false
The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World by Lewis Hyde
BUY IT NEW
- $14.95 List price$11.96 Online price$10.76 Member price(Save 28%)Limited Time Offer! Everyone receives the Member Price on books.
See Details
- Add To List uiAction=GetAllLists&page=List&pageType=list&ean=9780307279507&productCode=BK&maxCount=100&threshold=3
DELIVERY & GIFT DETAILS:
Usually ships within 24 hours
Delivery Time and Shipping Rates
Eligible for gift wrap & gift message.
Reserve it at BN.com & pick it up in 60 minutes at your local store.
Enter a zip code
(Paperback - Anniversary Edition)
- Pub. Date: December 2007
- 464pp
- Sales Rank: 38,767
| More Formats | |
|---|---|
| Available in eBook | $9.99 |
Buy it Used: 16 copies from $5.50 See All Available
Customers who bought this also bought
Product Details
- Pub. Date: December 2007
- Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
- Format: Paperback, 464pp
- Sales Rank: 38,767
- Series: Vintage Series
- ISBN-13: 9780307279507
- ISBN: 0307279502
- Edition Number: 25
- Edition Description: Anniversary Edition
The Barnes & Noble Review
Twenty-five years ago, the writer Lewis Hyde met with his editor, Jonathan Galassi, who asked him to define the audience for his groundbreaking work on creativity and society, The Gift. After discarding his reflexive response --"all thinking humans" -- as too grandiose, Hyde replied "poets." Then, as now, poets had a difficult enough time creating an audience for their own work, much less serving as the primary audience for someone else's work of nonfiction. It seems, therefore, a minor miracle of publishing that the work not only made it into print but has quietly found its way to classic status, as evidenced by the recently released 25th anniversary edition.
Read the Full ReviewSynopsis
By now a modern classic, The Gift is a brilliantly orchestrated defense of the value of creativity and of its importance in a culture increasingly governed by money and overrun with commodities. Widely available again after twenty-five years, this book is even more necessary today than when it first appeared. An illuminating and transformative book, and completely original in its view of the world, The Gift is cherished by artists, writers, musicians, and thinkers. It is in itself a gift to all who discover the classic wisdom found in its pages.
More Reviews and RecommendationsBiography
Lewis Hyde was born in Boston in 1945 and studied at both Minnesota and Iowa universities. His hugely acclaimed essay, "Alcohol and Poetry: John Berryman and the Booze Talking," in part sprang out of his experiences as an alcoholism counselor, but he is also a highly regarded poet in his own right whose poetry and essays have been widely published. He is a MacArthur Fellow, a former director of creative writing at Harvard and, alongside The Gift, he is the author of the equally acclaimed Trickster Makes This World. He lives in Ohio, where he is completing a third book.
The Barnes & Noble Review
Twenty-five years ago, the writer Lewis Hyde met with his editor, Jonathan Galassi, who asked him to define the audience for his groundbreaking work on creativity and society, The Gift. After discarding his reflexive response --"all thinking humans" -- as too grandiose, Hyde replied "poets." Then, as now, poets had a difficult enough time creating an audience for their own work, much less serving as the primary audience for someone else's work of nonfiction. It seems, therefore, a minor miracle of publishing that the work not only made it into print but has quietly found its way to classic status, as evidenced by the recently released 25th anniversary edition.
Poets, no doubt, found much to comfort them in a work that argues for the inherent worth of works of art. But what is more surprising, in retrospect, is how timely Hyde's ideas on the free flow of art and ideas in a capitalistic culture would become for an entirely new form of information exchange: the Internet.
Hyde, who divides his time between teaching creative writing and his work at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, turned out to be a dual prophet for both the literati and the technorati. The latest edition of his book comes virtually gift-wrapped in ecstatic blurbs from a new generation of writers -- Zadie Smith, David Foster Wallace, and Jonathan Lethem among them -- all of whom seem to regard Hyde as a nearly spiritual patron saint for the writing life.
The original subtitle of the book, "Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property," clued readers in to Hyde's ambitious reach into the questions of life in a capitalist society. Later editions changed it to the slightly less heady "Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World." But it takes him the entire first half of the book -- nearly 200 pages -- to engage in much direct speculation about "creativity," "artists," or anything resembling "the modern world." Instead, Hyde draws from ethnography, myth, fable, and economic history to spell out a theory of gift economies in action. His emphasis is on categories of things -- children, spouses, organs, and scientific ideas among them -- that many cultures have treated as gifts, governed (in his myth-inflected language) by the rules of Eros to enrich the ties between people and the larger community. These are contrasted with mere commodities, governed by the rule of Logos. In a community centered around Eros, says Hyde, gifts "survive their use" just as "libido is not lost when it is given away."
One of the key functions of a gift economy is that those things that are designated as gifts keep moving. For his first example, Hyde cites the early European settlers who discovered that the Indians (his term) would be perfectly gracious in offering a peace pipe to a visitor but would expect this gift to be returned in kind when they visited him. The European -- who had already stashed the pipe on the mantle or sent it off to a museum -- coined the term "Indian giver" to describe a person who demanded the return of the gift. "The opposite of 'Indian giver,' " writes Hyde, "would be something like 'white man keeper' (or maybe 'capitalist'), that is, the person whose instinct is to remove property from circulation, to put it in a warehouse or museum (or more to the point of capitalism, to lay it aside to be used for production."
The spirit of the gift exchange demands that the gift -- whether goats, peace pipes, blues riffs, or folktales -- circulates throughout the wider community. (In most cases, says Hyde, a binary exchange between two people is not an example of gift economy but closer to barter.) The point here is not to abolish all notions of personal property but to insist that "one man's gift should not be another man's capital." One particularly egregious modern example, cited by both Hyde and Lethem (in an essay written for Harper's last year), is the case of the Walt Disney company, which built an empire based in part on folktales (Snow White, Pinocchio, etc.) only to lock up those characters behind their own copyright protection.
In the second half of his book, Hyde applies the ethnography and folk tales in the first half as "parables or Just So stories of the creative spirit." To him, the artist is literally a gifted person who receives something from a higher power outside the self. "A crucial portion of any artist's labor is not creation so much as invocation," he writes. "Part of the work cannot be made, it must be received and we can not have this gift, except, perhaps, by courting, by creating within ourselves the 'begging bowl' to which the gift is drawn." The second gift given to the artist is the ability to do the labor to complete the work. The third gift, then, is the giving back of the gift to others in the community. Using the analogy of unpaid contributions to scientific journals, which enhance the knowledge base of the community without directly paying the authors (who presumably have day jobs in research labs and the like), Hyde writes, "In communities drawn together by gift exchange, 'status,' 'prestige' or 'esteem' take the place of cash remuneration."
It is here that Hyde finally turns to his purported audience -- poets -- to illustrate the ways in which "status," "prestige," and "esteem" can take the place of that lowly old commodity, cash. And it is here, to me, that the argument breaks down. Hyde devotes a chapter each to the lives and artistic labor of Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound. In Whitman, we get a poet given to visionary ecstasies and communion with his muse that reach erotic heights and somehow provide solace to a man who lived most of his adult life in near poverty and was frustrated in his romantic loves for both men and women. Pound, on the other hand, was a lifelong misanthrope, often obsessed with the "stupidity and idiocy" of humankind, whose antipathy to the commodification of art led him to flirt with both anti-Semitism and fascism. Hyde proves to be a sensitive biographer of each and does an especially beautiful job of explaining -- without excusing them -- the possible source of Pound's most difficult behaviors.
But in a book that presumes to provide a blueprint for the artist's life, these two poets are notably lackluster exemplars. Both were lifelong bachelors, who, in Hyde's telling, never encountered direct responsibility for family members, whether spouses, children, or elderly parents. Both, it is true, engaged in altruism: Whitman spent the latter half of his life caring for wounded soldiers, and Pound devised numerous ways to support his fellow artists -- including securing patrons, sending care packages, and investing the $2,000 Dial prize he received in order to distribute the interest to other artists. These acts amply illustrate the two-way communion between the artist and his or her artistic community. But it leaves out a third exchange: Many people take an interest in commerce when they have other people that they must support.
Hyde is strangely silent on the artist who must balance loyalty to his or her gift and the larger artistic community with loyalty to those he or she loves most. His prescriptions for earning a living are limited to those we already know: get a second job, get a patron, put the work of art on the market. The artist who is rich in spirit, he writes, can tolerate a certain amount of "plainness" in daily life. He writes: "I do not mean cold or hunger, but certainly the size of the room and the quality of the wine seem less important to a man who can convey imaginary color to a canvas." And: "A young poet can stand the same supper of barley soup and bread, night after night, if he is on a walking tour of Italy and much in love with beauty."
True enough. But in the pursuit of a working theory of the economics of art throughout human history, it seems a mistake to overlook artists who are less concerned with the quality of their wine than the source of their daily bread, or who are not on a walking tour of Italy but in a rented apartment with a couple of kids and the repo man and bankruptcy clerks on the way (for this last example, Raymond Carver, Hyde's contemporary, would have made a nice case study).
The past two decades have proven Hyde to be a remarkably prescient thinker on the ways that information and ideas can flow through the economy. One can see his influence, however indirectly, on the open source movement, the medical community (especially in the case of organ donation), and new generation of copyright scholars. Wikipedia, perhaps the finest example of the democratic sharing of ideas, explicitly operates as a gift economy. Perhaps now a new generation of scholars can take up these ideas and fill in the missing parts -- for all thinking humans. --Amy Benfer
Amy Benfer has worked as an editor and staff writer at Salon, Legal Affairs, and Paper magazine. Her reviews and features on books have appeared in Salon, the San Francisco Chronicle Book Review, The Believer, Kirkus, and The New York Times Book Review.
From the Publisher
By now a modern classic, The Gift is a brilliantly orchestrated defense of the value of creativity and of its importance in a culture increasingly governed by money and overrun with commodities. Widely available again after twenty-five years, this book is even more necessary today than when it first appeared. An illuminating and transformative book, and completely original in its view of the world, The Gift is cherished by artists, writers, musicians, and thinkers. It is in itself a gift to all who discover the classic wisdom found in its pages.
Product Details
- Pub. Date: December 2007
- Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
- Format: Paperback, 464pp
- Sales Rank: 38,767
- Series: Vintage Series
- ISBN-13: 9780307279507
- ISBN: 0307279502
- Edition Number: 25
- Edition Description: Anniversary Edition
Table of Contents
Preface xi
Introduction xv
A Theory of Gifts
Some Food We Could Not Eat 3
The Bones of the Dead 32
The Labor of Gratitude 51
The Bond 72
The Gift Community 96
A Female Property 121
Usury: A History of Gift Exchange 142
Two Experiments in Gift Aesthetics
The Commerce of the Creative Spirit 185
A Draft of Whitman 208
Ezra Pound and the Fate of Vegetable Money 282
Conclusion 356
On Being Good Ancestors 369
Bibliography 387
Notes 393
Acknowledgments 417
Index 419
Introduction xv
A Theory of Gifts
Some Food We Could Not Eat 3
The Bones of the Dead 32
The Labor of Gratitude 51
The Bond 72
The Gift Community 96
A Female Property 121
Usury: A History of Gift Exchange 142
Two Experiments in Gift Aesthetics
The Commerce of the Creative Spirit 185
A Draft of Whitman 208
Ezra Pound and the Fate of Vegetable Money 282
Conclusion 356
On Being Good Ancestors 369
Bibliography 387
Notes 393
Acknowledgments 417
Index 419
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER ONESome Food We Could Not Eat
i • The Motion
When the Puritans first landed in Massachusetts, they discovered a thing so curious about the Indians’ feelings for property that they felt called upon to give it a name. In 1764, when Thomas Hutchinson wrote his history of the colony, the term was already an old saying: “An Indian gift,” he told his readers, “is a proverbial expression signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected.” We still use this, of course, and in an even broader sense, calling that friend an Indian giver who is so uncivilized as to ask us to return a gift he has given.
Imagine a scene. An Englishman comes into an Indian lodge, and his hosts, wishing to make their guest feel welcome, ask him to share a pipe of tobacco. Carved from a soft red stone, the pipe itself is a peace offering that has traditionally circulated among the local tribes, staying in each lodge for a time but always given away again sooner or later. And so the Indians, as is only polite among their people, give the pipe to their guest when he leaves. The Englishman is tickled pink. What a nice thing to send back to the British Museum! He takes it home and sets it on the mantelpiece. A time passes and the leaders of a neighboring tribe come to visit the colonist’s home. To his surprise he finds his guests have some expectation in regard to his pipe, and his translator finally explains to him that if he wishes to show his goodwill he should offer them a smoke and give them the pipe. In consternation the Englishman invents a phrase to describe these people with such a limited sense of private property.The opposite of “Indian giver” would be something like “white man keeper” (or maybe “capitalist”), that is, a person whose instinct is to remove property from circulation, to put it in a warehouse or museum (or, more to the point for capitalism, to lay it aside to be used for production).
The Indian giver (or the original one, at any rate) understood a cardinal property of the gift: whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away again, not kept. Or, if it is kept, something of similar value should move on in its stead, the way a billiard ball may stop when it sends another scurrying across the felt, its momentum transferred. You may keep your Christmas present, but it ceases to be a gift in the true sense unless you have given something else away. As it is passed along, the gift may be given back to the original donor, but this is not essential. In fact, it is better if the gift is not returned but is given instead to some new, third party. The only essential is this: the gift must always move. There are other forms of property that stand still, that mark a boundary or resist momentum, but the gift keeps going.
Tribal peoples usually distinguish between gifts and capital. Commonly they have a law that repeats the sensibility implicit in the idea of an Indian gift. “One man’s gift,” they say, “must not be another man’s capital.” Wendy James, a British social anthropologist, tells us that among the Uduk in northeast Africa, “any wealth transferred from one subclan to another, whether animals, grain or money, is in the nature of a gift, and should be consumed, and not invested for growth. If such transferred wealth is added to the subclan’s capital [cattle in this case] and kept for growth and investment, the subclan is regarded as being in an immoral relation of debt to the donors of the original gift.” If a pair of goats received as a gift from another subclan is kept to breed or to buy cattle, “there will be general complaint that the so-and-so’s are getting rich at someone else’s expense, behaving immorally by hoarding and investing gifts, and therefore being in a state of severe debt. It will be expected that they will soon suffer storm damage . . .”
The goats in this example move from one clan to another just as the stone pipe moved from person to person in my imaginary scene. And what happens then? If the object is a gift, it keeps moving, which in this case means that the man who received the goats throws a big party and everyone gets fed. The goats needn’t be given back, but they surely can’t be set aside to produce milk or more goats. And a new note has been added: the feeling that if a gift is not treated as such, if one form of property is converted into another, something horrible will happen. In folk tales the person who tries to hold on to a gift usually dies; in this anecdote the risk is “storm damage.” (What happens in fact to most tribal groups is worse than storm damage. Where someone manages to commercialize a tribe’s gift relationships the social fabric of the group is invariably destroyed.)
If we turn now to a folk tale, we will be able to see all of this from a different angle. Folk tales are like collective dreams; they are told in the kind of voice we hear at the edge of sleep, mingling the facts of our lives with their images in the psyche. The first tale I have chosen was collected from a Scottish woman in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The Girl and the Dead Man
Once upon a time there was an old woman and she had a leash of daughters. One day the eldest daughter said to her mother, “It is time for me to go out into the world and seek my fortune.” “I shall bake a loaf of bread for you to carry with you,” said the mother. When the bread came from the oven the mother asked her daughter, “Would you rather have a small piece and my blessing or a large piece and my curse?” “I would rather have the large piece and your curse,” replied the daughter.
Off she went down the road and when the night came wreathing around her she sat at the foot of a wall to eat her bread. A ground quail and her twelve puppies gathered near, and the little birds of the air. “Wilt thou give us a part of thy bread?” they asked. “I won’t, you ugly brutes,” she replied. “I haven’t enough for myself.” “My curse on thee,” said the quail, “and the curse of my twelve birds, and thy mother’s curse which is the worst of all.” The girl arose and went on her way, and the piece of bread had not been half enough.
She had not traveled far before she saw a little house, and though it seemed a long way off she soon found herself before its door. She knocked and heard a voice cry out, “Who is there?” “A good maid seeking a master.” “We need that,” said the voice, and the door swung open.
The girl’s task was to stay awake every night and watch over a dead man, the brother of the housewife, whose corpse was restless. As her reward she was to receive a peck of gold and a peck of silver. And while she stayed she was to have as many nuts as she broke, as many needles as she lost, as many thimbles as she pierced, as much thread as she used, as many candles as she burned, a bed of green silk over her and a bed of green silk under her, sleeping by day and watching by night.
On the very first night, however, she fell asleep in her chair. The housewife came in, struck her with a magic club, killed her dead, and threw her out back on the pile of kitchen garbage.
Soon thereafter the middle daughter said to her mother, “It is time for me to follow my sister and seek my fortune.” Her mother baked her a loaf of bread and she too chose the larger piece and her mother’s curse. And what had happened to her sister happened to her.
Soon thereafter the youngest daughter said to her mother, “It is time for me to follow my sisters and seek my fortune.” “I had better bake you a loaf of bread,” said her mother, “and which would you rather have, a small piece and my blessing or a large piece and my curse?” “I would rather,” said the daughter, “have the smaller piece and your blessing.”
And so she set off down the road and when the night came wreathing around her she sat at the foot of a wall to eat her bread. The ground quail and her twelve puppies and the little birds of the air gathered about. “Wilt thou give us some of that?” they asked. “I will, you pretty creatures, if you will keep me company.” She shared her bread, all of them ate their fill, and the birds clapped their wings about her ’til she was snug with the warmth.
The next morning she saw a house a long way off . . . [here the task and the wages are repeated].
She sat up at night to watch the corpse, sewing to pass the time. About midnight the dead man sat up and screwed up a grin. “If you do not lie down properly I will give you one good leathering with a stick,” she cried. He lay down. After a while he rose up on one elbow and screwed up a grin; and a third time he sat and screwed up a grin.
When he rose the third time she walloped him with the stick. The stick stuck to the dead man and her hand stuck to the stick and off they went! He dragged her through the woods, and when it was high for him it was low for her, and when it was low for him it was high for her. The nuts were knocking at their eyes and the wild plums beat at their ears until they both got through the wood. Then they returned home.
The girl was given the peck of gold, the peck of silver, and a vessel of cordial. She found her two sisters and rubbed them with the cordial and brought them back to life. And they left me sitting here, and if they were well, ’tis well; if they were not, let them be.
There are at least four gifts in this story. The first, of course, is the bread, which the mother gives to her daughters as a going-away present. This becomes the second gift when the youngest daughter shares her bread with the birds. She keeps the gift in motion—the moral point of the tale. Several benefits, in addition to her survival, come to her as a result of treating the gift correctly. These are the fruits of the gift. First, she and the birds are relieved of their hunger; second, the birds befriend her; and third, she’s able to stay awake all night and accomplish her task. (As we shall see, these results are not accidental, they are typical fruits of the gift.)
In the morning the third gift, the vessel of cordial, appears. “Cordial” used to mean a liqueur taken to stimulate the heart. In the original Gaelic of this tale the phrase is ballen íocshlaint, which translates more literally as “teat of ichor” or “teat of health” (“ichor” being the fluid that flows instead of blood in the veins of the gods). So what the girl is given is a vial of healing liquid, not unlike the “water of life,” which appears in folk tales from all over the world. It has power: with it she is able to revive her sisters.
This liquid is thrown in as a reward for the successful completion of her task. It’s a gift, mentioned nowhere in the wonderful litany of wages offered to each daughter. We will leave for later the question of where it comes from; for now, we are looking at what happens to the gift after it is given, and again we find that this girl is no dummy—she moves it right along, giving it to her sisters to bring them back to life. That is the fourth and final gift in the tale.*
This story also gives us a chance to see what happens if the gift is not allowed to move on. A gift that cannot move loses its gift properties. Traditional belief in Wales holds that when the fairies give bread to the poor, the loaves must be eaten on the day they are given or they will turn to toadstools. If we think of the gift as a constantly flowing river, we may say that the girl in the tale who treats it correctly does so by allowing herself to become a channel for its current. When someone tries to dam up the river, one of two things will happen:
either it will stagnate or it will fill the person up until he bursts. In this folk tale it is not just the mother’s curse that gets the first two girls. The night birds give them a second chance, and one imagines the mother bird would not have repeated the curse had she met with generosity. But instead the girls try to dam the flow, thinking that what counts is ownership and size. The effect is clear: by keeping the gift they get no more. They are no longer channels for the stream and they no longer enjoy its fruits, one of which seems to be their own lives. Their mother’s bread has turned to toadstools inside them.
Another way to describe the motion of the gift is to say that a gift must always be used up, consumed, eaten. The gift is property that perishes. It is no accident that the gifts in two of our stories so far have been food. Food is one of the most common images for the gift because it is so obviously consumed. Even when the gift is not food, when it is something we would think of as a durable good, it is often referred to as a thing to be eaten. Shell necklaces and armbands are the ritual gifts in the Trobriand Islands, and when they are passed from one group to the next, protocol demands that the man who gives them away toss them on the ground and say, “Here, some food we could not eat.” Or, again, a man in another tribe that Wendy James has studied says, in speaking of the money he was given at the marriage of his daughter, that he will pass it on rather than spend it on himself. Only, he puts it this way: “If I receive money for the children God has given me, I cannot eat it. I must give it to others.”
Read a Sample Chapter
The Gift
Creativity and the Artist in the Modern WorldBy Lewis Hyde
Vintage
Copyright © 2007 Lewis HydeAll right reserved.
ISBN: 9780307279507
CHAPTER ONE
Some Food We Could Not Eat
i • The Motion
When the Puritans first landed in Massachusetts, they discovered a thing so curious about the Indians’ feelings for property that they felt called upon to give it a name. In 1764, when Thomas Hutchinson wrote his history of the colony, the term was already an old saying: “An Indian gift,” he told his readers, “is a proverbial expression signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected.” We still use this, of course, and in an even broader sense, calling that friend an Indian giver who is so uncivilized as to ask us to return a gift he has given.
Imagine a scene. An Englishman comes into an Indian lodge, and his hosts, wishing to make their guest feel welcome, ask him to share a pipe of tobacco. Carved from a soft red stone, the pipe itself is a peace offering that has traditionally circulated among the local tribes, staying in each lodge for a time but always given away again sooner or later. And so the Indians, as is only polite among their people, give the pipe to their guest when he leaves. The Englishman is tickled pink. What a nice thing to send back to the British Museum! He takes it home and sets it on themantelpiece. A time passes and the leaders of a neighboring tribe come to visit the colonist’s home. To his surprise he finds his guests have some expectation in regard to his pipe, and his translator finally explains to him that if he wishes to show his goodwill he should offer them a smoke and give them the pipe. In consternation the Englishman invents a phrase to describe these people with such a limited sense of private property. The opposite of “Indian giver” would be something like “white man keeper” (or maybe “capitalist”), that is, a person whose instinct is to remove property from circulation, to put it in a warehouse or museum (or, more to the point for capitalism, to lay it aside to be used for production).
The Indian giver (or the original one, at any rate) understood a cardinal property of the gift: whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away again, not kept. Or, if it is kept, something of similar value should move on in its stead, the way a billiard ball may stop when it sends another scurrying across the felt, its momentum transferred. You may keep your Christmas present, but it ceases to be a gift in the true sense unless you have given something else away. As it is passed along, the gift may be given back to the original donor, but this is not essential. In fact, it is better if the gift is not returned but is given instead to some new, third party. The only essential is this: the gift must always move. There are other forms of property that stand still, that mark a boundary or resist momentum, but the gift keeps going.
Tribal peoples usually distinguish between gifts and capital. Commonly they have a law that repeats the sensibility implicit in the idea of an Indian gift. “One man’s gift,” they say, “must not be another man’s capital.” Wendy James, a British social anthropologist, tells us that among the Uduk in northeast Africa, “any wealth transferred from one subclan to another, whether animals, grain or money, is in the nature of a gift, and should be consumed, and not invested for growth. If such transferred wealth is added to the subclan’s capital [cattle in this case] and kept for growth and investment, the subclan is regarded as being in an immoral relation of debt to the donors of the original gift.” If a pair of goats received as a gift from another subclan is kept to breed or to buy cattle, “there will be general complaint that the so-and-so’s are getting rich at someone else’s expense, behaving immorally by hoarding and investing gifts, and therefore being in a state of severe debt. It will be expected that they will soon suffer storm damage . . .”
The goats in this example move from one clan to another just as the stone pipe moved from person to person in my imaginary scene. And what happens then? If the object is a gift, it keeps moving, which in this case means that the man who received the goats throws a big party and everyone gets fed. The goats needn’t be given back, but they surely can’t be set aside to produce milk or more goats. And a new note has been added: the feeling that if a gift is not treated as such, if one form of property is converted into another, something horrible will happen. In folk tales the person who tries to hold on to a gift usually dies; in this anecdote the risk is “storm damage.” (What happens in fact to most tribal groups is worse than storm damage. Where someone manages to commercialize a tribe’s gift relationships the social fabric of the group is invariably destroyed.)
If we turn now to a folk tale, we will be able to see all of this from a different angle. Folk tales are like collective dreams; they are told in the kind of voice we hear at the edge of sleep, mingling the facts of our lives with their images in the psyche. The first tale I have chosen was collected from a Scottish woman in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The Girl and the Dead Man
Once upon a time there was an old woman and she had a leash of daughters. One day the eldest daughter said to her mother, “It is time for me to go out into the world and seek my fortune.” “I shall bake a loaf of bread for you to carry with you,” said the mother. When the bread came from the oven the mother asked her daughter, “Would you rather have a small piece and my blessing or a large piece and my curse?” “I would rather have the large piece and your curse,” replied the daughter.
Off she went down the road and when the night came wreathing around her she sat at the foot of a wall to eat her bread. A ground quail and her twelve puppies gathered near, and the little birds of the air. “Wilt thou give us a part of thy bread?” they asked. “I won’t, you ugly brutes,” she replied. “I haven’t enough for myself.” “My curse on thee,” said the quail, “and the curse of my twelve birds, and thy mother’s curse which is the worst of all.” The girl arose and went on her way, and the piece of bread had not been half enough.
She had not traveled far before she saw a little house, and though it seemed a long way off she soon found herself before its door. She knocked and heard a voice cry out, “Who is there?” “A good maid seeking a master.” “We need that,” said the voice, and the door swung open.
The girl’s task was to stay awake every night and watch over a dead man, the brother of the housewife, whose corpse was restless. As her reward she was to receive a peck of gold and a peck of silver. And while she stayed she was to have as many nuts as she broke, as many needles as she lost, as many thimbles as she pierced, as much thread as she used, as many candles as she burned, a bed of green silk over her and a bed of green silk under her, sleeping by day and watching by night.
On the very first night, however, she fell asleep in her chair. The housewife came in, struck her with a magic club, killed her dead, and threw her out back on the pile of kitchen garbage.
Soon thereafter the middle daughter said to her mother, “It is time for me to follow my sister and seek my fortune.” Her mother baked her a loaf of bread and she too chose the larger piece and her mother’s curse. And what had happened to her sister happened to her.
Soon thereafter the youngest daughter said to her mother, “It is time for me to follow my sisters and seek my fortune.” “I had better bake you a loaf of bread,” said her mother, “and which would you rather have, a small piece and my blessing or a large piece and my curse?” “I would rather,” said the daughter, “have the smaller piece and your blessing.”
And so she set off down the road and when the night came wreathing around her she sat at the foot of a wall to eat her bread. The ground quail and her twelve puppies and the little birds of the air gathered about. “Wilt thou give us some of that?” they asked. “I will, you pretty creatures, if you will keep me company.” She shared her bread, all of them ate their fill, and the birds clapped their wings about her ’til she was snug with the warmth.
The next morning she saw a house a long way off . . . [here the task and the wages are repeated].
She sat up at night to watch the corpse, sewing to pass the time. About midnight the dead man sat up and screwed up a grin. “If you do not lie down properly I will give you one good leathering with a stick,” she cried. He lay down. After a while he rose up on one elbow and screwed up a grin; and a third time he sat and screwed up a grin.
When he rose the third time she walloped him with the stick. The stick stuck to the dead man and her hand stuck to the stick and off they went! He dragged her through the woods, and when it was high for him it was low for her, and when it was low for him it was high for her. The nuts were knocking at their eyes and the wild plums beat at their ears until they both got through the wood. Then they returned home.
The girl was given the peck of gold, the peck of silver, and a vessel of cordial. She found her two sisters and rubbed them with the cordial and brought them back to life. And they left me sitting here, and if they were well, ’tis well; if they were not, let them be.
There are at least four gifts in this story. The first, of course, is the bread, which the mother gives to her daughters as a going-away present. This becomes the second gift when the youngest daughter shares her bread with the birds. She keeps the gift in motion—the moral point of the tale. Several benefits, in addition to her survival, come to her as a result of treating the gift correctly. These are the fruits of the gift. First, she and the birds are relieved of their hunger; second, the birds befriend her; and third, she’s able to stay awake all night and accomplish her task. (As we shall see, these results are not accidental, they are typical fruits of the gift.)
In the morning the third gift, the vessel of cordial, appears. “Cordial” used to mean a liqueur taken to stimulate the heart. In the original Gaelic of this tale the phrase is ballen íocshlaint, which translates more literally as “teat of ichor” or “teat of health” (“ichor” being the fluid that flows instead of blood in the veins of the gods). So what the girl is given is a vial of healing liquid, not unlike the “water of life,” which appears in folk tales from all over the world. It has power: with it she is able to revive her sisters.
This liquid is thrown in as a reward for the successful completion of her task. It’s a gift, mentioned nowhere in the wonderful litany of wages offered to each daughter. We will leave for later the question of where it comes from; for now, we are looking at what happens to the gift after it is given, and again we find that this girl is no dummy—she moves it right along, giving it to her sisters to bring them back to life. That is the fourth and final gift in the tale.*
This story also gives us a chance to see what happens if the gift is not allowed to move on. A gift that cannot move loses its gift properties. Traditional belief in Wales holds that when the fairies give bread to the poor, the loaves must be eaten on the day they are given or they will turn to toadstools. If we think of the gift as a constantly flowing river, we may say that the girl in the tale who treats it correctly does so by allowing herself to become a channel for its current. When someone tries to dam up the river, one of two things will happen:
either it will stagnate or it will fill the person up until he bursts. In this folk tale it is not just the mother’s curse that gets the first two girls. The night birds give them a second chance, and one imagines the mother bird would not have repeated the curse had she met with generosity. But instead the girls try to dam the flow, thinking that what counts is ownership and size. The effect is clear: by keeping the gift they get no more. They are no longer channels for the stream and they no longer enjoy its fruits, one of which seems to be their own lives. Their mother’s bread has turned to toadstools inside them.
Another way to describe the motion of the gift is to say that a gift must always be used up, consumed, eaten. The gift is property that perishes. It is no accident that the gifts in two of our stories so far have been food. Food is one of the most common images for the gift because it is so obviously consumed. Even when the gift is not food, when it is something we would think of as a durable good, it is often referred to as a thing to be eaten. Shell necklaces and armbands are the ritual gifts in the Trobriand Islands, and when they are passed from one group to the next, protocol demands that the man who gives them away toss them on the ground and say, “Here, some food we could not eat.” Or, again, a man in another tribe that Wendy James has studied says, in speaking of the money he was given at the marriage of his daughter, that he will pass it on rather than spend it on himself. Only, he puts it this way: “If I receive money for the children God has given me, I cannot eat it. I must give it to others.”
Continues...
Excerpted from The Gift by Lewis Hyde Copyright © 2007 by Lewis Hyde. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
loading...
Related EssentiaListsuiAction=GetRelatedListsByEanFromProductPage&page=List&pageType=list&ean=9780307279507&productCode=BK&maxCount=5&threshold=10
loading...
Fans of this BookuiAction=GetProfileBlurbsWithEANinFavorites&page=UserProfile&pageType=profile&eanInput=9780307279507
loading...