lived – had
somehow deeply suffered …”(Barrel 2549). At this moment, Leo doesn’t know how right he is. For the first time,
he physically
takes action himself. He “rushed downstairs”, “ran up” again, “hurried to the subway station” and he “bolted out”
of the train
when he pulled into the station (Barrel 2549/2550). But when he has to find out that Salzman isn’t at home, he
falls into his old
procedure again. “he walked downstairs, depressed” (Barrel 2550).
Salzman is everything but delighted to see the picture of his daughter. “He turned ghastly and let out a groan”
(Barrel 2550). “If
Salzman is delighted at the prospect of a commission, he is horrified at his choice” Ben Siegel writes. (Critics
133) I’m not so
sure about the commission. I don’t think that it is only the commission he is after, or even his main reason for
doing his job. If it
was just the profit he wanted, why should he react in such a strong way. When Leo asks him why he had lied to
Lily Hirschorn,
his “face went dead white” (Barrel 2548). That’s not the reaction you could expect from a hardened salesman,
but the horror is
out of question. For the first time, Salzman isn’t able to disappear when he tries to run away. Leo, fearing never
to find love and
Salzman become let themselves go. Leo even seizes Salzman. Leo reaction is quite understandable, but why
does Salzman
react in such a strong way?
The relation between Salzman and his daughter is a very complex one. Malamud gives several hints that in fact,
she really is a
whore. You can already see this from what Leo thinks of her when he sees her picture for the first time and that
the photo is “a
snapshot of the type taken by a machine for a quarter” could be interpreted as another hint, too. His
description matches that of
a whore quite well. She has lived, and maybe regretted the way she has lived. Especially the last part of the
story leaves very
little to imagine. Standing under a lamppost, smoking, and wearing white with red shoes she waits for him.
Salzman, “the angle”,
is definitely neither pleased with his daughter’s way of life nor with her behavior. “She is a wild one – wild,
without shame”
(Barrel 2551). he cries out. To him she is “like an animal”, “like a dog”. To him she is dead and “should burn in
hell” (Barrel
2551).
Why then does he put Leo in contact with his expelled daughter? Leo reckons that “Salzman has planned it all
to happen this
way.” (Barrel 2552) But are there really any hints that make this suspicion maintainable? One hint could be the
photo itself.
Why is it in the manila envelope? Was it really an accident? According to Salzman’s reaction, it really was and
there are no
other hints that would guide the reader into thinking that Salzman has planned it all, except Leo’s notion. But
Salzman is “an
angel” and angels normally don’t make mistakes. Or maybe it is the fact that Salzman actually arranged a
meeting. He could
have resisted Leo’s force. Or maybe it was the humble way in which Leo asked him that made him change his
mind. According
to Kathleen G. Ochshorn’s opinion, Salzman had planned it all before. According to her, “Salzman is continually
sizing up the
rabbinical student in a way that suggests a prospective father-in-law: ‘he heartily approved of Finkle’” (Ochshorn
62). She says
that Salzman has given in, because of Leo stubbornness. But Mrs. Ochshorn doesn’t take Salzman’s reaction
into consideration
and “heartily approving” of someone does not absolutely refer to being his father-in-law. I couldn’t find any other
hints that
would underline this theory, but still it is valid nonetheless. But my guess would be, that hasn’t planned this to
happen, but now,
as it has happened, he arranges a meeting, because he considers this to b the best solution for Leo (and maybe
also for his
daughter).
Leo has already undergone quite a change since he discovered Stella’s photo. He has tried to get rid of his
feelings towards he.
He prayed, but “his prayers remained unanswered” (Barrel 2551). But he never really intended to get rid of her,
because,
“fearing success” (Barrel 2551) he stopped and “concluded to convert her to goodness, himself to God” (Barrel
2551). The
linguistic relationship between “goodness” and “goddess” doesn’t really need an explanation, but why does Leo
want convert
himself to God? Because he wants to change Stella? Or because God didn’t answer his prayers? This would
mean that he has
finally lost his trust in God now, but yet, on the outside he has finally become a rabbi: “Leo had grown a pointed
beard and his
eyes were weighted with wisdom” (Barrel 2551). But the wisdom is not a rabbi’s wisdom and Salzman seems to
notice this,
because he calls him a “doctor” now (Barrel 2551). Kathleen G. Ochshorn even suggest that he “has become a
bit of a devil.”
(Ochshorn 63)
The change on this level on the story is closely connected to the changing seasons. Spring is normally
associated with hope and
regeneration6. His despair and isolation occur in winter, but spring brings the possibility of a new life for Leo.
“Leo’s painful
self-insight amounts to the labor pains of his emotional rebirth” (Hershinow 130)
The meeting between Leo and Stella in arranged by letter, as was the first contact between Salzman and Leo,
so this circle is
closed. At a spring night, Stella is waiting under a lamp-post, smoking, wearing white with red shoes. This
actually fits Leo
expectations, “although in a troubled moment, he had imagined the dress red and only the shoes white” (Barrel
2552). So Leo
really knew what he had to expect of her, but yet I don’t know if Leo really knew about Stella’s profession, nor
am I sure if he
knows it right now. But maybe this could be an overinterpretaion and it’s just the symbolic colors (red = sin and
white = purity)
that play a role here. At least these color tell Leo that it’s not to late for him to “convert her to goodness”.
Wearing red with
white would have meant that his mission had become more difficult.
Stella is described as “waiting uneasily and shyly”, with eyes “filled with desperate innocence.” He pictured, in
her, his own
redemption. Violins and lit candles revolved in the sky. Leo ran forward with flowers outthrust” (Barrel 2552).
All this
innocence doesn’t really fit. Before, Stella was described a whore and at least in Salzman eyes, she is. Yet,
under this lamppost,
to Leo she is completely innocent.
When Leo had met Lily Hirschorn, he had sensed Salzman’s presence and now Salzman is present, too. He is
standing “around
the corner,…, leaning against a wall, chant(ing) prayers for the dead” (Barrel 2552). There is just one “prayer
for the dead” in
Jewish liturgy: the Kaddish. The Kaddish is an Aramaic prayer that glorifies God and asks for the fast coming of
his kingdom
on earth. Originally it was only recited at the conclusion of rabbinical scriptural exposition, but today the prayer
takes a variety
of forms and serves several liturgical functions. Five different forms of the Kaddish exist and one of them, is
recited as part of
the funeral service at the graveside and includes a petition for resurrection of the dead.7 This must be the
prayer Salzman is
praying.
This is the most confusing point of the story, because the ending of the story varies with the question for whom
Salzman is
chanting. He could be praying “for himself and his guild” (Richman 122), because he had planned this to
happen, as Sidney
Richman (Richman 122) and Sam Bluefarb (Bluefarb 148) suggest as possible answers. Maybe he is praying
for Leo, who is
rushing headlong into disaster, or he is praying for his “dead” daughter. Ben Siegel says: “… what has died may
be Salzman’s
honesty, Leo’s innocence, or Stella’s guilty youth: all merit lamentation. What is clearer is Malamud’s reluctance
to give up on
anyone” (Siegel 133). But you should keep in mind that the Kaddish that is prayed at the graveside also
includes a petition for
the resurrection of the dead, which puts this scene into a totally different light. So maybe Salzman isn’t praying
for “the dead” at
all. Maybe he is praying for his daughter’s resurrection, as Richard Reynolds suggests8. He could also pray for
Leo, who has
actually been resurrected. Or, as Sidney Richman reckons, he is chanting for all of this at once (Richman 122).
I would say that
there isn’t really a valid answer to this question. All of the suggested answers may be true, but, on the other
hand, every one of
them might be completely wrong, too.
Many scholars, including Mark Goldman9, have seen a parallel between this last part of the story and the book
Hosea,
attributed to the 8th century BC prophet Hosea, in the Old Testament consisting of 14 chapters. The union,
between God and
Israel, formerly based on law, is envisioned by Hosea as a spiritual bond based on love. Hosea (God) is a
betrayed husband.
The wife (Israel) is an adulteress. Both she and her offspring will be punished, but each time she errs, she will
be redeemed,
even bought back (chap. 3), because the love of her husband will always turn away his anger. The dominant
tone, especially of
the last 11 chapters, is one of impending doom.10 “God commanded Hosea to marry a whore, because ‘the
land hath created
a great whoredom, departing the Lord’ (Hosea 1:2)” (Ochshorn 62). The Hosea story is an allegory for the
relationship
between God and the people of Israel, as “The Magic Barrel” is an allegory, too. The parallels between these two
stories are
obvious, but in “The Magic Barrel” nobody is commanded to do anything. Of course you could say that Salzman
has arranged
everything so neatly that commanding wasn’t a necessity, but I don’t think that the comparison between
Salzman and God
would work out.
For the largest part the story is realistic, with some fantastic parts in it, but the last part is pure fantasy, with
“violins and lit
candles revolv(ing) in the sky” (Barrel 1552) and Salzman praying around the corner. During the whole story,
Malamud is
balancing between allegory and realism. The fantasy and the changing of seasons that form the frame for the
story, which is
filled by the realistic parts.11 Many important facts in the story are wrapped into fantastic images. For example
Salzman’s
health (”a skeleton with haunted eyes” (Barrel 2547)) or the “Violins and candles (that) revolved in the sky”
(Barrel 2552).
There are many comic elements in the story, too. The character of Salzman for example. Smelling of fish,
extolling his clients
like a used-cars-salesman and speaking in his Yiddishized English, he has quite a lot of comical potential.
III. Summary
Reaching the end of this paper, I would like to summarize the main facts. “The Magic Barrel”, a mixture
between fantastic and
realistic elements is the story of Leo Salzman’s maturation, his changing from student to rabbi, with the help of
Pinye Salzman.
He has to learn to “balance his life by adding sensual aspects and subtracting from its ascetic aspect” (Cohen
89) and in the
end, he actually finds this balance. Yet, the end is open. We don’t know if Stella will react in the way Leo
expects and we don’t
know if a marriage between those two people will ever work, but we know that Leo has grown throughout the
story and that
there is no other way for him than this.
The litrerature I have used:
Bluefarb, Sam. “Bernard Malamud: The Scope of Caricature”. Bernard Malamud and the Critics. Leslie A. and
Joyce
W. Field, eds. New York: New York UP, 1966.
Cohen, Sandy. Bernard Malamud and the Trial by Love. Amsterdam: Rodopi N.V., 1974.
Field, Leslie A. And Joyce W., eds. Bernard Malamud and the Critics. New York: New York UP, 1970.
Hershinow, Sheldon. Bernard Malamud. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1980.
Ochshorn, Kathleen. The Heart’s Essential Landscape: Bernard Malamud’s Heros. New York: Peter Lang,
1975.
Richman, Sidney. Bernard Malamud. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1966.
Siegel, Ben. “Victims in Motion. The Sad and Bitter Clowns.” Bernard Malamud and the Critics. Leslie A. and
Joyce W.
Field, eds. New York: New York UP, 1966.
1 This introduction follows Evely Avery’s argument in her introduction to “The Magic Barrel” in the “Heath
Anthology of
American Literature” and the article “Malamud, Bernard” in “Microsoft Encarta ‘95″ under the headword
“Malamud,
Bernard”.
2 The Jewish Daily Forward was the leading Yiddish newspaper in the U.S. in the beginning and middle of
the 20th
century.
3 The Yeshiva University is the oldest and largest university under Jewish auspices in the United States.
Affiliated with
Yeshiva University is the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, which trains students for the
rabbinate.
4 see also: Sam Bluefarb, p. 156.
5 But you shouldn’t forget, that Finkle isn’t used to having visitors, so you might forgive him if he doesn’t
know what to
do.
6 see also: Sheldon J. Hershinow, p 130.
7 The information about the “Kaddish” was taken from “Microsoft Encarta ‘95″ and can be found under the
headword:
“Kaddish”.
8 quoted in: Kathleen G. Ochshorn, p. 61.
9 quoted in: Kathleen G. Ochshorn, p. 61.
10 The information about “Hosea” was taken from “Microsoft Encarta ‘95″ and can be found under the
headword:
“Hosea”.
11 see also: Sheldon J. Hershinow, p. 130.
Back to the American Literature Page
Back to the main page