel that this ties in to the discussion we had today in class, about including characters in a novel who are vastly contrasting in order to depict the good and the evil. This comes in to play as Hasan is juxtaposed against his two friends. Furthermore, I feel that this truly depicted the way in which different people were able to handle the inquisition and the tole it took on them as human beings.
A Comparison of Rulers In Amin Maalouf’s, Leo Africanus, the main character Hasan travels all around the Mediterranean, not often by choice, and visits various cities. Whether by fortune or misfortune, Hasan also becomes familiar with various leaders during this time period. While these leaders/rulers can be categorized by religion and geographical location, it is not clear as to which leaders, the Christian or Muslim, are evil or good. Hasan comes in contact with two popes, and two sultans, and in each case there is a dichotomy between the rulers of the same faith. In the book of Cairo, Hasan witnesses the might of Suleiman and is not happy with what occurs. Not only is his wife, a Castilian, and his son in danger of being killed by Suleiman’s army, Cairo is destroyed. While the initial assault on the city resulting in pillaging, looting and raping, when Tumanbay of Cairo fought back against the Grand Turk mass killing took place. Hasan describes this Sultan as a person who enjoyed death and killing. As compared to the sultan he replaced, the new sultan seems more forgiving. Hasan is also more receptive of the new sultan because of his family relations. Even the church in Rome seemed to put the new sultan and the Ottoman Empire to high standards. “The victory of the Ottoman will change the course of history. Perhaps this is the miracle which we were waiting for” (p.348).
On the other end of the religious spectrum, Hasan has the opportunity of meeting two popes. The first pope he meets is one of the friendliest people he meets on his adventures. Leo X is given Hasan as a ‘slave’, and he takes Hasan under his wing. Not only is Hasan taught new languages, Leo X has him teach other pupils from around the Mediterranean. Leo X also is a huge supporter of the arts, and commission’s artist to come to Rome and make art. Leo X is in stark contrast to Adrian, his successor, who hates art and is pious to the point of it being a fault. He is more comparable to Torquemada of the Spanish inquisition than to Leo X.
It is interesting that in Leo Africanus, we see the good and bad of leaders from two religions. It makes it seem that neither religion is more good or more evil than the other, and what distinguishes such actions are the individuals behind them.
I completely agree with you about individuals being responsible for their own accountability. It is not religion which defines a person but their moral conscienceness. A religion may help a person develop morals but it is not the religion that makes decisions and actions in life but people themselves. I find it interesting that most of the book we have read, not just Leo Africanus, that there is a separation between different religions and the people who practice it.
I couldn’t agree with you more. One of my favorite quotes and idea in the novel is that “… All religions have produced both saints and murders” (330). This blaming of other religions of their atrocities has gone on for such a long time and isn’t something that is isolated to the past; today we are just as guilty of it. It’s so much easier to blame other people and accuse them of being terrible and ignore the similarities that we have with them and the recognize the humanity in them. I mentioned in another blog response that a friend of mine from Egypt said to me once that while yes, some Muslims are terrorists not all terrorists are Muslim. This comes right back to the point that yes, some people are just bad and but we cannot, or rather should not, use that example to define a whole group or religion. By doing that we go back and forth between hateful remark after another and nothing gets solved, and that bad person doesn’t get punished because now they are hiding behind this huge excuse that is religion in some cases and other identities for others.
I also agree with this view point. I think it is interesting how each of these characters reacted to their roles. I feel as though the good and bad in every institution makes it confusing for us to decide weather or not we want to be apart of it. I wonder if Hasan was almost brainwashed by the kindness of Leo X - ultimately accepting the Roman lifestyle despite the corruption within. I also think it is interesting how Hasan experienced a "bad" sultan first in Cairo, and a "good" sultan last, opposite of his experience in the Vatican. I am wondering if this had anything to do with his accepting of the culture and of a new identity?
I found the name aspect of Hasan’s conversion to Catholicism rather interesting. Rarely do we get to choose our own names. Rather, we are told what we are by the people around us. Oftentimes, names are a sign of ownership. Our parents name us because we belong to them. When a woman changes her last name upon marriage, it implies that ownership has shifted from father to husband. Though unintentionally, when Leo X christens Hasan as John-Leo Africanus he marks him as belonging to the Catholic Church. If a name is somehow representative of an identity, we are forced to question how much control we really have over who we are and who others deem us to be.
It is implied that Hasan does not convert out of religious conviction, but out of respect for his master and benefactor. While considering the similarities between Protestantism and Islam, he remarks, “In spite of these similarities, it was impossible for me to follow my own rational inclinations on this subject. A ferocious struggle was taking place between Leo X and Luther, and I could not give my support to someone unknown to me at the expense of the man who had taken me under his wing” (296). Given this statement, it seems as if Hasan agrees to convert because he owes himself to the Pope. Even when the two men first meet, Hasan he says of the Pope’s touch, “whether as a sign of affection or taking possession I do not know” (292). This further suggests a sense of benign ownership on Leo X’s behalf. Despite the constant melding of cultures in the novel, it is also clear that Catholic, Protestant, and Islamic cultural groups are all vying for social and political control (though mainly Catholic and Islamic). One has to wonder if conversion is anything more than a glorified game of spiritual monopoly, in which socio-economic compensation is traded in for the deed to one’s religious preference. Additionally, Leo X is known for his extravagance, so his protégé could be seen as an “exotic” extension of his material and cultural wealth. I acknowledge that Pope Leo is certainly a tolerant and well-meaning leader. This much is obvious. However, I think it is also important to understand the practical and symbolic implications of Hasan’s conversion under his care. I’m sure that my father did not give my mother, siblings and I his last name to intentionally control us. This being said, to refuse to recognize the message of power sent by such an act would be problematic.
The name “Leo Africanus” itself is an interesting choice for a name. The fact that Hasan is named after the pope suggests that as a Catholic he holds a position of power over his own “people” (hence the distinction of “Africanus”). He points out that men often give themselves names of things they are afraid of. Leo, or lion, certainly falls under this category. However, his previous name, Hasan, means “handsome,” or “good” according to various internet sources. When Hasan moves from Middle-Eastern Islam to Westernized Catholicism, his name shifts from a comfortable, positive meaning to a fearsome one. Perhaps this is indicative of his own fear of his new self, a self that seems more assigned to him by a friend in power than chosen in good faith.
After first reading Leo Africanus, it seems like Pope Leo X is nice without fault. He does seem to help Hasan, with his conversion and name change as just being conventional. I like the perspective you bring in, that maybe Leo X is not as benevolent as he seems on the surface. Considering Leo X’s liking of art, it does not seem unlikely that Leo X would want an exotic underling that could prove useful not only for his knowledge, but almost as an artwork he commissioned himself. With this viewpoint, Leo X seems less one dimensional and good.
I found the analysis of the names of both Leo and Hasan quite interesting, as you point out the significance of names and what changing names does to a person. Out of all the things that truly identify a person, a name is primary to one's entire persona. The changing of names reminds of of "One Hundred Years of Solitude," which focuses on and plays with names as being identity. One part of the novel features twins who share their father's name and only the Spanish words for first and second differentiate them. I feel as though this applies to both Hasan/Leo's name change, as he instantly adopts a more fearsome aura when his name is changed to "lion" rather than "handsome."
Throughout Leo Africanus, characters are only free from their imprisonment due to their abandonment of cultural principles or practices. Of those presented in the book, most notable is Hasan's conversion from a Muslim to a Christian, giving him the ability to roam freely around Europe to be a true citizen of the continent. Littered throughout the book are flashes of Islamic culture, Christian culture, and Judaist culture but they do not influence the progression of the novel itself, nor does it contribute to a bias of one religion--rather, it only supports the argument that all Abrahamic religions are integrated and intertwined, lending credence to the idea that Maalouf is using Hasan/Leo Africanus as a vehicle to show integrated cultures instead of ones that are adversarial.
Maalouf notes similarities between religions, specifically Protestanism and Islam, in The Year of the Heretics. Hans explains: "Does Luther not commend the removal of all statues from places of worship, considering that they are objects of idolatry? 'The angels do not enter a house where there is a dog or a figurative representation,' the Messsenger of God has said in a well-attested hadith. Does Luther say that Christianity is none other than the community of the believers, and ought not to be reduced to a Church hierarchy? Does he not affirm that the Holy Scripture is the sole foundation of the Faith...In spite of these similarities..." (295-296), which relates to the closeness of these religions as being so similar that only petty cultural divides create the schism between Islam and Christianity. Furthermore, the main character's journey from Granada to Fez to finally Rome encapsulates Hasan's identity as a "world citizen" and not as a citizen of his religion or his nation. His conversion to Christianity does not splinter his identity, and the process of doing so isn't so dishonorable where he cannot like the Venetian in White Castle. Instead, Hasan's "transformation" into Leo Africanus only strengthens the natural identity the character has throughout the novel.
It is most clearly defined when it is said that "which unites believers is not so much a common faith as the ritual actions they perform in common," (330). While there are gleaned differences between Christian and Islamic culture, their universal root is what should unite them all and rather than create schism completely. In the end, Maalouf does not describe Abrahamic religions as shadows of the pomegranate tree, but rather as the physical branches themselves and not as flattened views of one common ancestral base.
I agree that Maalouf does a good job of portraying the good and bad of both Christianity and Islam, and of blending the two through characters such as Hasan. Hasan's role in the novel as a sort of crucible in which multiple cultures are melded and solidified into a single identity is exemplified in the passage where he meets his old friend Harun. As an ambassador with a multicultural background, Hasan/Leo is eager to work together with the representative of the Ottoman sultan. When attempting to convince Harun Pasha to compromise, he draws on their common human traits as friends and potential in-laws. Although Harun rejects Hasan's attempts, I think Maalouf uses this meeting to show the common roots of both Christianity and Islam.
I think this is a parallel to the idea that it is not a religion that is evil, but an individual that displays its evilness. Leo Africanus does not experiece extreme negativity in Europe because the Pope treated him like a human being. Although he was somewhat forced into Christianity, it was not like the scene in the White Castle where the Venetian's had to choose between converting or be-heading. The lack of violence in Leo's expereince made his experience seem much less dramatic.
I think your description of the Abraham religions as all branches of the same tree works well with what Leo Africanus makes the reader think about. The comparison of Lutheran ideas to Islamic faith also points as to why religions so closely related have poor relationships. When focusing on the core doctrines of faith, it seems that when accumulation of wealth is concerned problems arise. An example of this is Roman Catholic church selling the position of bishop.
In Leo Africanus there is a lot of mention of Popes and their significance in the time period. The book displays two very different types of popes in a close time period. This thought made me think about the current papal conclave. It made me wonder what cardinals think about when they are deciding who should become the pope.
Historically the Papal Conclave takes place after the previous pope dies. The cardinals will lock themselves into the Sistine chapel and will not leave until they have decided to elect the pope. Everyday that they do not come to a decision of who to make pope, black smoke will pour from the Vatican When they decide whom to elect the pope white smoke will poor out of the Vatican. Then the deacon cardinal will walk out onto the balcony over-looking Vatican City and says "Habemus Papam!" in English “We have a new Pope!” This process can go on for as long as it needs, the longest papal conclave in history was in 1268, which lasted three years ending in 1271.
So one must ask what Cardinals are looking for when they vote for the pope. In the book we have two popes, Leo X and Adrien the Barbarian, two very different popes. Leo X is more Liberal for his time and respects art, where Adrien has a stricter religious mind-set. One conservative and another Liberal, why would the Cardinals choose a more conservative pope after Leo X? Did they feel that they needed to create a stricter leader of their religion? So this makes me wonder does this idea of basing the new pope decision off of how the last pope ruled.
So what kind of Pope was Benedict the sixteenth? He elected as a conservative pope yet his actions as pope were not so conservative. He changed many rules of the catholic religion that have been around for thousands of years. For example Benedict decided that Limbo was not a thing anymore, he said that unbaptized babies that died before they could get baptized did not go to Limbo anymore, they went to Heaven. This is a radical change that someone might even call Liberal. Also in recent years there has been controversy with pedophilia with priest. This tells me that the next pope will be more conservative then most. I predict that the next pope will probably be against progressive change socially, like gay rights.
Popes generally are very influential in the world because they are the leader of one of the biggest religions in the whole world. They can make decisions about things that could potentially move forward or backward social change. Although I am not a religious person, I will be paying close attention to this current Papal Conclave.
Popes always appeared to me as leaders of the Catholic faith. I find them similar to kings or presidents in that they are either representative of the entire Catholic faith or they run the faith according to how they desire. Many stories cropped up around when Pope Benedict XVI was chosen regarding his "Hitler Youth," but said stories failed to report on the troubling times of Nazi Germany that most likely forced the former pope into conforming to the policies of the country at that time. Negative press might influence social opinion of religions, Catholicism in particular, but I've observed that it has never drastically reduced practicing one's faith, but rather losing "faith" in the practitioners of the religion.
The newly chosen pope did state that homosexuality is immoral and is against same-sex marriage, however he did stress the importance of respecting those who identify as homosexual. Pope Francis also opposed abortion, euthanasia and the free distribution of contraceptives in Argentina as well. We are looking at a conservative pope, which is no surprise after Pope Benedict XVI's generally more progressive reign.
I liked how you compared the Popes in the novel to the Papal Conclave that just took place. You bring up a notable pattern; Leo X is liberal and tolerant, and some might say superfluous in his enjoyment of art and music. Adrien on the other hand, is known as the "Barbarian"; that alone signifies the vast differences between them. It is easy to doubt that Adrien would have baptized and African slave. Likewise, Pope John Paul II was a fan favorite, and famous for his numerous meetings with leaders of other religions. In contrast, Pope Benedict was chosen because of his conservative notions. It is interesting to see how the pattern repeats itself, liberal to conservative, so many years later.
After our discussion in class today about the baptism scene from page 296 to 298, I was thinking about the many different ways that this event signified Hasan’s rebirth. Not only is he a Christian in the eyes of the Church, but he is also a free man that bears a new name, a new identity, a new father, and hopes for a new beginning.
Pope Leo X assumes the role of a father to Hasan and makes him into a protégé, ordering him to learn Latin, the catechism, the Gospel, Hebrew, and Turkish (293). Although he is entirely subservient to the will of the Bishop of Rome, he does receive a sort of fatherly affection. When Hasan is touched by the Pope before his baptism, he is unable to distinguish between whether or not the Pope is being affectionate or possessive over him (292). However, it seems that regardless of how this physical interaction is interpreted, affectionate and possessive are still the characteristics of a father to a newborn babe. Hasan even felt that on the day of his baptism, the Pope used the phrase ‘My son’ to address him in a way that felt unparalleled to the way he addressed anyone else. The Pope gave Hasan his own “first two names, John and Leo, as well as the name of his distinguished family, the Medicis” a practice that was not uncommon among Western royalty. He even refers to the Pope as his “saintly adoptive father” (297).
After his baptism, the birth of his new identity becomes the birth of a new man in Christian society. The Pope showed him affection like a father, by giving him a gift that signified his tolerance and embracing him “like a real father” (297). Hasan, now Leo, was awarded freedom, giving him the opportunity to be a “traveller, a migrant creature” (298) once again, no longer enslaved by the Church. Being overwhelmed by that freedom and treated so much like a true son, Leo accepted his new father with love, stating that he “loved him since that moment” (297) when they embraced.
Hasan’s new father-figure, the Pope, seemed to replace the loss of his true father Muhammad, and allow him the freedom that was taken away from him when he was very young. This freedom was something his own father could not give him. I believe that the name Muhammad bears significance in this pivotal moment of rebirth. It symbolizes how Hasan needed to renounce the teachings of Muhammad to receive the freedom that would be awarded to him by adopting the teachings of Christ. His religious father, so to speak, went from Muhammad to Christ, while his identity changed from the son of Muhammad to the ‘son’ of Pope Leo X and the Catholic Church.
This is a very interesting analysis of the conversion that I agree with. The act of converting religion is a big step in a persons life, one is born into a religion that they know and then sometime later in life have to convert into something completely different. This conversion is very different than other conversion that we have read about in other books. In Shadows of the pomegranate tree everyone looks down upon the people who convert, and the converts live in almost shame. In the white castle the narrator would rather die then give up his religion. So one might ask why in Leo Africanus is Leo so quick to give up his religion and convert to christianity. Well I think if I were to be captured and I was told to convert or die I feel like life is worth living to its extent and I would give up something that I honestly don't care about and live my life. It seemed to work for Leo.
I cannot help but question Pope Leo X’s motives when it comes to Hasan. At first, I thought it was nice of him to be so welcoming to someone who might have usually been mistreated-after all, Hasan was a Muslim, African slave. This is an assumption, but I would think that if any slaves were chosen to speak to the Pope directly, it would have been the Christian ones. As it was, Pope Leo X entertained Hasan personally, asking him to teach the conclave Arabic and his culture; when Hasan is baptized, the Pope does it himself, and even gives Hasan his name.
While on the surface, it may seem like the Pope is taking Hasan under his wing and protecting him, I think there is more at play here. I fear that the only reason that the Pope treats Hasan as his son is because he wants to gain knowledge about the East from him. In an optimistic view, it may be admirable that they want to learn Arabic, to foster cross-cultural relations. However, given how the Christians historically acted towards the East, it is very likely that the Italians are desperate to learn Arabic not to engage in trade and a sharing of ideas, but rather using those reasons as a cover to eventually take over the East.
I also feel that by providing Hasan with all of these privileges and opportunities, Hasan feels indebted to the Pope; I think that is why he converted to Christianity. When Hans questions Hasan on matters of religion, Hasan tells him that no matter what he feels, he cannot “betray his protector.” (295) This forces the reader to question whether Hasan actually believes the things he teaches, and whether he truly converted to Christianity. He almost groups himself with Muslims, but catches himself before he incriminates himself (330). I am under the impression that just as the Pope is shielding the truth from Hasan, Hasan is lying to the Christians about his conversion.
Your suspicion is definitely founded. It seems that the Pope is forcing Hasan to undertake this strict program for the benefit of the Church. The circumstances surrounding Hasan's education and his baptism seem strange. Why is Hasan the one who is chosen to bridge the gap between the two religions? It's still clear that Pope Leo X believes Islam is a form of "Barbary" because he denounces it during Hasan's baptism. This suggests that the Pope's actions are strictly a stragetic move. You make an excellent point, Hasan admits to loving the Pope for what he has done for him, for making him a free man among Christians, but it is still questionable if he is completely indoctrinated into the religion. The Pope as well as himself know that he will return to his people once again, the printed text in Arabic that Hasan receives from the Pope is evidence of that. The Pope knows that Hasan is now seperated from his people ideologically. Hasan's interaction with his former friend is example of the kind of situation the Pope realizes will take place in Hasan's life. Is this a strategic alternative to previous methods of conversion? Converting from the inside? Really interesting blog response!
I have been trying to figure out what Amin Maalouf has been trying to say with his novel because I didn’t find it to have as clear of a Western Orientalist view on the Middle East as the previous novels we have read. My conclusion, while might not be the true intent of the author, helped me give purpose to the text beyond the testament of a traveler to his son.
Throughout the text there are many instances where Maalouf strives remove blame of one side for the course which history and not pit one side, Islam and Christianity, against each other. The most noticeable and remarkable to me was Granada. When depicting the state of which the country was when the Ferdinand and Isobella finally enter the city (41). Granada’s fall was not that of a strong nation that fought till the bitter end, but rather a country divided and corrupted from within that assisted in it’s fall to conquerors. Having said that, in inquisition was a bloody take over of people’s home and culture, this is of course inexcusable. What Maalouf is asking us very early on to do is to see both sides of history and know that to focus on one and take that side and call the other completely blameless is to turn a blind eye history as a whole and only see half of it. To reinforce the belief that one should not solely take the side of one entity over another Maalouf presents the history of both Muslim brothers fighting against Muslim brothers and Christian brothers against Christian brothers; the Ottomans “prepared to invade Syria and Egypt” (262) and the Lutherans wage wars against the Catholics.
“… All religions have produced both saints and murders” (330). ‘Opposite’ religions cannot be blamed for history and all that has come from it. We cannot point fingers at others and lay blame without looking at the part that we played in the whole situation. The blame-game can go on forever and the only way to take a step beyond it is to study, and understand history in a comprehensive way that will allow us to stop it from repeating itself as we know all too well that it does. History’s repetition is represented through Hasan - doomed to repeat the sins of his father and doomed to live the a life without a homeland like that of his father ; through the Pope - doomed to believe in an agreement that was reached with his conquers much like the sultan of Granada (352) which will ultimately be broken; and through Rome – doomed to the same “torrential outburst of rain”(351) that devastated Granada.
Amin Maalouf’s history is so intertwined with both Christian and Islamic traditions that it comes as no surprise that he would have such an opinion; actually one would hope he does. He cannot take sides and lay blame on one over the other because doing so would mean splitting his own identity into two. At the risk of sounding too idealistic I think Maalouf is telling us that we absolutely must understand history and to have a peaceful world we must stop blaming one another and instead learn to see the similarities in one and another and live in harmony.
The Ottomans invading Syria and the Lutheran-Catholic conflict was a great example to support the claim that Maalouf is trying to show both sides in an equal light. As we discussed previously in class, Maalouf is fluent in both Arabic and French, he has lived in both the Middle East and in Europe, and we are not exactly sure whether he is even Muslim or Christian (or anything, for that matter). That mindset definitely had a major impact of the book. I agree, it was nice to read something that didn't blatantly hate on a certain religion, or blame a group of people for history's inequalities; and this book definitely stressed the importance of focusing on the similarities.
The second half of Leo Africanus continues to engage in the idea of leaving a legacy behind to one’s descendents and people in general after one’s death. The preface of the novel makes the theme of legacy very explicit, since it is the narrator speaking to his son about his life, his travels, and his learning. The second half of the novel begins to elaborate on this theme, since Hasan begin his own family with his own wives and children and worries continually about the legacy, both in monetary and less tangible terms, that he will leave to them. Hasan is deeply concerned for the well-being of his family after he is banished into exile for two years when Harun kills the Zarwali, so much so that he organizes a grand parade and gives out money to people so that he and his family will be remembered kindly in Fez.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of legacies is a also a more general theme in the novel, not specifically tailored to the life of Hasan and his family. At one point the narrator describes the two sieges launched against the Portuguese, one by the Sultan and the other by the Lame Sharif: “Both were repulsed, with heavy losses, no trace of which can be found in the poems composed in their honor,” (201). This seems to be an expression of two things: first, it shows how legacy, tradition, and even history are subject to distortions and misrepresentations. Both sieges were unsuccessful and incurred heavy losses, yet the poetry written to honor them glossed over these negative details and played up the positive ones to glorify the deeds in the eyes of the Muslims. This historiography and problematic history is a theme that Leo Africanus continually grapples with.
The other theme that this particular incident highlights in the novel is the power of literature to create a certain legacy. At some point all of the people who were in these battles or witnessed them will be dead, and the only means of remembering the events will be through poetry and written records. This small incident in the novel is just one of many examples of Amin Maalouf demonstrating the power of the written word over the minds of people, both in the present and in the future.
I think the idea of legacy is a very important one that is illustrated as important to Hasan through his description and care of his two sons. Nur’s son obviously is obviously only Hasan’s by marriage and while he does care for him the time that he has him, Hasan’s reaction to Maddelena’s son is very dfferent. Upon seeing his young son he exclaims that here is his first-born son, even though he technically has Beyazid. He is fighting to keep his identity alive through his sons and family. Hasan is ever changing and doesn’t seem too upset about his conversion, and his lack of a homeland, however, he is always concerned with his family and their safety.
DeleteThis post brings to mind, for me, a concept of literary immortality. We traditionally like to see literature, at its best, as a sort of time capsule, preserving a moment of the historical past, giving us insight into the particular perspectives and biases of the author at the time it was written (regardless of whether said literature is fact or fiction). This idea certainly pervades Leo Africanus, to some extent. Leo's concern with physical immortality, in the form of his bloodline, hints at a basic, human desire to remain upon Earth, in some way, shape, or form, forever, and to a certain extent, other characters seem to attempt likewise. Artists such as Raphael could be said to be purposefully leaving behind "signatures," their artistic works, left behind to be enjoyed by future generations.
DeleteAnd yet, there is a suggestion that this type of immortality is impossible. Leo does not maintain a "steady" family throughout the novel. He desires to sire an heir, but his multiple relationships yield him no such thing, or, at least, not without a great degree of difficulty. As well, the literature with which Leo may be familiar is, often, incorrect. Leo, at various points, recalls bits of folklore which he believes are facts. Off the top of my head, I recall the incident where Leo describes lions, and women who can tame them by revealing their bodies. This outlandish cultural exaggeration and folklore pervades Leo's conception of the world around him, and suggests that we can never fully comprehend the past, or indeed, the world around us.
The depiction of the papacy in Leo Africanus is fluid, changing as Leo (Hasan) encounters Popes Leo X (from whom he receives his titular Latin name), Adrian VI, and Clement VII. Today, we know the Pope as the face and voice of Christianity, and a figurehead who, despite being embroiled in discourse with an increasingly secular world often hostile to the tenets of Christendom, serves what is primarily a symbolic role. Although the Pope is head of state of Vatican City, the media certainly does not emphasize the undoubtedly political nature of the papacy, and many people are probably unaware that there is a political component to his leadership at all.
ReplyDeleteThus, I was particularly intrigued by the scene in the final chapter of Leo Africanus, in which Pope Clement VII musters the Roman defense against the Lansquenets during the Sack of Rome. Here, we see the Pope assuming a role similar to a Commander-in-Chief. Clement VII was forced to adopt a militaristic leadership in the face of destruction. It stands to reason that the Pope must therefore, as a leader, act according to the particulars of a situation, and he can either attempt, in vain, to prevent change (think of Pope Adrian VI's papacy and Leo's imprisonment) or negotiate and present Christianity as an organization espousing tolerance and openness of opinion.
Soon, the cardinals will choose another Pope, and his leadership will depend largely upon the events of the next few years. Christendom is victim to bad press; the media (as well as many irreligious persons) are quick to air Christendom's dirty laundry, and to be fair, it has a lot of dirty laundry. However, as proven by humanitarians such as Pope John Paul II, who espoused tolerance, Christianity is capable of great things. Keep in mind that a religious argument here is moot; people will believe what they believe, and religious conflict in some form or another will always be an issue. However, Christendom has the opportunity to present itself in a new, more secular and humanitarian light, and it is only in doing so, and in working alongside Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, the irreligious, and people of all faiths that the next Pope can maintain the integrity and potential of the Church.
While the position of Pope is certainly a political as well as religious position, the power of the Pope is incomparable to what it was in the 16th century when this novel is set. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) established states as the primary actors in international relations, and since then this role of state sovereignty has been solidified. The actual power of the Pope as a transnational actor is extremely limited: he may encourage goodwill towards other religions and therefore influence Catholics, but the ultimate power of both foreign and domestic policy is up to the state, and any significant changes in how different cultures treat each other will be a product of state interaction.
DeleteI found it really interesting how you brought our current situation (as of Tuesday) of being between Popes, into the context of Maalouf's novel. It's true that the Pope is in the position to alter the global identity of the Catholic Church, and either present itself as a force of acceptance, tolerance, and modernity or classify itself as either conservative or corrupt. The stark contrast between Leo X and Adrian the Barbarian within Maalouf's novel proves that point. It will be interesting to see how the new Pope fares as he enters the position. Although, as a Latin American, he brings a new viewpoint to the Church, will he be as conservative as his predecessor?
DeleteDia Seskin
ReplyDeleteLeo Africanus: Second Half
Upon finishing Leo Africanus a number of things stood out to me immediately. I found the quote by W.B. Yeats on the page that follows the Table of Contents to hold a significant amount of meaning having finally finished the novel. I believe that Amin Mallouf’s inclusion of the quote was extremely brilliant, given that Yeats was an Irish poet who’s main theme throughout the course of his poetry seemed to suggest a loss of culture for an Ireland which in reality may have never existed. In terms of this novel, Hasan, seems to be in search of some kind of home, or a place to belong to up until the very last pages, after being exiled from his original home in Granada. From this point on, we watch Hasan move from establishment to establishment, in certain cases even being exiled as he continually searches for a place to settle down and ultimately live his life, and yet he is never satisfied. He is consistently expelled for one reason or another from each home he attempts to inhabit, taking on a number of wives who all eventually leave him or unfortunately die. Furthermore, he acknowledges the fact that he has a son given that this novel is written as a kind of guide for him, but until the final section of the novel, his wives and mistresses all fail to grant him this heir.
It is not until he meets Maddalena, that Hasan’s ultimate search for a reason to live or even his search for a sense of stability in life, is finally achieved. This is done when Maddalena finally bares him a son, who will live to carry on his family line and possibly even return to Hasan’s original religious practice. In connection to Yeats, his poetry suggests that over the course of time, the true Irish culture had been forgotten and lost, which is undeniably the case for Hasan. From the very start of the novel, Hasan is forced to abandon his home, the very root of his culture, and identity. From there he travels, however instead of mourning this loss like Yeats, he acts in a very different way. We watch he him incorporate each culture, essentially becoming a blend of them all, further using his vast knowledge of these cultures to his advantage.
Another similarity to Yeats I found interesting, was his obsession with symbols, and the way he cleverly used characters within his poetry and plays to represent the essence of Irish nationalism. This is a tool also used by Mallouf, in that he includes a vast amount of characters who are depicted as stereotypical versions of the cultures and ethnicities they represent. For example, the character of Hans, who is given a stereotypical German name embodying stereotypical German characteristics. Hans is used more of as a symbol than an actual realistic character.
I agree with your interpretation of the importance of the Yeats quote, and I'm glad you mentioned it because I was thinking about it, too. The novel can be seen as a post-colonial or diasporic kind of text, where the protagonist has lost his home to conquerors and is forced to be an exile wherever he ends up. I like that you linked this to the loss of Irish culture that Yeats portrays in his work, and I would say that Maalouf may be trying to point out the importance of understanding the East as products of Western imperialism. Hasan had lived in what is now considered a Western country, but was forced out through conquest. By creating displaced people in the original people of Granada, the West doomed these people to a life of identity issues, which we obviously see in Hasan.
DeleteI think i is important that Maddalena stays with Hasan because she is of the diaspora two times over, being from Granada and Jewish as well.
Leo wanders, not finding a home, because he has no other choice, due to his status of an exile, or of being in-between. His son, however, will have more of a chance in life because although he was born to two of the diaspora, he gets the chance of time to either return to Granada, or to adopt Rome as a new home.
I think it's great that Maalouf includes a quote from Yeats in this novel (I'm in Doggett's Irish Lit class as well!) This really helps to contextualize the issues of loss, identity, and nationhood that we discuss in that class which are also prominent themes in this novel. I especially like the connection you made with Yeats about how there is a sense in both texts of a continual and desperate search for something that can't be found or articulated. For Yeats this something is "Irishness", and for Hasan it seems to be identity. Attempting to find the one, true, perfect identity for Hasan is as fruitless and frustrating as Yeats attempting to uncover whatever it means to be essentially Irish.
DeleteIdolatry and Corruption
ReplyDelete“Is it true that after having made the statue of Moses Michelangelo ordered it to walk or speak?” (305) Our protagonist addresses the artist Raphael at his baptism. Having just been officially converted to the Catholic faith, Hasan is immediately faced with defending the Islamic culture and faith to the artist. Inquiring about the prevalence of art in the East, Hasan replies “Some people do paint or sculpt, but all figurative representation is condemned. It is considered as a challenge to the Creator” (305).
Perhaps what is most ironic about this passage is the condemnation with which Raphael treats Hasan. As a Catholic, he mocks the Islamic view that demotes idolatry within the creation of art. However, the prohibition of idolatry is not strictly a Muslim belief. In fact, it’s clearly prohibited in the Bible.
One of the most memorable passages within the Bible (for me at least) was in the Book of Exodus when Moses triumphantly leads the Jews out of Egypt through the Red Sea, parting the water to lead his people to freedom. After marching through the sea, Moses leaves his people to climb up Mount Sinai and converse with God. However, the Israelite people become restless during the forty days and forty nights it takes Moses to transcribe the Ten Commandments. Moses’ brother Aaron builds an altar upon which he places a golden calf, which many of the Israelites begin to worship. As a result, Moses and his followers slaughter about 3,000 of the Israelites for idolatry and straying from the worship of God.
Thus, when I first read Hasan’s question to Raphael, asking if Michelangelo had indeed ordered his statue of Moses to walk or speak, I immediately saw the irony. The prophet Moses clearly forbids the Israelites from practicing idolatry, even going so far as slaughtering some of his people to make an example of their crime. The fact that Michelangelo attempts to make an idol out of Moses, the prophet who condemned such acts, seems to me as an attempt on Maalouf’s part to portray the Catholics as corrupt in their religious views—they do not respect the prophet Moses or his proclamations to the Israelites within the Bible. Although the corruption of the Church is portrayed in more obvious ways as well, such as when Hans shows Hasan the poverty much of Rome lives in in comparison to the wealth of the Vatican, this reference to Moses and idolatry portrays the corruption in a more subtle manner.
I find this post particularly interesting, especially given some of the information I brought up during today's class discussion. Art, throughout history, has attempted to depict the divine, whilst being entirely aware of the inherent futility of such an act. Muslims, such as Leo Africanus, see such attempts, regardless of their futility, as an affront to the Creator, whereas Christians, such as Raphael, in the novel, seems to use the futility of divine artistic depiction as a justification for doing so in the first place. There is not necessarily a right answer. What is important is that human beings have always attempted, and will probably always attempt, to express something beyond them, whether that is science, God, the paranormal, or otherwise. Arguing whether or not we should be doing so brings up fundamental, but answerable, questions about art itself: what is its purpose? To what extent to we understand it as a figurative or naturalistic practice? What are its limits? Art is a science of expression unto itself, however, and questions like these are often lost in a subjective mire. Ultimately, there is no answer. Not yet, anyway.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading this post and have to say I wholeheartedly agree with the sense of irony being proposed here by Maalouf. The story of Moses is the outline for the Mosaic covenant, or the covenant the people and God are both expected to uphold. A big part of that covenant is the dismissal and abandonment of idolatry; instead of seeing a God, there must be faith involved. The fact that Raphael is making ignorant comments about Islam while also being completely ignorant to his own faith is an idea that's not unheard of today. Many people are quick to condemn a religion that doesn't practice idolatry while their own does practice idolatry when it shouldn't do so. By adding a situation like this to the book Maalouf is making the book more readable and accessible to someone who might not necessarily read World Literature.
DeleteI like the point of irony you brought up from the Bible. Why should Rafael stand by the depiction of Moses when Moses himself preached to his followers the importance of staying away from idol worship? With this reference to Moses, I think it is very possible that Maalouf was trying to point to the story from the Bible that your brought up. By taking our attention in that direction, of the Christian's origins, he helps us to see both the similarities between the religions, and the corruption or the tendency for Christians to sometimes pick and choose from their Holy text. I'd say that this notion of selective worshiping is evident in the various branches of Christianity that exist.
DeleteDuring our discussion in class about this bible story and this moment in the novel I find this scene in the novel particularly telling about Maalouf's motive regarding the portrayal of different religions. Rarely do any of the characters really have conversations in which they comment upon the religions of others and argue over the superior religion. But this is the first scene in which two characters really begin to look for differences between the ideas of Islam and Christianity. Hasan clearly holds his old faith dear to him and yet seems to recognize the extreme similarities between his new and old beliefs. While Raphael looks to be making a fight, Hasan argues that the religions actually stress the same ideas. Since the story you mention takes place in Exodus, this idea of not worshiping idols is accepted in all three of the major world religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity). Thus, by including a scene remarking upon these so-called differences in artistic forms, Maalouf looks to reveal to readers that the West and East are not different at all, but in fact quite similar. Since Maalouf’s main goal is to stress the concept of global citizenship and by remarking upon a small but significant similarity he hopes readers will quickly recognize the ability they hold in finding things in common rather than forcing people apart.
DeleteJeanne Magnetti
ReplyDeleteThe Improbability of Leo Africanus
In Amin Maalouf’s protagonist, we see reflected his concept of the ‘global identity,’ as well as Maalouf’s hope that a world of people like this would allow us all to coexist peacefully. Hasan travels the world, and his drifter status allows him to understand and live peacefully in all the civilizations he encounters. However, while Maalouf sees strength in this character I see weakness. Hasan is loyal to no person or place he has ever encountered and faces the events of his life with apathy. He sheds his homes, families, and children the way a snake sheds its skin. Hasan built families and then moved on as if they were just chapters in a book he could turn the page on. Further, he distrusts the Turks who his people see as the saviors of his people because they pose a threat to one of his lovers’ sons. This suggests that he lacks a lasting connection to the people of his country. Moreover, when faced with his conversion to Catholicism, Hasan expressed some concern over the loss of his name and his identity, but accepted his circumstances with a minimal amount of protest. He expressed some confusion over the duplicity of his identity, but didn’t express any outrage that the people of some foreign culture could just take over his sense of self. In addition, when his Rome was under siege by the Protestants, Hasan fled the city just as he fled Granada as a boy. One would expect that once Hasan was an adult, with the ability to fight for his home, he would do so, but the novel ended just as it began, with Hasan fleeing his home without any protest. The loyalty that the protagonist showed for his identity, his family, and his country was minimal. The most Hasan did in most of his adversarial circumstances was express mild distaste for the situation, and I would argue that a character who lives his life like an impartial observer to all that befalls him is rather improbable. If Amin Maalouf expects this identity to be held as the solution to society’s faults, than I would argue that he is a utopian. People are not so desperate to stop conflict that they will shed all that they are, including their identities, their families, and their countries, and I believe that Maalouf’s hopes for everyone to share a ‘global identity’ are unrealistic.
I think you’re viewpoint on Hasan’s global identity is very interesting—before reading this post I didn’t spend too much time thinking about Hasan’s indifference to leaving behind one family after another in various parts of the world. While reading the novel, I did notice that Hasan always seemed indifferent to his situation. He never really thinks about his wives, his children, his mother, Harun, or Mariam. While in Rome he seems to just accept the fact that he is separated from his family and doesn’t think or worry about their well-being or safety. However, I disagree with you to a certain extent on Hasan’s loyalty to his country and to his family—while I was confused by Hasan’s lack of emotional response to being separated from his family so many times, in many instances he didn’t really have a choice. Taken captive as a slave, banished from Fez…in these instances he didn’t have a choice to prove his loyalty to his country because he was forced, against his will, to leave them behind.
DeleteI really enjoyed your description of how Hasan can be viewed as simply "shedding his skin" of multiple cultures and identities. I agree that he does not object a significant amount in giving up his name, given that he has been forced all of his life to adapt and turn into whatever culture is necessary of him. Furthermore, I understand the point you make as you explain how this may be considered as a fault, but for a man who has been cast out of his home from his very childhood, his identity has never been set in stone. Hasan uses his ability to become whoever he needs to be, towards his advantage, and we see this as he learns the languages of various nationalities. I agree that it is extremely unrealistic that everyone sharing a sort of "global identity" may be the solution, but in the world we live in today it is becoming more acceptable. With our easy accessibility to travel quickly from one country to another, it has become a part of life that we embrace this and gain knowledge from other cultures. Maybe as technology becomes more efficient and with time, this unrealistic "global identity" can be a realistic possibility.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Relationship Between Hasan and Harun
ReplyDeleteIn a novel of where nothing is permanent, one thing that follows the theme of change is the relationship between Hasan and Harun. Although the two were lifelong friends and brothers by marriage, their friendship suffers in the test of time. From children to adults, Hasan and Harun change from being best friends to tense acquaintances who argue over their religious identities.
From the first day of school, Hasan and Harun become inseparable. “After the first scuffle we become inseparable friends, bound together in life and death” (106). Together, they explore Fez and all it has to offer. Through Harun, Hasan learns about society and their culture while experiencing all of the variety and backgrounds of the people of Fez. They saw the secrets of not only Fez, but shared themselves with each other. Harun became his confidante and ally, and his biggest supporter in saving Hasan’s sister. However after Harun flees into exile, the two lifelong friends begin to drift apart in distance and familiarity.
The schism in their relationship began once Harun decided to exact revenge for his wife. When Zarwali was found near his house, Harun murders him and buries the body. Since it was Hasan who asked for pardon for Harun and for the exile of Zarwali, Hasan gets blamed for belief of conspiracy and is exiled for two years. Once he comes back, he finds that Harun has become a killer and thief and isn’t the same young Ferret he remembers. Then when they meet again, Hasan is Leo and Harun is a pasha. This interaction between the two of them shows how far apart they have drifted. As a convert, Hasan’s identity is changed and Harun no longer sees him as the young friend he traveled Fez with. Instead of embracing each other like long lost brothers, they remain apart as they are on two different sides now. Harun defends Constantinople while Hasan tries to stand up for Rome, and while the two are sent to reconcile, Harun sees that there is a distance between them. “But if you are the envoy of the Pope and I am the envoy of the sultan, then we must discuss things differently” (336).
Where at the beginning of the novel the two friends were as close as brothers, their relationship grows as a result of Hasan’s change in identity. Harun’s desire for revenge and Hasan’s conversion cause them to become different people by the end of the novel. As Leo, Hasan cannot be the same person he was that Harun respected. Instead, Leo is his enemy and not his ally and therefore their friendship suffered.
I personally was not surprised by Hasan’s drift away from his relationship with Harun. Throughout the novel, Hasan doesn’t seem able to maintain a permanent relationship with anyone he meets. Hasan’s conversion was certainly not genuine, so the rift between the two men wasn’t completely based on ideology. Perhaps Hasan, who became a hero to his people and was willing to kill and die in defense of his family, and then in defense of his village, could not respect Hasan who has no lasting loyalties to anyone. How could a loyal soldier like Harun respect what Hasan has done. All his life Hasan lived in pursuit of his fortune and his desire for adventure, while Harun sacrificed his life to free Mariam from the quarantine, and then risked his life to finally gain justice for the crimes committed by Zawarli. I believe that it is the personalities of the two many, rather than their ideologies which drove them apart.
DeleteI agree that it is interesting that Harun and Hasan are no longer friends towards the end of the novel when they once were unseperable.However, it seems that throughout the novel Hasan starts to grow away from all of the people who use to be hs friends.
DeleteI can see where you are going with your point that they drift apart, however I believe that the fact that they are still as close as they are is significant.
DeleteHarun marries Hasan's sister, binding them together against all odds, Harun saves Hasan's sister from the lepers. When Hasan returns from exile, he refuses to believe what he is told that Harun is accused of doing, and leaves in an attempt to convince the sultan of Harun's innocence of the additional crimes he is credited.
After Hasan realizes the futility of his mission, he collects his family (saving them from their torment) and goes to where he has heard Harun to be rumored to be, with Barbarossa(sp?). When he finds Harun, they 'embrace as brothers' and Harun takes them (family) under his protection.
They part after that when Hasan brings his wife back to Cairo, as a 'spy' to warn of the impending Ottoman invasion.
Additionally, within the scene you last quote, they also mention that their children are soon to be married. These events to me do not seem to be of those whose friendship is impossible.
I also think Maalouf is trying to show the multiplicity of identity around the Mediterranean at the time. These are two people who share similar backgrounds and have a rich history but who still end up polarized against each other simply based on where they live and their religions. Before this class, I assumed medieval Europe and the surrounding countries were fairly homogenous, just a few steps above the structures of tribes. By showing this divergence of identity between two Muslims, he succeeds in the same way Pamuk shows the convergence of identity between a Christian and a Muslim.
DeleteI think that the way the two men grow apart throughout the novel could be representative of the common roots and subsequent branching out of the Abrahamic religions. Hasan and Harun begin their friendship in a common place with common experiences, and for that reason they are bound together. However, as circumstances change, they develop differing personal and religious philosophies and go their separate ways. When they meet again, each represents a seemingly opposing religion with, in Harun's opinion, irreconcilable differences. However, the reader is painfully aware throughout the meeting that the two men have common roots and aren't as different as they seem.
DeleteIdentity and Global Citizenship in Leo Africanus
ReplyDeleteBy Kristen Fisher
Leo Africanus, a novel by Amin Maalouf focuses on identity and the idea of becoming a global citizen. Maalouf follows a young boy Hasan as he grows up and travels, eventually becoming Leo Africanus changing from a Muslim to a Christian. Upon finishing the book I reflected once again on the opening and closing pages to the text and how these short excerpts impact the way readers interpret this extensive text. The opening and closing passages truly reflect upon the idea of not having a single identity and how it is easier than expected to assimilate into different cultures.
As mentioned in class today the story of Leo Africanus that Maalouf presents his readers with can be understood as a sort of fable. The novel is extensive and follows the adventures of Hasan as he travels from land to land, from Granada to Fez to Cairo and finally to Rome. Hasan grows into a man as the story evolves and he also transforms from a Muslim into a Catholic and changes his name from Hasan to Leo Africanus. The immense variety of events and history that Hasan lives through, as he travels from place to place, illustrates his ability to assimilate into different cultures and take on new identities in order to become successful and at home in each new city. Interestingly, Maalouf’s depiction of Eastern and Western worlds is more similar than different; he portrays the faults of each place alongside images of the downfall of each civilization. Maalouf desires not to show a preference towards either part of the world to prove how the West and East are so similar, they only seem so different by the identities and conceptions people have tied to each area of the world. Maalouf’s own personal experience living in both areas of the world also may impact the text as he longs to show readers that it is possible to feel completely comfortable in each area.
The novel’s main goal is to use Hasan as a prime example for readers of a global citizen. On the opening page Hasan explains, “I come from no country, no city, no tribe” revealing his ability to wander to and from Western and Eastern nations (1). Leo Africanus, also known as Hasan, also instructs his son that he should not feel the need to be restricted and identified by a simple identity explaining, “Muslim, Jew or Christian, they must take you as you are, or lose you” (360). Maalouf clearly looks to stress the possibility of becoming a true global citizen, a person not identified by home country, religion or culture. Leo Africanus is meant to illustrate to readers the possibility of doing so even in modern times and to stress to readers that they should not fear the ‘other’. It is much easier than expected to find similarities with those whom we believe to be different from ourselves, which is what Maalouf hopes readers will take from this extensive novel.
I really like the what you said about Maalouf stressing the importance of becoming a global citizen. It is true that as the novel progresses, Hasan's identity changes from being Muslim to a more global citizen. Before his conversion, he constantly referred to his culture's traditions and expectations and often went above and beyond to meet what was expected of him. However, as the story progresses he becomes more aware of how different cultures are not only different but similar. I think you did a good job of showing how Maalouf as an unbiased author who highlighted the strengths and flaws of every culture. Because of this, it is obvious that Maalouf believed that becoming a global citizen was the best way to share each other's identity and become more accepting towards others.
DeleteYour blog response made me think again of this idea that the East and West are mirror images of one another when you say, "Maalouf’s depiction of Eastern and Western worlds is more similar than different; he portrays the faults of each place alongside images of the downfall of each civilization." Hasan as a global citizen makes him almost like the Venetian and Hoja combined (from The White Castle). The idea of a true global citizen that you bring up is interesting. Is it because Hasan is a true global citizen that he has "no country, no city, no tribe"? Is he shunned from all societies because he has indoctrinated the ideologies of all of them? Is there a paradox that says he cannot be any nationality because he is Christian and Muslim combined? Do the two obliterate each other or complete each other to make him a true global citizen? Very impressive blog response!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA Practical Man, Yet is it Believable?
ReplyDeleteThe discussion we had in class today about Hasan and his quickness to change identity really sparked a thought in my head about the believability of this character. Is it really so simple that one can pick up and drop a religion at their earliest convenience? It seems to be almost too simple for Hasan in "Leo Africanus." The real reason that I began to feel that it was unbelievable was because of the question asked about converting to the religion you consider to be the "opposite." I don't consider myself extremely religious but there are certainly some things I could never convert to, and I don't believe I could so easily buy into a religion or ideology that completely destroyed what I knew as a homeland, like the Catholic church did to Granada for Hasan. Perhaps there is a "greater purpose" - perhaps Hasan has some foresight into the matter and wants to become a diplomat to achieve peace. This idea follows the notion that Hasan is pragmatic and practical - he is always seemingly unengaged to everything around him, using people as plot devices, breaking loyalties, moving about in a very flexible way in order to survive any hardship he might have to face. Interestingly enough, there is one thing Hasan seems concerned about losing; his namesake, and in turn, his identity. He seems to have an inner struggle regarding the notion that he will no longer be the person he has been for many years, yet it still seems incredibly easy for him to shed that idea and move on. I feel as if religion is something equally as important, if not more important, than names. It is another way in which we identify ourselves, often the largest factor in identification. Perhaps this is incorrect, but I was always under the impression that one would have to truly throw their heart and soul into a religion for it to work out, to be meaningful. If there is always the questioning, the turning away, the doubt, I would say you probably are missing something. But Hasan seems to be quite religious, even from the very beginning of the book he refers several times to some type of greater being one could perhaps call God; "I had just been born, by the unceasing grace of the Most High" (1). I suppose this is the biggest source of my doubt as to Hasan's believability. If he is telling this story in retrospect, then his faith couldn't be that far from his heart, so why would he drop it so easily and carelessly? It seems suspicious to me.
This is a very well thought out blog response that I agree with wholeheartedly. I felt a similar way both upon reading the text and during our discussions about the conversion in class. It seems surprising to me that Hasan, who is a seemingly devoted Muslim would so easily give himself over to the Catholic faith. My interpretation during my reading of the book was that perhaps the conversion was not true in Hasan’s eyes. As we see later in the conversion scene, Hasan finds the acts being performed during the conversion as utterly ridiculous. Also, in a later scene, Hasan gives in to practicing Muslim tradition and begins to pray to Mecca in his jail cell hoping to be freed.
DeleteI also like how you point out the idea of names and religion as a major part of each person’s identity. I am also not a very religious person, but I do know several people who are and they definitely define themselves based off of their beliefs. I found it very important that you brought up the strange reaction Hasan has during the conversion scene where he laments upon losing his namesake and not his religion. Looking back upon the novel I feel as though maybe Hasan knew that he would have to give up his religion for his freedom, or at least appear to. But to do this he had to lose his name, the biggest part of his identity that told others who he was and hinted at what he believed. Thus, losing the name Hasan to become Leo Africanus could have been the moment at which Hasan recognized that his faith was lost to the public sphere. Never again in the novel is Catholicism truly endorsed and it seems as if Hasan somewhat dropped his strong notions of faith. Instead, Hasan this conversion scene where he loses his identity illustrated in the same way how Hasan had lost his homeland, his family and friends.
I agree with you, I also do not believe it is easy to change an aspect of one's identity so easily. As a strange example, I have always been self-conscious about an aspect of my facial features. However, one time I got hit in the face and was worried that this would somehow change my appearance. Despite the fact that it was a part of me I disliked, I couldn't grasp the idea that I would be different somehow than the person I am. This example was something as simple as a small bump on the nose, how would I feel to not only have my name be different but my belief system as well? I agree with you that it seemed to be very convenient and easy for Hasan to become someone else and to throw his old self away. Instead of merging the two aspects of his personality together, his conversion appears to be more of an identity crisis in which Hasan is no more and Leo is the future. I don't believe this change is as easy as Maalouf makes it appear to be.
DeleteI definitely agree with you that Hasan is not a believable character. He is for to accepting of everything that befalls him in the novel. He seems to react to everything in his life with the air of an impartial observer. Throughout his travels, he never seems to miss his family. He doesn’t even seem to keep up permanent contact with his family. He is not outrages to be made a slave, or have his identity taken. He is not crushed to see his city fall, either Rome or Granada. I believe that such an emotional disconnect makes Hasan a highly improbable character.
DeleteThe Book of Rome is a very telling part of Maalouf's overall point about identity and global citizenship. Throughout the novel, he gives us this character who is either cast off or leaves society in order to find his identity. Leo is forced to leave the city of his birth, adolescence, and numerous other places for several different reasons. What unifies his departure is the changing face of the Muslim world. Even when he leaves by his own volition, he is usually taking advantage of a war, conflict, or business opportunity that would ultimately influence his position within Fez, Timbuktu, or Cairo. Either way, he is actively shaping his identity within an Islamic context that conflates business, religion, and politics into one unified image of the self.
ReplyDeleteYet Leo's ability to travel from one part of the Islamic world to the other comes from his other role as an exile or outsider. Although he is Muslim and has access to the cities in Northern Africa, a major part of his identity is fragmented. He has no sense of nationhood. So his religion gives him access to many Islamic cultures but he would not go in search of those cultures if he did not have a drive to find a place that could fill in for his original namesake.
Becoming a Catholic in a Christian land seems like it would be the complete opposite of what he has been searching for his entire life. On the contrary, Leo takes it pretty well. No doubt, this new identity takes a lot of adjustment for him but it finally alleviates the major conflict of his life. Grenada is a lost hope. He will never be able to visit Grenada as a Muslim and he will never feel a sense of place as a traveler. By unifying place and religion, despite it being counter to his beliefs and customs, he regains an integral part of his identity.
During the exercise in class today, I was struck by how difficult it was to think of how I would react to the idea of conversion at the hands of some religion that was counter to my beliefs. Unlike the Venetian in The White Castle, I would probably convert. Like Leo, I would rather be considered a complete citizen in a unified land rather than a stranger in a fragmented land. Plus, as a Christian he will be able to visit most Islamic countries without suffering any recourse. As a Muslim, he would probably be enslaved if he visited any Christian land.
Maalouf presents his conversion as carefully as possible. Instead of selling Leo out as a traitor to his religion, Maalouf understands the what it meant to be a citizen of the Western world in the 16th century.
-Corey Scibilia
I agree that Maalouf rather elegantly expressed Hasan's conversion to Leo. While I may not be able to sympathize entirely with his reasoning (partly because I disagree and partly because I have never been in that situation before) I do think you are striking a valid point. It is easy to say what would or could do when we are distant from the situation but in the face of adversity things may change. Perhaps his lifelong quest to find identity and a place to once again call home is solved by converting to the Catholic Church. Frankly, Hasan is in hostile territory and he can either submit or defy, and Maalouf presents this argument in a way that does not depict him as a traitor or sell out. Maalouf really builds the readers sympathies around this event so they are able to empathize with Leo.
DeleteEllen Walpole
ReplyDeleteLeo Africanus – Week 2
March 12, 2013
To Convert or Not to Convert: That is the Question
While finishing the second half of Maalouf's "Leo Africanus" I began to question whether Hasan’s conversion to Catholicism resulting in losing or finding his identity. I know that we established in the beginning of the book that he did not belong to one specific place and did not have a true “home,” but what does becoming Catholic actually mean for him?
Although the Pope was friendly and welcoming to the young slave, Hasan said “he would summon me each month, alone or with my teachers to test the state of my knowledge, particularly of the catechism. In his mind the date of my baptism was already fixed, as well as the name which I should bear” (Maalouf 294). Clearly, Hasan knew that there were underlying reasons for the Pope’s forthcomings, but he still did not seem offended that it was assumed he would convert.
Although Hasan struggled after the baptism with what it actually meant, he did not blame or resent anyone. His renaming of Leo made him questions the ties he held to Granada and how he should think of himself, but he did not seem bitter, which is something I admired. After thinking about the question that we were asked at the end of class, I decided that bitterness is exactly what I would struggle with if I were forced to convert to someone’s religion without any say in the matter.
It’s hard for me to fathom the forced conversion when I was brought up to accept all religions and people regardless of their beliefs. We live in a country that gives people the opportunity to believe in whatever god or deity they see fit and I think that is wonderful. However, during the Inquisition, people, Muslims in particular, did not have this freedom. I was reminded about "Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree" and the struggle with conversion in that family. While they did not want to give up their beliefs, they struggled with wanting to stay alive. While they ended up fighting for what they believed in, the opportunity to live weighed heavily.
I think if Leo was a more devote Muslim, maybe he would have struggled with converting to Catholicism a little bit more. I also think the way the Pope treated him encouraged him to do it because it was not presented in such a violent way as that in "Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree." This leads me to conclude that the “presentation” of a religion also shapes its outlook to outsiders.
I think Maalouf goes out of his way to present us with a character whose life is punctuated by loss. Hasan ends up losing his land, wealth, family, friends, identity, etc. and it does not seem to bother him as much as we would think. He is used to it and has come to see loss as a necessary and pragmatic thing, especially when it means the difference between life or death. Although Maalouf tries not to narrate Hasan's life as an allegory, I think you are right when you imply that religious identity is not at the heart of the book. What is central is the struggle to grasp at anything to form a pastiche of an identity. Most of our identities have been fairly stable compared to that of Hasan's, so even though I am not particularly religious, I think would have the same reservations as you.
DeleteRachel Reff
ReplyDeleteHasan’s Choice of Friends
What I find interesting in this novel that the main character has some interesting choice of friends. When one is young, one tends to be friends with people that they no longer will be friends with when they are older and for many reasons. The characters that Hasan chooses to be friends with in this novel really intrigue me because they are so much different from that of Hasan. The first friend that I am recounting of is Ahmad. Ahmad seems to be an odd friend when are children but does not seem that he will multiply into a ruler that is feared by most of the country when they are older. You can see that Ahmad is a young man who does not give up easily for when they are younger he challenges their teacher and the teacher ever regrets calling out Ahmad about his so called family lineage. When Hasan goes to visit him on behalf of the sultan we see now how truly cruel Ahmad has turned. “[…] Soon, this whole country will bend the knee as I pass, and one day you will tell your sons that the Lame Sharif was your friend, that he came to your house, and that he was worried about the fate of your sister. As for me, I shall remember nothing of it.” (p.203-204) Ahmads statement is a reminder that he and Hasan are no longer boys and that they are changed men.
Another friend of Hasan that I find completely different from him is Harun. Harun seems to be more bold and daring when they are children from Hasan. When they grow up though Harun seems to be more of a frightening character. When he orders Mariam to remove her clothes in front of the Zarwali, he uses such anger towards her in frustration towards the Zarwali and it seems that he is not that of when he was a child. “Undress, Mariam!’ She looked at the Ferret, her eyes unbelieving, horrified. He shouted again: ‘It is I, Harun, your husband, who order you to undress! Obey!” (p.206) Harun seems to be a completely different person from when we last see him in the book and it makes us question why Hasan and he were ever friends. Why was Hasan friends with Harun or Ahmad? I believe it was because they both, when they were younger, brought out the qualities that Hasan never possessed. But it made me more curious as to why Maalouf put both of Ahmad and Harun’s terrible behavior three pages away from one another. Was it to make Hasan look better than both of what his friends had become?
I think it is also interesting that Maalouf put the negative images of Ahmad and Harun so close together. It could be because he wanted Hasan to be shown in a more positive light, but it could also be because he wants to show the impact of the changes in their lives. When they were yougner, the boys lived in a safe and normal world, but when they are adults, their world is completely different. They have experienced endless religious obstacles and seen extreme violence. I think the characterization of the men was Maalouf's way of showing the effects of the Inquisition and they way different people dealt with it.
DeleteI absolutely agree in the point you make explaining how ambiguous Maalouf's inclusion of the two contrasting characters of Hasan's friends are. In a way, I feel that this ties in to the discussion we had today in class, about including characters in a novel who are vastly contrasting in order to depict the good and the evil. This comes in to play as Hasan is juxtaposed against his two friends. Furthermore, I feel that this truly depicted the way in which different people were able to handle the inquisition and the tole it took on them as human beings.
DeleteA Comparison of Rulers
ReplyDeleteIn Amin Maalouf’s, Leo Africanus, the main character Hasan travels all around the Mediterranean, not often by choice, and visits various cities. Whether by fortune or misfortune, Hasan also becomes familiar with various leaders during this time period. While these leaders/rulers can be categorized by religion and geographical location, it is not clear as to which leaders, the Christian or Muslim, are evil or good.
Hasan comes in contact with two popes, and two sultans, and in each case there is a dichotomy between the rulers of the same faith. In the book of Cairo, Hasan witnesses the might of Suleiman and is not happy with what occurs. Not only is his wife, a Castilian, and his son in danger of being killed by Suleiman’s army, Cairo is destroyed. While the initial assault on the city resulting in pillaging, looting and raping, when Tumanbay of Cairo fought back against the Grand Turk mass killing took place. Hasan describes this Sultan as a person who enjoyed death and killing. As compared to the sultan he replaced, the new sultan seems more forgiving. Hasan is also more receptive of the new sultan because of his family relations. Even the church in Rome seemed to put the new sultan and the Ottoman Empire to high standards. “The victory of the Ottoman will change the course of history. Perhaps this is the miracle which we were waiting for” (p.348).
On the other end of the religious spectrum, Hasan has the opportunity of meeting two popes. The first pope he meets is one of the friendliest people he meets on his adventures. Leo X is given Hasan as a ‘slave’, and he takes Hasan under his wing. Not only is Hasan taught new languages, Leo X has him teach other pupils from around the Mediterranean. Leo X also is a huge supporter of the arts, and commission’s artist to come to Rome and make art. Leo X is in stark contrast to Adrian, his successor, who hates art and is pious to the point of it being a fault. He is more comparable to Torquemada of the Spanish inquisition than to Leo X.
It is interesting that in Leo Africanus, we see the good and bad of leaders from two religions. It makes it seem that neither religion is more good or more evil than the other, and what distinguishes such actions are the individuals behind them.
I completely agree with you about individuals being responsible for their own accountability. It is not religion which defines a person but their moral conscienceness. A religion may help a person develop morals but it is not the religion that makes decisions and actions in life but people themselves. I find it interesting that most of the book we have read, not just Leo Africanus, that there is a separation between different religions and the people who practice it.
DeleteI couldn’t agree with you more. One of my favorite quotes and idea in the novel is that “… All religions have produced both saints and murders” (330). This blaming of other religions of their atrocities has gone on for such a long time and isn’t something that is isolated to the past; today we are just as guilty of it.
DeleteIt’s so much easier to blame other people and accuse them of being terrible and ignore the similarities that we have with them and the recognize the humanity in them.
I mentioned in another blog response that a friend of mine from Egypt said to me once that while yes, some Muslims are terrorists not all terrorists are Muslim. This comes right back to the point that yes, some people are just bad and but we cannot, or rather should not, use that example to define a whole group or religion. By doing that we go back and forth between hateful remark after another and nothing gets solved, and that bad person doesn’t get punished because now they are hiding behind this huge excuse that is religion in some cases and other identities for others.
I also agree with this view point. I think it is interesting how each of these characters reacted to their roles. I feel as though the good and bad in every institution makes it confusing for us to decide weather or not we want to be apart of it. I wonder if Hasan was almost brainwashed by the kindness of Leo X - ultimately accepting the Roman lifestyle despite the corruption within. I also think it is interesting how Hasan experienced a "bad" sultan first in Cairo, and a "good" sultan last, opposite of his experience in the Vatican. I am wondering if this had anything to do with his accepting of the culture and of a new identity?
DeletePower and Identity in Leo Africanus
ReplyDeleteI found the name aspect of Hasan’s conversion to Catholicism rather interesting. Rarely do we get to choose our own names. Rather, we are told what we are by the people around us. Oftentimes, names are a sign of ownership. Our parents name us because we belong to them. When a woman changes her last name upon marriage, it implies that ownership has shifted from father to husband. Though unintentionally, when Leo X christens Hasan as John-Leo Africanus he marks him as belonging to the Catholic Church. If a name is somehow representative of an identity, we are forced to question how much control we really have over who we are and who others deem us to be.
It is implied that Hasan does not convert out of religious conviction, but out of respect for his master and benefactor. While considering the similarities between Protestantism and Islam, he remarks, “In spite of these similarities, it was impossible for me to follow my own rational inclinations on this subject. A ferocious struggle was taking place between Leo X and Luther, and I could not give my support to someone unknown to me at the expense of the man who had taken me under his wing” (296). Given this statement, it seems as if Hasan agrees to convert because he owes himself to the Pope. Even when the two men first meet, Hasan he says of the Pope’s touch, “whether as a sign of affection or taking possession I do not know” (292). This further suggests a sense of benign ownership on Leo X’s behalf. Despite the constant melding of cultures in the novel, it is also clear that Catholic, Protestant, and Islamic cultural groups are all vying for social and political control (though mainly Catholic and Islamic). One has to wonder if conversion is anything more than a glorified game of spiritual monopoly, in which socio-economic compensation is traded in for the deed to one’s religious preference. Additionally, Leo X is known for his extravagance, so his protégé could be seen as an “exotic” extension of his material and cultural wealth. I acknowledge that Pope Leo is certainly a tolerant and well-meaning leader. This much is obvious. However, I think it is also important to understand the practical and symbolic implications of Hasan’s conversion under his care. I’m sure that my father did not give my mother, siblings and I his last name to intentionally control us. This being said, to refuse to recognize the message of power sent by such an act would be problematic.
The name “Leo Africanus” itself is an interesting choice for a name. The fact that Hasan is named after the pope suggests that as a Catholic he holds a position of power over his own “people” (hence the distinction of “Africanus”). He points out that men often give themselves names of things they are afraid of. Leo, or lion, certainly falls under this category. However, his previous name, Hasan, means “handsome,” or “good” according to various internet sources. When Hasan moves from Middle-Eastern Islam to Westernized Catholicism, his name shifts from a comfortable, positive meaning to a fearsome one. Perhaps this is indicative of his own fear of his new self, a self that seems more assigned to him by a friend in power than chosen in good faith.
After first reading Leo Africanus, it seems like Pope Leo X is nice without fault. He does seem to help Hasan, with his conversion and name change as just being conventional. I like the perspective you bring in, that maybe Leo X is not as benevolent as he seems on the surface. Considering Leo X’s liking of art, it does not seem unlikely that Leo X would want an exotic underling that could prove useful not only for his knowledge, but almost as an artwork he commissioned himself. With this viewpoint, Leo X seems less one dimensional and good.
DeleteI found the analysis of the names of both Leo and Hasan quite interesting, as you point out the significance of names and what changing names does to a person. Out of all the things that truly identify a person, a name is primary to one's entire persona. The changing of names reminds of of "One Hundred Years of Solitude," which focuses on and plays with names as being identity. One part of the novel features twins who share their father's name and only the Spanish words for first and second differentiate them. I feel as though this applies to both Hasan/Leo's name change, as he instantly adopts a more fearsome aura when his name is changed to "lion" rather than "handsome."
DeleteThe Fusion of Ideologies in Leo Africanus
ReplyDeleteThroughout Leo Africanus, characters are only free from their imprisonment due to their abandonment of cultural principles or practices. Of those presented in the book, most notable is Hasan's conversion from a Muslim to a Christian, giving him the ability to roam freely around Europe to be a true citizen of the continent. Littered throughout the book are flashes of Islamic culture, Christian culture, and Judaist culture but they do not influence the progression of the novel itself, nor does it contribute to a bias of one religion--rather, it only supports the argument that all Abrahamic religions are integrated and intertwined, lending credence to the idea that Maalouf is using Hasan/Leo Africanus as a vehicle to show integrated cultures instead of ones that are adversarial.
Maalouf notes similarities between religions, specifically Protestanism and Islam, in The Year of the Heretics. Hans explains: "Does Luther not commend the removal of all statues from places of worship, considering that they are objects of idolatry? 'The angels do not enter a house where there is a dog or a figurative representation,' the Messsenger of God has said in a well-attested hadith. Does Luther say that Christianity is none other than the community of the believers, and ought not to be reduced to a Church hierarchy? Does he not affirm that the Holy Scripture is the sole foundation of the Faith...In spite of these similarities..." (295-296), which relates to the closeness of these religions as being so similar that only petty cultural divides create the schism between Islam and Christianity. Furthermore, the main character's journey from Granada to Fez to finally Rome encapsulates Hasan's identity as a "world citizen" and not as a citizen of his religion or his nation. His conversion to Christianity does not splinter his identity, and the process of doing so isn't so dishonorable where he cannot like the Venetian in White Castle. Instead, Hasan's "transformation" into Leo Africanus only strengthens the natural identity the character has throughout the novel.
It is most clearly defined when it is said that "which unites believers is not so much a common faith as the ritual actions they perform in common," (330). While there are gleaned differences between Christian and Islamic culture, their universal root is what should unite them all and rather than create schism completely. In the end, Maalouf does not describe Abrahamic religions as shadows of the pomegranate tree, but rather as the physical branches themselves and not as flattened views of one common ancestral base.
I agree that Maalouf does a good job of portraying the good and bad of both Christianity and Islam, and of blending the two through characters such as Hasan. Hasan's role in the novel as a sort of crucible in which multiple cultures are melded and solidified into a single identity is exemplified in the passage where he meets his old friend Harun. As an ambassador with a multicultural background, Hasan/Leo is eager to work together with the representative of the Ottoman sultan. When attempting to convince Harun Pasha to compromise, he draws on their common human traits as friends and potential in-laws. Although Harun rejects Hasan's attempts, I think Maalouf uses this meeting to show the common roots of both Christianity and Islam.
DeleteI think this is a parallel to the idea that it is not a religion that is evil, but an individual that displays its evilness. Leo Africanus does not experiece extreme negativity in Europe because the Pope treated him like a human being. Although he was somewhat forced into Christianity, it was not like the scene in the White Castle where the Venetian's had to choose between converting or be-heading. The lack of violence in Leo's expereince made his experience seem much less dramatic.
DeleteI think your description of the Abraham religions as all branches of the same tree works well with what Leo Africanus makes the reader think about. The comparison of Lutheran ideas to Islamic faith also points as to why religions so closely related have poor relationships. When focusing on the core doctrines of faith, it seems that when accumulation of wealth is concerned problems arise. An example of this is Roman Catholic church selling the position of bishop.
DeleteThe Race to Papacy by Brian Remy
ReplyDeleteIn Leo Africanus there is a lot of mention of Popes and their significance in the time period. The book displays two very different types of popes in a close time period. This thought made me think about the current papal conclave. It made me wonder what cardinals think about when they are deciding who should become the pope.
Historically the Papal Conclave takes place after the previous pope dies. The cardinals will lock themselves into the Sistine chapel and will not leave until they have decided to elect the pope. Everyday that they do not come to a decision of who to make pope, black smoke will pour from the Vatican When they decide whom to elect the pope white smoke will poor out of the Vatican. Then the deacon cardinal will walk out onto the balcony over-looking Vatican City and says "Habemus Papam!" in English “We have a new Pope!” This process can go on for as long as it needs, the longest papal conclave in history was in 1268, which lasted three years ending in 1271.
So one must ask what Cardinals are looking for when they vote for the pope. In the book we have two popes, Leo X and Adrien the Barbarian, two very different popes. Leo X is more Liberal for his time and respects art, where Adrien has a stricter religious mind-set. One conservative and another Liberal, why would the Cardinals choose a more conservative pope after Leo X? Did they feel that they needed to create a stricter leader of their religion? So this makes me wonder does this idea of basing the new pope decision off of how the last pope ruled.
So what kind of Pope was Benedict the sixteenth? He elected as a conservative pope yet his actions as pope were not so conservative. He changed many rules of the catholic religion that have been around for thousands of years. For example Benedict decided that Limbo was not a thing anymore, he said that unbaptized babies that died before they could get baptized did not go to Limbo anymore, they went to Heaven. This is a radical change that someone might even call Liberal. Also in recent years there has been controversy with pedophilia with priest. This tells me that the next pope will be more conservative then most. I predict that the next pope will probably be against progressive change socially, like gay rights.
Popes generally are very influential in the world because they are the leader of one of the biggest religions in the whole world. They can make decisions about things that could potentially move forward or backward social change. Although I am not a religious person, I will be paying close attention to this current Papal Conclave.
Popes always appeared to me as leaders of the Catholic faith. I find them similar to kings or presidents in that they are either representative of the entire Catholic faith or they run the faith according to how they desire. Many stories cropped up around when Pope Benedict XVI was chosen regarding his "Hitler Youth," but said stories failed to report on the troubling times of Nazi Germany that most likely forced the former pope into conforming to the policies of the country at that time. Negative press might influence social opinion of religions, Catholicism in particular, but I've observed that it has never drastically reduced practicing one's faith, but rather losing "faith" in the practitioners of the religion.
DeleteThe newly chosen pope did state that homosexuality is immoral and is against same-sex marriage, however he did stress the importance of respecting those who identify as homosexual. Pope Francis also opposed abortion, euthanasia and the free distribution of contraceptives in Argentina as well. We are looking at a conservative pope, which is no surprise after Pope Benedict XVI's generally more progressive reign.
I liked how you compared the Popes in the novel to the Papal Conclave that just took place. You bring up a notable pattern; Leo X is liberal and tolerant, and some might say superfluous in his enjoyment of art and music. Adrien on the other hand, is known as the "Barbarian"; that alone signifies the vast differences between them. It is easy to doubt that Adrien would have baptized and African slave. Likewise, Pope John Paul II was a fan favorite, and famous for his numerous meetings with leaders of other religions. In contrast, Pope Benedict was chosen because of his conservative notions. It is interesting to see how the pattern repeats itself, liberal to conservative, so many years later.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRebirth
ReplyDeleteAfter our discussion in class today about the baptism scene from page 296 to 298, I was thinking about the many different ways that this event signified Hasan’s rebirth. Not only is he a Christian in the eyes of the Church, but he is also a free man that bears a new name, a new identity, a new father, and hopes for a new beginning.
Pope Leo X assumes the role of a father to Hasan and makes him into a protégé, ordering him to learn Latin, the catechism, the Gospel, Hebrew, and Turkish (293). Although he is entirely subservient to the will of the Bishop of Rome, he does receive a sort of fatherly affection. When Hasan is touched by the Pope before his baptism, he is unable to distinguish between whether or not the Pope is being affectionate or possessive over him (292). However, it seems that regardless of how this physical interaction is interpreted, affectionate and possessive are still the characteristics of a father to a newborn babe. Hasan even felt that on the day of his baptism, the Pope used the phrase ‘My son’ to address him in a way that felt unparalleled to the way he addressed anyone else. The Pope gave Hasan his own “first two names, John and Leo, as well as the name of his distinguished family, the Medicis” a practice that was not uncommon among Western royalty. He even refers to the Pope as his “saintly adoptive father” (297).
After his baptism, the birth of his new identity becomes the birth of a new man in Christian society. The Pope showed him affection like a father, by giving him a gift that signified his tolerance and embracing him “like a real father” (297). Hasan, now Leo, was awarded freedom, giving him the opportunity to be a “traveller, a migrant creature” (298) once again, no longer enslaved by the Church. Being overwhelmed by that freedom and treated so much like a true son, Leo accepted his new father with love, stating that he “loved him since that moment” (297) when they embraced.
Hasan’s new father-figure, the Pope, seemed to replace the loss of his true father Muhammad, and allow him the freedom that was taken away from him when he was very young. This freedom was something his own father could not give him. I believe that the name Muhammad bears significance in this pivotal moment of rebirth. It symbolizes how Hasan needed to renounce the teachings of Muhammad to receive the freedom that would be awarded to him by adopting the teachings of Christ. His religious father, so to speak, went from Muhammad to Christ, while his identity changed from the son of Muhammad to the ‘son’ of Pope Leo X and the Catholic Church.
This is a very interesting analysis of the conversion that I agree with. The act of converting religion is a big step in a persons life, one is born into a religion that they know and then sometime later in life have to convert into something completely different. This conversion is very different than other conversion that we have read about in other books. In Shadows of the pomegranate tree everyone looks down upon the people who convert, and the converts live in almost shame. In the white castle the narrator would rather die then give up his religion. So one might ask why in Leo Africanus is Leo so quick to give up his religion and convert to christianity. Well I think if I were to be captured and I was told to convert or die I feel like life is worth living to its extent and I would give up something that I honestly don't care about and live my life. It seemed to work for Leo.
DeleteHasan's Relationship with Pope Leo X
ReplyDeleteI cannot help but question Pope Leo X’s motives when it comes to Hasan. At first, I thought it was nice of him to be so welcoming to someone who might have usually been mistreated-after all, Hasan was a Muslim, African slave. This is an assumption, but I would think that if any slaves were chosen to speak to the Pope directly, it would have been the Christian ones. As it was, Pope Leo X entertained Hasan personally, asking him to teach the conclave Arabic and his culture; when Hasan is baptized, the Pope does it himself, and even gives Hasan his name.
While on the surface, it may seem like the Pope is taking Hasan under his wing and protecting him, I think there is more at play here. I fear that the only reason that the Pope treats Hasan as his son is because he wants to gain knowledge about the East from him. In an optimistic view, it may be admirable that they want to learn Arabic, to foster cross-cultural relations. However, given how the Christians historically acted towards the East, it is very likely that the Italians are desperate to learn Arabic not to engage in trade and a sharing of ideas, but rather using those reasons as a cover to eventually take over the East.
I also feel that by providing Hasan with all of these privileges and opportunities, Hasan feels indebted to the Pope; I think that is why he converted to Christianity. When Hans questions Hasan on matters of religion, Hasan tells him that no matter what he feels, he cannot “betray his protector.” (295) This forces the reader to question whether Hasan actually believes the things he teaches, and whether he truly converted to Christianity. He almost groups himself with Muslims, but catches himself before he incriminates himself (330). I am under the impression that just as the Pope is shielding the truth from Hasan, Hasan is lying to the Christians about his conversion.
Your suspicion is definitely founded. It seems that the Pope is forcing Hasan to undertake this strict program for the benefit of the Church. The circumstances surrounding Hasan's education and his baptism seem strange. Why is Hasan the one who is chosen to bridge the gap between the two religions? It's still clear that Pope Leo X believes Islam is a form of "Barbary" because he denounces it during Hasan's baptism. This suggests that the Pope's actions are strictly a stragetic move. You make an excellent point, Hasan admits to loving the Pope for what he has done for him, for making him a free man among Christians, but it is still questionable if he is completely indoctrinated into the religion. The Pope as well as himself know that he will return to his people once again, the printed text in Arabic that Hasan receives from the Pope is evidence of that. The Pope knows that Hasan is now seperated from his people ideologically. Hasan's interaction with his former friend is example of the kind of situation the Pope realizes will take place in Hasan's life. Is this a strategic alternative to previous methods of conversion? Converting from the inside? Really interesting blog response!
DeleteBrother Against Brother
ReplyDeleteI have been trying to figure out what Amin Maalouf has been trying to say with his novel because I didn’t find it to have as clear of a Western Orientalist view on the Middle East as the previous novels we have read. My conclusion, while might not be the true intent of the author, helped me give purpose to the text beyond the testament of a traveler to his son.
Throughout the text there are many instances where Maalouf strives remove blame of one side for the course which history and not pit one side, Islam and Christianity, against each other. The most noticeable and remarkable to me was Granada. When depicting the state of which the country was when the Ferdinand and Isobella finally enter the city (41). Granada’s fall was not that of a strong nation that fought till the bitter end, but rather a country divided and corrupted from within that assisted in it’s fall to conquerors. Having said that, in inquisition was a bloody take over of people’s home and culture, this is of course inexcusable. What Maalouf is asking us very early on to do is to see both sides of history and know that to focus on one and take that side and call the other completely blameless is to turn a blind eye history as a whole and only see half of it. To reinforce the belief that one should not solely take the side of one entity over another Maalouf presents the history of both Muslim brothers fighting against Muslim brothers and Christian brothers against Christian brothers; the Ottomans “prepared to invade Syria and Egypt” (262) and the Lutherans wage wars against the Catholics.
“… All religions have produced both saints and murders” (330). ‘Opposite’ religions cannot be blamed for history and all that has come from it. We cannot point fingers at others and lay blame without looking at the part that we played in the whole situation. The blame-game can go on forever and the only way to take a step beyond it is to study, and understand history in a comprehensive way that will allow us to stop it from repeating itself as we know all too well that it does. History’s repetition is represented through Hasan - doomed to repeat the sins of his father and doomed to live the a life without a homeland like that of his father ; through the Pope - doomed to believe in an agreement that was reached with his conquers much like the sultan of Granada (352) which will ultimately be broken; and through Rome – doomed to the same “torrential outburst of rain”(351) that devastated Granada.
Amin Maalouf’s history is so intertwined with both Christian and Islamic traditions that it comes as no surprise that he would have such an opinion; actually one would hope he does. He cannot take sides and lay blame on one over the other because doing so would mean splitting his own identity into two. At the risk of sounding too idealistic I think Maalouf is telling us that we absolutely must understand history and to have a peaceful world we must stop blaming one another and instead learn to see the similarities in one and another and live in harmony.
The Ottomans invading Syria and the Lutheran-Catholic conflict was a great example to support the claim that Maalouf is trying to show both sides in an equal light. As we discussed previously in class, Maalouf is fluent in both Arabic and French, he has lived in both the Middle East and in Europe, and we are not exactly sure whether he is even Muslim or Christian (or anything, for that matter). That mindset definitely had a major impact of the book. I agree, it was nice to read something that didn't blatantly hate on a certain religion, or blame a group of people for history's inequalities; and this book definitely stressed the importance of focusing on the similarities.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete