On Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses

Zora Neale Hurston is, of course, the gifted daughter of the Harlem Renaissance, author, most famously, of Their Eyes Were Watching God, a novel which still echoes in the pages of, say, Toni Morrison's Beloved. So when I got my hands on her Moses, Man of the Mountain, I settled myself in for a treat. It's certainly a thought-provoking book, and utterly ambitious in scope - melding the Moses of black folklore with the often-cryptic narrative of Genesis, with Neale Hurston's imagination filling in the details. In my opinion the book sparkles at the beginning, sags a little in the middle (particularly with the rather laborious narrative of the plagues of Egypt, where Neale Hurston seems reluctant to edit), and then picks up again at the end. What intrigues me most, though, is the deeply ambiguous relationship between Moses and God in the novel. On the one hand Moses unequivocally interacts with God, who has speaking lines - in the burning bush scene, in particular. But Neale Hurston attributes most of the miracles - including the ten plagues, the manna, and the leprosy visited on Miriam, to Moses' powers - a sort of magic he gains from observing Egyptian priests in the palace as a boy, then from the pursuit of a magical book guarded by a snake in a river as told to him by his old, beloved servant, learned from Jethro while shepherding among the Midianites - all perhaps a reflection of Neale Hurston's own studies in voodoo in New Orleans and the West Indies. In Neale Hurston's novel, Moses wins his legitimacy largely through a combination of trickery and real knowledge - sweetening bitter water with a kind of branch he had seen someone sweeten water with before, cunningly entering the tabernacle and frightening the people by falling to the floor when he senses that the mob is on the verge of spilling his blood.In this way he is the archetypal "wise man" or "trickster" of fables or legends, relying on a blend of cunning, political acumen, real spirituality and sleight of hand to win the day.

On a Cult(ure) of Life

At what point does the culture of life end and the cult of life begin? Jean Vanier is the head of L'Arche, an international network of faith-based communities in which developmentally disabled people and non-disabled people live together. The communities are meant to treat the disabled with the dignity and love that the rest of the world most often denies them. L'Arche recognizes, as the late Pope John Paul II once said, that "the difficulties of the disabled are often perceived as a shame or a provocation and their problem as burdens to be removed or resolved as quickly as possible. Disabled people are instead living icons of the crucified Son. They reveal the mysterious beauty of the One who emptied himself for our sake and made himself obedient unto death." Our first inclination might be to peg L'Arche as the ultimate celebration of life, what happens when we choose to show hospitality to people who are inconvenient and different. L'Arche seems like it ought to be a clear answer to those who doubt that the severely developmentally disabled can live with the dignity and love that they deserve and who believe that they are "better off dead." And to some extent, it is. But L'Arche is particularly good at celebrating life in all its fullness, even its end. Vanier writes, "Over the last forty-two years we've had many deaths, and we've spent a lot of time celebrating death. It's very fundamental to our community...We gathered to say how beautiful [a recently deceased community member] was, how much she had brought to us. Her sisters came, and we wept and laughed at the same time. We wept because she was gone, but we laughed because she did so many beautiful things" (32).