THUS SAITH EVE
chris wind
Smashwords Edition
* * * * *
Published
on Smashwords by:
Thus
Saith Eve
Copyright 1991, 2011 by chris wind
Cover concept and design by chris wind
Formatting and layout
design by Elizabeth Beeton
wind,
chris
Thus Saith Eve / chris wind
ISBN 978-1-926891-05-7
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, brands, media, and incidents are either the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. The author acknowledges the trademarked status and trademark owners of various products referenced in this work of fiction, which have been used without permission. The publication/use of these trademarks is not authorized, associated with, or sponsored by the trademark owners.
Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author’s work.
* * * * *
also by chris wind
UnMythed
Deare Sister
Soliloquies: The Lady Doth Indeed Protest
Snow White Gets Her Say
Satellites Out of Orbit*
Particivision and other stories
Paintings and Sculptures
Excerpts
dreaming of kaleidoscopes
“Thus Saith Eve” is available in print as part of chris wind’s Satellites Out of Orbit (2nd edition), titled “Epistles”.
* Satellites Out of Orbit contains the four books listed above it as well as this book.
•
A performance version of “I am Eve” (notes for theatrical delivery of the text as a monologue set to an audio collage which can be heard at www.chriswind.net—see The Art of Juxtaposition) is available from the author (chriswind3@gmail.com). “I am Mary, Mother of God” is available as an audio piece on the same album.
* * * * *
Acknowledgements
“I am Mary, of Bethany” Secular Nation 2008
“I am Mary, Mother of God” Secular Nation 2008
“I am Zipporah” Humanist May/Jun 2000, vol.60 no.3; Humanist in Canada Spring 1995
“I am Noah’s Wife” Humanist in Canada Spring 1997; Other Voices Fall 1989, vol.2 no.2
“I am Eve” Humanist in Canada Winter 1993/94
“I am Eshta” Humanist in Canada Spring 1993
“I am Sheba” Humanist in Canada Winter 1992/93
“I am Delilah” Humanist in Canada Jul/Sep 1992
An earlier version of Thus Saith Eve appeared as “I am” in the first edition of Satellites Out of Orbit.
* * * * *
CONTENTS
•
All of the women in Thus Saith Eve are from The Bible, a book central to Judaeo-Christianity, the main religious tradition of ‘western civilization’. Lilith is the one exception; she comes from other Jewish mythology.
There is an appendix at the end of the book containing, for each piece, a summary of the story as told in The Bible, relevant Biblical references, and references to material which contradicts or extends or questions the story, some of which I used when writing the pieces.
All references to The Bible are to The Holy Bible, King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1977.
* * * * *
the bad girl, the evil woman.
I stand accused, and sentenced. Without a trial. For life.
Because of my single action, millions of individuals have been born with ‘original sin’, have been guilty even before they acted, doomed before they started. I alone have been held responsible[1] for this sad and pathetic fallen race. Therefore, let me begin by correcting this: if I were free not to fall in the first place, they were free not to fall after me; and if I were not free, then I can’t be held responsible—for my fall or theirs.
Now, let us further examine the charges, let us correctly define that action.
I have been condemned for choosing knowledge over ignorance: the fruit I ate came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In a society that praises pursuit of knowledge and honours men of wisdom, why have I been viewed with disfavour? Had Adam reached out first, would he have been so rebuked? Or is the state of ignorance requisite for women only? (Histories pass on Socrates, they pass over Aspasia.)
In the same vein, I chose experience over innocence. In a context of attitudes that value experience, the disapproval of my action can only imply the desire that women, like children, live in a state of innocence.
I have also been condemned for disobedience. If that were the issue, then why wasn’t the tree so named—‘the tree of obedience and disobedience’ or ‘the tree of temptation’. By naming it what it was not, God either deliberately tempted me or deliberately deceived me. And he should be judged, not I.
Perhaps though, the tree really was a tree of knowledge. In that case, one should wonder what insecurities led God to prefer obedience over knowledge. Indeed, one should wonder why he went so far as to forbid knowledge. The reason is evident in Genesis (3:22-23): he didn’t want us to equal him. He sent us out of Eden to prevent our eating from the tree of life, because already we were as wise for having eaten from the tree of knowledge, and if we had made it to the tree of life before he found us, we would’ve been immortal as well—we would’ve been as godly.
And that takes me onward, for counted among my sins is that of pride. Considering that later, through his son, God commands us to ‘follow in his footsteps’, I find the label of pride odd for the action that would do just that—make me like God. Furthermore, I find it odd to be condemned for being like God when, after all, he created us in his image (Gen 1:26-27). And God certainly is proud: to create us in his image can be called narcissistic, and to prefer us to spend our time admiring him rather than learning about him is equally evidence of pride. (As an aside, I would think that my knowledge would increase my admiration; that wasn’t why I ate the fruit, but if it was, would it have mattered? Did God ever ask my intent?)
I have also been charged with a lack of faith. Yet I took it on faith in the first place that God told us not to eat from the tree: remember, he gave the command to Adam before I even existed (Gen 2:16-17).[2] Further, I had faith in the serpent, I trusted the serpent to be telling the truth. Is it dishonourable to trust?
And is it reprehensible to act on that trust, as I did then in offering the fruit to another, to Adam? God commanded innocence, then held me responsible for an act of innocent intent. For how could I know my faith was misplaced? How could I know the serpent was evil until I had knowledge of good and evil? By telling us not to eat of the tree, he insisted on ignorance—but then held us responsible, for an act of ignorance.
Lastly, I have been condemned for using my reason, for it is through the exercise of reason that I decided to eat the fruit. The serpent’s explanation of God’s motives, that the knowledge of good and evil would make us godly and he didn’t want us to equal him (Gen 3:5), seemed very reasonable to me. God’s command on the other hand, not even to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because then I’d die, seemed so very unreasonable. Where is the fault in using that faculty given to me by God? The fault is not mine, but God’s: he made reason guide our will and left our reason prey to deceit.
Or did he? History has it that the serpent’s words were false, that I was deceived. But God’s words after the fact (Gen 3:22 “Behold, the man is become as one of us”) verify the serpent’s prediction (Gen 3:5 “Ye shall be as gods”): the serpent was telling the truth.[3] And so I stand condemned, for listening to truth. And for offering that truth to others.
[1] Even though Adam was beside me through it all (Gen 3:6) and made not one objection. And, of course, also ate the fruit.
[2] I don’t rule out the possibility that the command therefore was meant only for Adam—God knew that knowledge in the hands of men is a dangerous thing.
[3] And in fact God lied: he said we would die (Gen 3:3) if we touched the fruit of that tree, and we didn’t—at least not for several hundred years.
and the records show that because I stole Adam’s sperm and made demons with it, I was exiled from the garden.
Why? I mean, what aspect of my behaviour was the criminal one? Was it the taking and doing without the other’s consent? Surely not: every seventeen minutes some man rapes a woman. And that’s certainly doing without the other’s consent, as well as taking,[1] and none of them is exiled.
Or was it because I took his sperm, because I was a woman who took reproductive control away from a man? Well, let me mention the unavailability of abortion, as well as the unavailability of safe and effective contraception, as well as rape: all of these have taken reproductive control away from women. And let me mention test tube babies, in vitro reproduction, and surrogate motherhood: all of these depend on medical knowledge, money, and authorization, all of which are for the most part controlled by men.
Or was it the fact that I made demons from the sperm? Well, this is interesting: all of a sudden men are interested in what happens to their sperm? They never used to be: most men don’t worry about contraception; most men don’t assist with abortion, financially or emotionally; many don’t assist with parenting, financially (child support payments are seldom made after the first two years) or in any other way (what’s the average number of hours per week a father spends with his child?); and I don’t see much (male) governmental interest in daycare centres, programs to assist single parents, and so on.