At the time I talked about how sad I felt for Finegas, who was denied what he wanted so much because Finn so casually took it from him. But this - rather obviously - is a modern, individualistic reading. In the context of the story itself, it is Finn's destiny to become the hero of the Fianna and Finegas' role is to help him on his journey. He is, in a sense, another of Jung's (and Marcus') 'wise old men'. Unlike others of his kind, however, he bestows the vital talisman on his protégé without initially knowing that he is doing so. His virtue is that he recognises the 'rightness' of what has happened and, at that point, encourages Finn to eat the rest of the fish. Thus, we have here a story about the role of the older, wiser figure in helping the hero on his journey.
We can read this in a number of ways. For Jung, as I have said (rather too often, maybe), both hero and wise old man are part of the self - these stories (if, indeed, Jung would classify this one along with his other tales of benefactors and talismans) dramatises the potential of the self to find its own wisdom. Or we can see the two characters as emblematic of the relationship between older more experienced people and younger ones whose abilities are still unexpressed - like the potential energy in a spring. In that case, the story is about the wisdom needed to support and nurture the young. (And we can, of course, trace both trajectories in the story simultaneously.)
Two more points:
First, it is crucial that the salmon in the story is the guardian of knowledge and not wisdom. (As it happens, the wikipedia entry for this story originally had the title 'the salmon of wisdom', prompting the following exchange:
Gronky -- I've never heard of this story being called the "Salmon of Wisdom". Is there a good reason for using this strange and rare name? Or should I rename the article to "Salmon of Knowledge"?Finn's 'accident' deprives Finegas of knowledge not of wisdom - that he already has, as is evident in his calm acceptance of what his happened, his recognition of its 'rightness'.
Alison -- I totally agree, and have gone ahead and moved it.
Second, my original reading - my sadness for Finegas - is 'wrong' in the sense that the story has other things to say. But I don't want to forget about it entirely. I would like, as we now say, to 'own' it. It does require a rather anti-individualistic spirit to accept the role of 'benefactor to the hero' rather than clinging to the role of hero itself. (Or is that just me?!) The tension I felt in reading the story is part of what the story has to say to me now.
What brought all this to mind was my reading of Roland Pertwee's story, 'The River God', in which the nurturing of the (very) young angler by the older man is a sign of the latter's wisdom. And it is notable that the narrator makes the older man (with whom he only has contact for one month at the age of ten) into a mythological figure - a god who haunts the river bank. The two stories are not analogous in a close sense. In the myth, the catching of the fish sets up the conditions under which Finegas can display his wisdom, whereas in 'The River God' the Colonel's ability as an angler stands as a metonym for some larger conception of what it is to live well. At the same time both use fishing as a means to talk about that difficult topic of the role of the older person in guiding and nurturing younger ones.
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
There is something here about a deeper 'everyday' conception of wisdom and knowledge transmission, outside the conceptual boundaries of 'school'. I am obsessed with bits of everyday stuff that are somehow outside the gaze of educationalists and cultural studies theorists, that somehow just 'are' or are left over bits of the 19th and early 20th centuries' conceptual framing of how life should be lived. This is why to me ghosts are so important.
ReplyDeleteI like this, Kate - perhaps we could talk about it. When I first looked at the story, I didn't really think about how it handles the distinction between knowledge and wisdom and I think what you've said is very insightful. We need to talk more. I always feel better when we do.
ReplyDeleteYes. I am just hanging on in there. I am glad this was useful. Sometimes it seems it is the only bit of the day I can manage.
ReplyDeleteI am just fresh from a long discussion concerning post humanism with my colleague Emily (Marcus will be happy to know that this 'meeting' took place in the park) and I think I would like to link it to Kate's focus on everyday stuff. From what we discussed there is a utilitarian view of animals and this links very much with 'school' knowledge. However young people have a very emotional, personal relationship with animals, they can be no different to human friends in their eyes. I am thinking here specifically of Kate's work on pet-death and how though the animal that dies is, in a society in general or a utilitarian way, 'just a goldfish/hamster/dog' the effect this has on the young person can be devastating and traumatic. It may be of interest to think about the relationship between the young people who go fishing and the animals that they catch? How they think about the subjectivity of the animals or to think about the value that is placed on the fish? I think what I am really interested in here, and this isn't an effort to consolidate different things together, is the views on the well-being of the fish by the fisherman and the value. So what the values people are putting on the fish and therefore what this says about society's hierarchy of value.
ReplyDelete