The motif of women using disguises to accomplish their goals
is time-honored in literature, however the use of the device in Somadeva’s “The
Red Lotus of Chastity” begs for a deeper analysis, both because of the
excessive use of disguise but also because of the noble motivation for such
subterfuge consistently displayed by the characters that assume such guises.
There are three significant acts of a woman disguising
herself to achieve her goals through Somadeva’s story. The first, the audience hears
from the nun, was performed by her pupil, who disguised herself to steal from a
rich merchant. (1276) The second event is performed by Demasmita’s handmaidens
to protect the wife’s chastity and carry out her plan: “The maid who posed as
Devasmita gave the young merchant with all due courtesies the drugged liquor to
drink… Then the girls stripped him of everything he wore and… they branded the
dog’s-paw iron on his forehead” (1277). Finally, Devasmita and her maidens
disguise themselves as merchants to save her husband from potential peril after
hearing the story of Saktimati, who disguised herself to save her husband from
death (1278-1279). With the exception of the pupil, the motivations behind the
charade are to protect others. They may be acts of deception, but they are
conducted with a noble and selfless intent.
By contrast, characters that are pursuing less than noble
goals in “The Red Lotus of Chastity” may lie about their motivations, but they
do not don a disguise in the course of their lie. The merchant sons who set out
to corrupt Devasmita, for instance, meet a nun they believe can help and simply
“ingratiated themselves with her and proposed [their goal]” (1275). There is no
deceit despite the fact that they are engaging a holy person’s efforts in a
considerably unholy practice. The nun as well lies to Devasmita about her
background, attempting to convince the merchant’s wife that her dog is serving
penance through reincarnation because “she in her ignorance guarded her
chastity, and so she has been reborn a bitch, though she does remember her
other life” (1277). There is no physical transformation for the nun, just a
depth of deceit through her words.
Ultimately, the negative deception is undone over the course
of the narrative, with dire consequences for those who are dishonest for poor
reasons. The merchant’s sons face potential slavery until “the other merchants
paid the king a fine and the virtuous woman a large ransom to free the four from
bondage” (1279). The nun and her dishonest pupil have their noses and ears cut
off by Devasmita for the nun’s dishonesty with her (1278), which one could see
as just reward for the pupil as well, who was not technically involved in the
ruse, but who came into her fortune through theft.
On a physical level, one could extrapolate that the disguise
offers a true form of deception. Characters who are willing to disguise themselves
or take on other roles get away with their ruses, whereas characters who are
blunt about their negative pursuits or lie to achieve corruption are caught
because they are incapable of hiding their lies without the physical
transformation of a disguise. Perhaps the disguise in Somadeva’s work not only
helps mask the truth, but also protects the disguised woman from the karmic
consequences of using deception, even though that deception is being used for
noble purposes.
As far as how the use of disguises relates to the
male-female relationship, it makes a woman a far more complicated entity than a
man. The men throughout the story are unable (or unwilling?) to utilize
disguises for deception, whereas the women not only utilize it, but consistently
succeed in reaching their goals through disguise and deception. The moral could
be seen as this: with men, what is seen on the surface is as deep as they get,
but women are complex, layered beasts who may always be hiding something more
-- but thankfully with noble intentions (at least in Somadeva’s world).
Works Cited
Somadeva.
“The Red Lotus of Chastity.” Kathasaritsagara.
Trans. J.A.B. van Buitenen. Beginnings to
1650. Eds. Suzanne Akbari, Wiebke Denecke, Vinay Dharwadker, Barbara Fuchs,
Caroline Levine, Pericles Lewis, Emily Wilson. Shorter 3rd ed. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 2013. 1274-1279. Print. Vol. 1 of The Norton Anthology of World Literature, Martin Puchner, gen ed. 2 vols.
No comments:
Post a Comment