Potiphar's Wife: Prelude to a Structural Exegesis Author(s): Alan Aycock Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 27, No.

3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 479-494 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2803925 . Accessed: 01/05/2011 16:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

POTIPHAR'S WIFE: PRELUDE TO A STRUCTURAL EXEGESIS

ALANAYCOCK

University ofLethbnidge

One of the advantages of a structuralist is thatit shows how similar approachto myth themes in different are expressed stonres. Structuralist interpretations of mythic narrative are especially valuable where more directanthropological approachesare not readilyavailableto illuminate obscureor apparently tnrvial nuancesof the text.The stonres of Genesisoffer a case in point. In thisarticle, thetaleof a seemingly minorcharacter in theJosephsaga,Potiphar's wife,is analysed and shownto embodyideaswhichresonate throughout the otherpatnarchal sagasof Genesis.In conclusion, attention is drawnto three problems ofancient Hebrew society that'think themselves' in Genesis and are highlighted in the tale of Potiphar'swife: genderrelations, infrastructural of men to God. arrangements and the allegiance

One of the more cogentfeatures of a structuralist accountof mythology lies in themanner in whichtheelements ofa single story are routinely discovered to be in others ofa similar repeated provenance. Moreover,theserepetitions are themin that,takentogether, on a selvessignificant theydisplay numerous variations the original singlethemewhichserveto support analysis. For example,no-one would readilydiscernby casual inspectiona continuity the initial betweenBororo 'bird-nester' stories and the manyotherAmazoniani myths celebrated in the'fugueof thefivesenses', yetLevi-Strauss's tourdeforce makes theconnexion amongthemappearplausible (1975: 35-78, 147-95). In his thematic statement of structuralist methodology in the studyof myth is not merely Levi-Strauss (1967) arguesthatthiscorrespondence amongstories coinciden-tal. he that the of claims construction Instead, very languagehas preof myth (1967: 205-6). The figuredan approach to the interpretation of meaningare to be understood not in simpleisolation, but in a constituents more complexrelation that to one another action and even exposescharacter, thenarrative from theway in whichmyths itself as emerging universally 'operate in men'sminds'(Levi-Strauss 1967: 207; 1975: 12). and exLeach's work (1967; 1976; Leach & Aycock 1983) has underscored in general, tendedthis and philosophy (cf.Caws 1988) to humancommunication in particular. to Biblicalmythology a Indeed,theancientHebrewshave offered forsuchanalysis frequent target (Douglas 1966; Barthes 1974; Culley 1976; Patte in questionhere 1976; Carroll1977; Aycock1989; Aycockn.d.). Since thetexts are not immediately accessibleto study by more directethnographic approahow its the value of their to show structuralist lines is ches, interpretation along
Man (N.S.) 27, 479-494

480

ALAN AYCOCK

hermeneutic can bnrng to life,much like Levi-Strauss's 'bird-nester', numerous of Biblical situations thatmightotherwiseseem obscure or culturalfeatures in thePentateuA case in point,I believe,is an apparently incident penrpheral wife.' I will encounter with chal saga ofJoseph, hisbrief Potiphar's demonstrate to thewhole ofthetextin whichit is embedded, whenitis takenin relation that which resonate thisentanglement expresses fundamental motifs throughout the I shall discussthemin I have introduced book of Genesis.After thosemotifs in Genesis.My concluconnexions some of their elsewhere detail,and suggest thethemes thatI have identified sionswill drawtogether by concentrating upon the storyof Potiphar'swife in relationto common Pentateuchal notions of of ancientHebrew society, women and men, infrastructural arrangements and of man to God.2 theallegiance I first in For purposesof reference, providethatpartof theJosephnarrative whichPotiphar's wifeappears.3
Genesis 39: 1-20 Now Josephhad been taken down into Egypt.Potipharthe Egyptian, one of Pharaoh'soffiof the guard,boughthim from the Ishmaelites who had takenhim down cials and commander he undertook was successful. He lodged in the there.Yahweh was withJoseph,and everything house of his Egyptianmaster, and when his master saw how Yahweh was with him and how he undertook Yahweh made everything successful, he was pleased withJosephand made him his personalattendant; and his master put him in chargeof his household,entrusting him with all his possessions.And fromthe time he put him in charge of his household and all his possessions, Yahweh blessed the Egyptian's household out of consideration for Joseph; Yahweh's blessing extendedto all his possessions, both householdand estate.So he left Joseph to handle all his possessions, and withhim there,concernedhlmself with nothingbeyond the food he ate. Now Josephwas well builtand handsome,and it happenedsome time laterthat his master's wifecast her eyes on Josephand said, 'Sleep withme'. But he refused. 'Look,' he said to his master's does not concernhimself with what hapwife,'with me here,my master all his possessionsto me. He himself wields no more pens in the house, having entrusted in thishouse thanI do. He has exemptednothing fromme exceptyourself, because authority so wicked, and sin againstGod?' Althoughshe you are his wife. How could I do anything spoke to Josephday after day, he would not agree to sleep with her or be with her. But one day whenJosephcame into the house to do hls work,and none of the men of the household happenedto be indoors,she caughthold of him by his tunicand said, 'Sleep withme'. But he leftthe tunic in her hand, took to his heels and got out. When she saw thathe had leftthe tunic in her handsas he ran out, she called her servants and said to them,'Look at this!My in a Hebrew to make a fool of me! He burstin on me, but I screamed, husbandbrought and when he heardme scream,he lefthis tunicbeside me and ran out of the house'. She kept his tunicby her untilhis master came home. Then she told him the same tale, 'The Hebrew slave in on me to make a fool of me. But when I screamed, to us burst he lefthis tunic you brought beside me and ran away.' When his masterheard his wife say, 'This was how your slave treatedme', he became furious. Joseph'smasterhad him arrested and committed to the gaol where the king'sprisoners were kept. 41: 37-45 Genesis Pharaoh's dream.] Pharaoh and all his ministers Josephinterprets approved of what he had said. Then Pharaoh asked hlis runisters, 'Can we findanyone else endowed with the spiritof God, like him?' So Pharaoh said to Joseph,'Since God has given you knowledgeof all this, and wise as you. You shall be my chancellor,and all my there can be no one as intelligent people shall respectyour orders;only this throneshall set me above you'. Pharaoh said to Joseph,'I herebymake you governorof the whole of Egypt'. Pharaohtook the ringfromhis hand and put it on Joseph's.He dressedhim in robesof finelinen and put a gold chain round his neck. He made him nde in the best chariot he had afterhis own, and they shouted 'Abrek!' ahead of him. Thus he became governorof the whole of Egypt. Pharaoh said to

tnvial.

ALAN AYCOCK

481

Joseph,'AlthoughI am Pharaoh, no one is to move hand or foot withoutyour permission throughout Egypt'.PharaohnamedJosephZaphenath-Paneah, and gave him Asenathdaughter of Potiphera, priestof On, to be his wife.

the motivations of Potiphar's wife are not so very Consideredin isolation, of daytimesoap operas will quickly mysterious (39: 7-20). In fact,aficionados of theneglected wifewho seekshersexual recognizethepattern of therevenge in an available male.Even theofficial refuge and otherwise unconnected denouement of Joseph's rejection of her advances - his unjust and temporary imprisonment (39: 20; 41: 14) - merely contorts a plotthatdoes not depart very of unassuming farfromn stereotypic expectations virtue, sinceJosephquicklyreto meettheexigencies of hismaster's asserts himself by rising circumstances (41: 1-49). Indeed, Alter'sanalysis of thisepisode is succinctand persuasive (1981: 107-11). My pointis that whenwe have thuscharacterized thestory ofPotiphar's wife, we have not yetexhausted itsimplications. Clearly, from any ordinary perspectivePotiphar's wifeis not herself a majorcharacter of theJosephcycle,let alone ofGenesis.She appears briefly, unnamed, onlyto attemptJoseph's seduction (39: in herscheming, 7-12), and when she is unsuccessful further to denounce Joseph to herhusband(39: 14-19). To thecursory reader she seemsat besta minorfoil who advances thestory from somewhat, thendisappears thenarrative forever. So wifemerit further whydoes Potiphar's attention? There are a iiuinber of Potiphar's wifethat of important features of the story inviteelaboration and analysis. a man. Second, First, she is a woman,andJoseph an Egyptian Potiphar's wife,who is probably woman,is not linkedto Joseph's seduction lineage,or indeedto anyotherHebrew lineage.Third,herattempted and powerful ofJosephoccurswithinthe householdof Potiphar, a prosperous man. Fourth,the prospective wife involvesa liaisonof Josephand Potiphar's of the imputed deception.Fifth, Joseph'stunicbecomes a signal,thoughfalse, relationship betweenthem.Sixth,Potipharcasts Josephinto prisonas a consequenceofhisallegedtreachery. Seventh, Joseph's redemption by Pharaohrests of dreams. reward forhisfidelity is uponJoseph's interpretation Eighth, Joseph's a wifegivenhim by Potiphar. rehabilitation leads to a Ninth,although Joseph's withhisbrothers, reconciliation theultimate result ofJoseph's travails is theexile of Israel in Egypt.4I shall discusseach of these features of the incidentof wifein turn. Potiphar's Women andmen in Genesisthatdo not present There are veryfewstories the opposed interests, and assumedqualities, of women and men as metaphors value of fundamental 1979: but for a somewhat view Ottwell see (Swidler 75-159; 1977; contrary and Eve the her 1985 is but moral Emmerson Farley 1989). prototype, equivocal in some guise by Sarai/Sarah, Lot's daughters, qualitiesare likewisedisplayed wife.That is to say,in thepatriarRachel and Leah, and not leastby Potiphar's chalterms Eve Adam at God assumed Genesis leads by astray (3: 12), Sarahlaughs seduce theirfather (18: 12-15), Lot's daughters (19: 30-8; cf. Graves& Patai in the 1966: 171-2), Rachel deceivesherfather (31: 35) and Leah causesdiscord in her actions,also house ofJacob (30: 1-24). Tamar, thoughfinally justified

482

ALAN AYCOCK

to sethisaffairs in disarray seducesa father-in-law (38: 12-26). Women interpose of men and thestrictures of God betweentheaspirations themselves, willy-nilly, as contrapuntive male covenants and thusrenderthemat agentswho decentre if imagesof men suggest least temporarily problematic. From thisperspective, those of women threaten chaos and perfidy. order and fealty, This imagery of women in thepatriarchal clearly reflects the ambiguous status and patrilineal of theancientHebrews:women are bothwivesand daughters, culture outsiders are expressed in plottedcontrivances and kin, whose dividedallegiances that and their commitments intoquestion. men intoconflict formal bring In thissensePotiphar's wifeinterrupts the steady trajectory ofJoseph's moral careerin the householdof hisEgyptian master (39: 20), just as does Eve thatof Adamin theGardenconsecrated by God (3: 17-19), and Rachel thatofJacobin thelandofPaddan-Aran (29: 14-30; 31: 1-42). In each instance thatI havecited, or residing underthedominionofanother male unintentiona patriarch visiting thatis attributed to theintrigues an offence of a woman. allycommits
Lineageaffiliation

in stagesfromthe original The Hebrew moraluniverse extends and outwardly ideallymosttrustworthy relationship betweena man and his sons to thatwhich within betweenfather's son and father's conflict obtains brother (muting fraternal a singlelineage),subsequently to father's son and mother's brother (two lineages to the tentative, and oftendisprivileged joiniedby prioralliance),and ultimately confron-tation betweenthedescendants of Israel and thosecorporate contentious, groupswhich are adherents of foreign divinity (de Vaux 1965: 21-2, 30-2; cf. Malina 1981: ch. 5). These gradations ofmoraldistance arefixed byPentateuchal marital and proscription prescription (de Vaux 1965: 29-32), and are also reflected spatially in Hebrew sacrifice, the guarantor of theirrelationship to God, in relation by thephysical positioning ofpriests, sacrifiers, victims and lookers-on to theArkof the Covenantand theMercySeat (Leach 1976: ch. 18; Wenham 1979: 47-160). Adam sleepswithEve, stolenfrom his rib,in an act of quasi-incestuous procreation (2: 21-23; 4: 1-2). Abram/Abraham but strategically, repeatedly, confuses Sarai/Sarah as wifeand sister (12: 10-20; 20: 1-13). Rebekah,Leah and tiedgenealogically Rachel are thedaughters of lineages to thoseof their already at leasta woman of husbands (24: 15; 29: 10-14). Tamarseemsto be, similarly, Hebrew descent is presumably (Vawter1977: 393). Potiphar's wife,however, no relation to Josephor his antecedents, and Pharaohbestowsa wifeuponJoseph who likewiseappearsnot to be of Hebrew extraction (41: 45). Thus Genesis a steadily describes ofYahweh and their increasing cleavagebetweenthefamiliars in themarriage spouses, culminating ofJoseph. As wife-givers and wife-receivers in thisway, thereare seriouscondiverge of males and for the well-being of the moral sequences for the authority That is to say,thetextassumes that a man'sautonomy and resources community. to theextent thathe ventures are proportionately relinquished beyondtherealm of immediate kin,and thattheHebrewpeople mustsuffer accordingly. all thebirdsof theair,and all thewild animals' Thus, Adam names'the cattle, (2: 20), makingthemhis own, butJoseph,at the otherend of the continuum

ALAN AYCOCK

483

of politico-jural statusordained by the model of privilegedconsanguinity, inadvertently luresthe children of Israelintopenury and oppression (Exodus 1: of preferential thepatriarchs of Genesismove 8-14). In terms marriage patterns, inexorably down thescaleofprimordial to a degraded purity condition ofpolluto this tion(de Vaux 1965: 30-2; Leach 1967 11-12). I shallreturn theme general below froml a slightly different perspective. Potiphar's household In terms of patrilineal ideology, theancientHebrew householdshouldremain a moral fortress (de Vaux 1965: 21), secure againstthe personaland therefore potentially inclinations of itssubordinate corrupt members. sin- as it is Joseph's formulated wife(39: 17-19) - is not merely by Potiphar's thelegal sexual;from and socialperspective of thepaterfamilias, it is also micropolitical. The Potiphar, socialorganization of a Biblicaldomestic groupseparates itsmembers alonlg lines of consanguiity,affinity and generational as well as discriminating authority, betweensonsof thesamefather. Confusion of thesedistinct threatens categories seriousconsequencesforall involved,ranging frommundanedisadvantage to supernatural retaliation(e.g., the miscegenationof the Nephilim and the ofmenleadsto theFlood, 6: 1-7; see also Gaster1975: 79-80; Vawter daughters 1977: 110-13). Yet the accusation of Potiphar's in wifereminds us of comparable incidents in which sexual delictsmuddle these sacredlyestablished Biblical mythology divisions: Noah reveals himself to Ham (9: 21), AbramsleepswithHagar (16: 4), Lot cohabits withhisdaughters (19: 33-5), Reuben lieswithBilhah(9: 20-1; 16: 1-4; 19: 30-8; 35: 22). In each instance theassumed sanctity offamilial relationshipsis interrupted by the turmoil of sexualtransactions held in check normally - Cain and Abel,Jacoband Genesisalso portrays by domestic authority. brothers Esau, Josephand the sons of Leah - set againstone anotherin violationof patriarchal arrangements (4: 1-8; 25: 19-34; 27: 1-45; 37: 1-36). The conflation ofhousehold rolesis therefore in Genesis mythically privileged in orderto emphasizethe 'charter' precisely statusof the patriarchs. By thisI mean thatthe texts of the ancientHebrewsexpandat considerable length upon the relationship betweenreligious and the allocationof separate purity jurisdiction over sexualrights betweengenerations withina household(e.g., Leviticus 18). Similarly, it seemsto be an expression ofpietyfora younger sibling to defer to one moreseniorwhererights and rights inpersonam in rem are concerned(de Vaux 1965: 53-5): such rights and therelationships thattheyentailare symbolicallymnarked both in legal and in religious terms fromone by their segregation another(Douglas 1966: 48-53). Confusionof rights in Genesis and privileges as a mythic funlctions analogueofa riteof rebellion or reversal 1965: (Gluckmani ch. 6), normnally understood normalstandards by anthropologists not to destroy ofbehaviour, butto accentuate themby meansofa temporary to their resistance hegemony. The problemof male domestichonouris not peculiarto the Bible: Malina, amongothers, pointsout thatsuchideologiesgenerally frame socialinteractions in circuin-Mediterranean cultures (1981: 25-50; on honourmoregenerally, see is definitive, Campbell 1964 and Pitt-Rivers 1966). Masculine authority yet

484

ALAN AYCOCK

ofjunior women and men. One way curiously vulnlerable to the equivocations of looking at patrilineality is to affirm simplythatsenior men are in charge; more subtly, thatpersonsexcludedfromfulllegal adultanother is to suggest, hood possessan inherent capacity to upsetthe moralbalance and to bringinto questiontheformal status quo (Malina 1981: 106-9). real or not,proffers thisverysubstantial and ominous Joseph'stransgression, is accused of seduction, possibility. When Josephstands Potiphar's inldignation ofa sexualpeccadillo,but is directed not predicated merely upon theintimation of Joseph'sservilestatuswithin in particular towardsan apparent subversion by Potiphar'shousehold (39: 9, 19). In thissense the sexual assaultreported in ancientHePotiphar's wifesuggests a broaderthemeof householdtensions brewsociety. Thedeception ofPotiphar's wife in humanrelationships seemscentral ofan The roleofambiguity to anyaccounlt ofspeaking: whichevade specific allow people to ethnography symbols referents manoeuvrearound one anotherand to enjoy the illicitpleasuresof circumventing formal authority (de Certeau1984). This is no lesstrueof mythological and otherforms of deception as images discourse, whichfrequently usestrickery of the amnbiguities associated withimportant cultural valuesand of the tensions whichmayresult betweenappearances and reality (cf.Radin 1972). withtheunsuccessful effort of Genesisis rife withtricks and deceit,beginning Adam and Eve to hide from God their partaking of theTree of Eden (3: 8; also ofAbel (4: 9). 1975: 32-5) and theattempt Gaster by Cain to concealhismurder (12: AbrahaIn misleads the Pharaohand Abimelechabout Sarah'sreal identity 10-20; 20: 1-13). Abraham concealshisrealpurposefrom Isaac as they ascendto a blessing the sacrifice at Moriah (22: 1-10). Jacob tricks Isaac into extending intendedforEsau (27: 1-40) and is in turnfooled by Laban in theirmarital circumcovenant(29: 15-30). Israel's sonslurethemen of Shechemintoa fatal cision (34: 1-31; see also Graves& Patai 1966: 235-40), and lie to theirfather respecting thefateofJoseph (37: 31-5). Tamnar hidesheridentity from Judahto achieve her due (38: 12-26), and near the end of Genesisthe properorderof Israel's will be apparently patriarchal blessing obscured(48: 13-20). God himself in such matters, and his son Isaac is not above reproach sincehe leadsAbraham into a dilemmathatis resolvedonlyin the nick of time (22: 1-12), and sends to Sarah (18: 1-15), then to rescue Lot from first to reveal himself strangers Sodom (19: 1-22), and finally to wrestle withJacob at the fordofJabbok(32: 23-33). in which Genesisthereis a rhythm of treachery Throughout and redemption theessential and otherkinds ofallegiance are transactions ofmarriage, inheritance at thevery For example, first belied,denied,and onlythenreinstated lastminute. inenshouldnot killtheir sacrifice of Isaac is onlyredeemed sons,but Abraham's as a of a ram (22: 13). Tamar is rescuedfromimmolation by the substitution harlotby her disclosure of Judah'sseal and cord and staff (38: 24-6). Joseph, instead abanidoned to die in a well by hisbrothers, (37: is sold to the lshmaelites to be rendered of deceitallowsappearance anldreality 24-7). Thus the imagery in juxtaposition, then resolvedlaterin the story.In this initially probleim-atic

ALAN AYCOCK

485

moralambiguity fashion is presented as a narrative deviceto lend emphamainly sisto thecharter valuesit highlights. of Potiphar's The story wifefollows similar lines.Potiphar's wifedramatically in herhusband's interrupts Joseph's careeras a trusted functionary householdby a ruse(thetunicthatshe seizesfrom him)whichplaysupon thevulnerability of patriarchal of which I have spoken above. This trick values to the subversion places in the foreground of the narrative the ambiguousstatus that Josephhas assumed, a slaveand exile raisedto a positionof authority. The appearance that Potiphar's wifecontrives becomesJoseph's reality, but hisconfinement willpermit (through his inspired of dreams)a greater interpretation reality: Joseph's redemption to a more exaltedlevel as the first minister of the Pharaoh.More intoa captivity even moredegrading significantly, by thrustingJoseph thanl mere the textemphasizes servitude, the value of domestic first towards fidelity one's thenthe value of personal superiors, allegianceto God. Both valuesare uninistakably patriarchal from theviewpoint of theancientHebrews. tunic Joseph's In theimmediate context thereis a fineironywhichpermits Potiphar's wifeto use Joseph'stunic to betrayhis interests in a mannerwhich recollects to the readerthesimilar use ofJoseph's coat by hisbrothers (37: 3; 37: 31-3; 39; 12-8; see also in a folkloric 1975: 215-7). More generally, Gaster context, Genesisplays frequently upon thehumanskinand itscoverings as a moralimageofitsprotagonists.Adam and Eve, forexample,realizetheirnakedness and sew loincloths which nonetheless expose theirill-gotten knowledgeto God (3: 7). Noah's nakedness is exploited by Ham, but ShemandJapheth clothehimonce more (9: 20-3; also Graves& Patai 1966: 120-4).Jacobwearstheskinof kidsto extract a falseblessing from the blindIsaac (27: 1-40). Leah is disguised from her bridegroomby a veil (Vawter1977: 321 makesthispointby comparison with24: 65, reference thoughin 29: 23 thereis direct onlyto the 'veil' of night;see also de Vaux 1965: 34), and Tamarby thehabilimnent of a prostitute (38: 15). This preoccupation in partthe strictures withsartorial metaphor foreshadows of Exodus and Leviticus regarding priestly garb (Exodus 28: 1-43; Exodus 39: 8: 7-9; Leviticus ofleprous 1-31; Leviticus 8: 30; Leviticus 21: 10) and thetesting 13: 47-59). Moreover,and moreimportantly clothing (Leviticus forthepresent the degreeto which shame(and its counterpart it suggests irresistibly situation, honour), fortheancient lies'on theskin'(Strathern Hebrews, 1977). One's social reputeis ritualized by the boundaries of cloth thatintercede between huinan innocenceand the gaze of others, God. Justas Potipharacceptsthe including rather evidenceofthetunicas a primafacie circumstantial condemnation ofJoseph (39: 16-20), so Israelinfers but understandably mistakenly thathis son is dead to himbecauseof thecoat soakedin blood (37: 33), and God interprets accurately, to deceive him, the transgression despitean attempt of Adam and Eve in the of men restwiththeir gardenof Eden (3: 11). Finally, just as the overtfortunes to theirwardrobeas a actions,so too should theircovertdesirescorrespond mediator betweentheraiment norms and theartless tailored to cultural profusion of skinthatdisplaces of thisoccluthosenorms. wifetakesadvantage Potiphar's sion betweenappearance and reality.

486

ALAN AYCOCK

Joseph imprisoned career By the time of his imprisonment Josephhas spentmuch of his mythic in a hole in thegroundor vanquished in exile (37: 24; involuntarily incarcerated of concavity 37: 36; cf.Graves& Patai 1966: 250-3). The interplay and convexity is a familiaridea in Genesis: the formeris usually associated with withthehope ofreconciliation. For example, thelatter estrangement, theTower humans into therealmof the divine,but itsdestrucof Babel attempts to thrust and despair tionconveys confusion (11: 1-9; cf.Graves& Patai 1966: 100-7; also Gaster1975: 132-8; Vawter1977: 154-8). Abrahamexpectsto sacrifice Isaac a as other establish stone altars to upon mountain (22: 2) just patriarchs regularly reachthesky(e.g., 12: 7-8; 26: 25; 28: 18; 31: 45-54; 33: 20; 35: 14-15; compare Smith1972: 200-12; de Vaux 1965: 274-88; Gaster1975: 201-4), and whence will revealthelaws of God (Exodus 19 sqq., Matthew5). both Moses andJesus of Isaac's first with Rebekah (24: 10-67), Inversely, the uncertainty encounter and ofJacobwithRachel (29: 1-14), is portrayed by the image of a well, that inevitablenucleus of the passionsof arid Canaan (cf 14: 10; 21: 25-31; 26: 15-22).5 Indeed,Jesuswill emergefrom a tombwhichsymbolically equateshis to a triumphant the reader's resurrection rebirth atten(Mark 16: 1-8). Finally, tionis drawnto the goblet(44: 2, 12) and to the mouthsof the sackswhichso reconciliation withhis brethren exactly conveythe vicissitudes ofJoseph's (42: 25-38; 43: 12; 44: 1; see also Vawter1977: 421-2, 429-31). Perhaps it is not too muchto identify concavities as vaginaland protrusions as modernscholars, phallicin the genderpolitics of ancientIsrael.Certainly acclito a Freudian matized idiom,tendto perceivethemso. Can thestructural analyst find instances to corroborate sucha claim?ConsiderLot. The sterility of homosexual Sodom is expressed by the dazzlingof the eyes of its men (19: 11; also of the extruding orbs of vision - just as Gaster1975: 158-59) - a nlegation to denyhis sexualliaisonwithJocasta. out his eyes,paceTiresias, Oedipus tears The tran-sformation of Lot's wifeto a pillarof saltattests his redemption from theepisodein thecavesabove theplainsof God's wrath(19: 26), butprefigures Zoar where Lot begetsthe Moabites and Ammonites(of ill omien)with his daughters (19: 30-8; cf Aycock1983a). Again,whileRebekah'schildren (25: 22-3), and Tamar's(38: 27-30), struggle in thewombsof their mothers, Jacobachieveshisprosperity by the use of a rod held beforethe eyes of Laban's flock (30: 25-43), while Judah'sstaff figures in the narrative which discharges obligation(38: his progenitive prominently ifnot quiteinevitable, is at 17-23; cf.de Vaux 1967: 37-8). This interpretation, in this leastprovocative. us ofthefeminine Potiphar's wife, reading, onlyreminds in Genesis that so often of is readagainst thecentripetal centrifugality pretensions in a phallocentric and centripetal influences society(on thenotionof centrifugal see Scholes1989: 8). narrative, Joseph's interpretation ofdreams Modern anthropology thatredismisses perhapstoo readily Tylor'ssuggestion in the natural and foremost of dreaming ligiousbeliefis rootedfirst experience or not cultures 1965: 20-47). Whether (Tylor1903: 428, 440-5; Evans-Pritchard in an explanationof of the supernatural universally ground theirdefinition

ALAN AYCOCK

487

to speculate itis reasonable that dreams and visions, particular religious ontologies of consciousness and their states derivations mayhave been shapedby alternative in humanaction(cf.Gaster1975: 182-4; also Bourguignon 1973). For the ancientHebrews, Genesis throughout suppliesa templatefor the significant institutionalization of patriarchal bothsleepingand waking, fantasies, of Genesis, of God's will. Thus amongthepatriarchs as authoritative renderings Adam sees God in the Garden (2: 16-17; 3: 8-19), and Cain does so in his ofa visionary when he constructs theArk torment (4: 9-16). Noah is something nearSodom and at Mamre and (6: 13-22; 7: 1-5), but the moreso is Abraham Moriah (15: 1-21; 18: 1-15; 22: 1-19). Jacob'sladderor stairway his portends nominationat the fordof Jabbok (28: 10-22). Justso, Josephmaintains the of colloquywithGod through tradition dreams(41: 25-32) even as a precursor of Moses (Exodus 19: 1-25) and the prophets(e.g., Joshua 1: 1-9; Judges6: 11-24; 1 Samuel3: 1-21, and manyothers). Amongsuchsupernatural trysts may also be numberedthe subsequenttheophanies of John (Luke 3: 1-18), Jesus (Matthew17: 1-8), and Paul at Damascus(Acts9: 1-9). men speak directly While primordial with God, and he to them,laterpatriarchs legitimize their positions mainly by reference to specialdreams and visions. Even morelatterly, men obviatetheir identities altogether, exchanging physical in confrontations presence forspiritual exaltation withthedivine(Heschel 1975: 104-46). These incidents transform mundane experience intothecharter status of and are oftenlinked narratively of with images or situations founder-heroes, conflict, e.g., Cain's slayingof Abel, Abram/Abraham's with the wrestling Saul/Paul's of theearlyChristians. stranger atJabbok, persecution a further case in point:hisbrothers Joseph represents revelations resistJoseph's The accusations of by castinghim into a well, then sellinghim into slavery. wifeare a narrative injeopPotiphar's device to placeJosepheven moresurely ardy, but his desperateplight serves only as a prologue to the Pharaoh's of theimportance of his oneiromancy. Thus denialbegetsin itsturn acceptance a reconstruction trueblessedness, and hisattendant ofJoseph's elevation political (41: 41-44). The roleofPotiphar's wifeis especially interesting, perhaps, because in thesequenceofevents sheis unwittingly a keyplayer that willresult ultimately in theexile of an entire nation(46: 1-26), and that will requiretheenactment of theMosaic covenant to reestablish theHebrews'ascendancy. a wife Receiving I have outlinedabove the staticfeatures of lineal affiliation thatcomprisethe I of have not of warp Genesis, but yetspokenof thedynamics marital prestation A familiar thatconstitute itsweft. dilemma ofpatrilineality thesolidarity of arrays unitedby agnatictiesagainst the need foraffiliation withcomparative intiml-ates men must renounce their strangers (Fox 1967: 114-20). In thisformulation, controlof the 'sisters' of theirblood, but may thereby prerogative expect to In each generation receivealien 'wives' in return. thisstrategy reconcilesthe of divergence withtheanticipation promiseof support by substituting exogamy forincest.Although women are,fromthismale perspective, thepassive merely tokensof transactions controlled thatwomen may by men, it is noteworthy

488

ALAN AYCOCK

in such a framework of exchangesin a numberof pursuetheirown interests their disruption (cf.M. Strathern 1972). ways,some ofwhichthreaten the development of thiswife-giver/wife-receiver strategy Genesisexpresses rolesthatwomen mayplayby a narrative moveand thepotentially conflicting in genealogical an initial state ofincest an increasing mentfrom towards distance, betweenthe groupsinvolved.At each stageof thismovementGenesis terms, or tensions thatmayarisefrom consanguineal foregrounds some of thedomestic and oftenascribes a measureof blame to the autonomous affinal attachments, orderof their of women. I shallgive threeexamplesin increasing manoeuvres could readily be adducedfrom thetext others genealogical divergence, although of Genesis. incestand exogamyby receiving First, Adam, the primalhuman,conflates fromGod a matetornfrom his own flesh(2: 21-4). Adam claimsthatit is Eve himfrom who hasalienated forced hishouseholdto foreswear God, and thereby the domesticsecurity of Eden and to assumethe burdenof labour in both its (3: 16-9). Second,Abraham's wifeSarahis a productive and reproductive aspects a predecessor brother 'sister' (11: 29; perhaps givenhimin thelandofhisfather's of theSemitic cousinmarriage), buton two occaparallel preferential patrilateral devalues histiesto hissister/wife as a political stratagem sionsthereafter Abraham of theirrelationship. (12: 10-20; 20: 1-13), playing upon the lineal ambiguity (18: 12-5), givingoffence Sarahherself laughsat God's promiseof her fertility whereit maybe unwiseto do so. Third,thecontentious Jacob (25: 26) takeshis a mother's Laban,whose lineagehas already givenwivesto wivesfrom brother, withdeceitfrom that ofhisfather Isaac (24: 29). This allianceis fraught theoutset forprecedencebetweenthe women (29: 15-30), as well as an ongoingstruggle involved, Rachel and Leah (29: 31-5; 30: 1-24). In an evocativescene,Rachel himby deflects thesearchof an irateLaban forthedomestic fetishes stolenfrom him and that is The she 34-5). menstruating (31: sitting upon them, telling recallsto mind an analogous parodyinvolvedin an 'impure' blood sacrifice in theCain/Abelstories pleasure (Aycock1983b),and thesurreptitious incident have been lost of an insultoffered gods would scarcely by a woman to foreign upon theHebrewaudience. and subsequently is thrust, first by his brothers by his alleged Joseph, finally, threatto Potiphar'sdomesticrights, outside the protectionof the Hebraic covenant(37: 28; 39: 20). He mustachievemarriage not through the offices of hisfather, as is proper(cf 24: 1-9; 28: 1-5; see also de Vaux 1965: 29-30), butby thebeneficence of a stranger giventhe generaltrend (41: 45). It is unsurprising, in Genesis,that thatI have identified rehabilitation entails a wifegiven Joseph's him by the Pharaoh (41: 45). If, as Vawter has suggested (1977: 403, 415), to be equivalent or identical per'Potiphar'and 'Potiphera'maybe considered sinceitwould meanthatthe becomesall themorepoignant, sons,thetransaction turmoil householdis directly compensated experienced byJosephin Potiphar's group.In any event,the by the awardof an alliancewithinthatsame domestic or to is a womanwho owes no allegiance to hisfather sourceofJoseph's progeny in any sense (41: 50-2), and the dramatic cause of that Yahwisticderivation wife. created bestowalis theturbulence by Potiphar's

ALAN AYCOCK

489

Thus thestories of Genesis, culminating in theagnaticconflicts ofJoseph, his in Potiphar's travails household, and theresolution ofhisaffairs as a wife-receiver undertheprotection of thePharaoh,employmythological discourse to explore the tensions of descentand alliancein a patrilineal wifebesociety.Potiphar's comesa focusfortheportrayal of thosetensions and indirectly a catalyst fortheir resolution. One further illustration of thesignificance ofPotiphar's wiferequires thatthe cadence of wife-receiving and wife-giving be linkedto the rhythm of exile and return whichis so characteristic ofHebrew textual prehistory. Exileandreturn By 'exile and return' I mean to implicate thesenseof fragility thatmight attend the efforts of an essentially in an earlyhistoric pastoral society, environment, to controlits ownlprincipal resources of land, animalsand persons.The ancient Hebrewsperceived themselves, withgood reason,to be especially vulnerable to the politicalcircumstances of theirsubsistence, and permitted thisawareness to in their surface stories. Partially to compensate the ancient fortheir weaknesses, Hebrews placed substantial reliance,as revealedby theirmythology, upon an accumulation of covenants of varioussorts, and the fulfilment of promises that shoulddevolvefrom suchagreements. The talesof Genesissuggest thatalthough some of thesecontracts were not fully honoured(often leadingto 'exile'), their be (sometimes successors might allowing'return'). Adam,Cain and Noah, forthesinsofmen,are exiledin globalcircumstances: thehumanracehasbeen displaced or destroyed and mustbe replenished (3: 23-4; 4: 16-24; 7: 6-32). In each of thesecases God's intervention is of a relatively nonspecific scope so faras particular benefits (otherthanthoseof meresurvival) are concerned.On the otherhand,although Abraham wandersupon the land, besetbyantagonistic princes (e.g., 12: 10-20; 14: 1-16),he is eventually promised descendants and territory without in thesameconfrontation limit withGod that and literally confers symbolically fertility upon Sarah(17: 1-27; cf.Aycock1989 fora fuller of the ritual discussion of thissaga). By contrast, import Isaac is the man who falls to earth, deceivedin his senescence by hiswifeRebekah and his son Jacob,who mustthereafter seek his fortune elsewhere(27: 1-46; 28: 1-9). However,Jacob/Israel, a man whose avocationis dissension (e.g., 25: 23; 31: 36-42; 32: 29), nevertheless achievesa tenurewhich is markedfinally by his burialat Mamrein a plotpurchased father Abraham by hisfather's (49: 29-32). In each instalnce a narrative sequel disturbs thepriority ofearlier arrangements, and at each interval ofthetexttheforfeiture ofthosearrangements can be loosely associated withsome domestic upheavalthatis at leastanalytically problemuatic, Eve's of Adam,Cain's murder seduction ofAbel, Noah's incest e.g., withHamn, Abrahaam's near-sacrifice of Isaac and his abandonment of Ishmael,the theft of Isaac's patriarchal blessing, Jacob'sconflicts with his brother Esau and with his father-in-law Laban. The sagaofJoseph seemsto fit this pattern. Joseph is exiledbyhisbrothers into and subsequently wife into a more dramatic servitude, by Potiphar's captivity. Both of theseincidents revealat some level a fateful misapprehension of the domesticrights and dutiesthatwere intendedby the usual covenantsof the ancient Near East. When Josephis uplifted and giftedby the Pharaoh, his

490

ALAN AYCOCK

withhis agnatescreates a new contract and eventualreconciliation marriage of sorts, thoughit also marksthe inceptionof a protracted disenfranchisement of Even here,however,thelengthy circumJoseph's people as toldin laterstories. in a new covenant, of Moses's saga will culminate and a restoration ambulation land of their of the sons of Israelto the chartered patriarchal ancestors (Deuteronomy8: 7-10 and 11: 8-17). In each of theseinstances, as I have already matrimonial indicated, celebration theterritories signifies newlyclaimedat each stageof Genesisby themythic hero and marriage whose doingsare thento be recounted. Land,agnation are inextricably linked as arrangements whose overlappings lend them theirrespective in law, religion and political of redundancy efficacy economy(Leach'sdiscussion in myth[1967: 2] perhapsunderscores the necessity of such overlappings to thanmight be thecase). conveya clearer otherwise meaning Conclusion There is a further if thisenumeration problemto be considered: of themesis insufficient to present Genesisas a coherent narrative (cf.Levi-Strauss 1975: 5-6), thenhow has a structuralist at leastas I have used it,advainced methodology, the interpretationofthesestories? By thesametokenthat structuralism derives much itscapacity of itsauthority from to make myths falltogether, it loses some of its when they seemto fallapart. credibility conventions ofliterary Ordinary analysis drawtheattentionofcritics ofnarrative; to thediscrepant themes whatthenis to be gainedby referring to thatworkas 'structuralist'? A structuralist argument, therefore, mustbe further-reaching thanI have presentedto thispoint,becauseit has to do not onlywiththeisolatedtreatment of similar a series ofmyths, butalso withtherelation of those keyideasthroughout themesto one another, a matter thatI have touchedupon onlylightly. In this

reading of the structuralist canon, an analystsearches not so much for a unique core of the text as for an element of its narrativethat can be seen to express its diversityin an economical and perhaps even an elegant way. This elemental featureneed not occupy a perceived centre of a set of narratives,since it may equally well inscribe its functionat the peripheryof that 'nebula' of meanings to which Levi-Strauss has referred (1975: 2-3). the criteriaforsuch an element. Though she is Potiphar's wife seems to satisfy relegated to the marginsof the text both by her lack of a name and by her brief appearance in the story,she evokes a wide range of mythological problems that recur throughout Genesis, settingthe stage for their returnin later narratives.I shall mention three such problems: the imagery of gender, the infrastructure of ancient Hebrew society, and the relationshipof man to God. As a woman in a male-centred mythic universe, Potiphar's wife reminds the reader of numerous women, fromEve onwards, who are said by Genesis to have discomfited male undertakings. This engenderment of ancient Hebrew nlythologyis perhaps reinforcedby the themes of concavity and convexity that I once more in Joseph's have identifiedthroughoutGenesis, and thatare refracted imprisonmentat a woman's behest. Second, and more profoundly,however, the structural oppositions of gender at particularintervalsin Genesis representonly one kind of situationin which the

ALAN AYCOCK

491

of the ancientHebrews mightfalter. social arrangements Thus, the storyof Potiphar's wifealso callsto accountdeep tensions betweenthe solidary appearance of patrilineality, marriage and domestic groupsin ancientHebrew society, and thefragile oftheir divisiveness: had been brought to hispresent reality Joseph and will spend much of his lifeatpredicament by a conflict among agnates, to reconcile himself to them, and theyto him.That thisdralnaunfolds tempting in Egyptmakesthetaleall themoreincisive, sincethebasic strategies of ancient whenitspatriarchs Hebrewsociety were rendered mostvulnerable dweltamong foreign peoples. in the tale of Potiphar's The theineof exile and return is also captured wife, since she intensifies Joseph'sperilsas a man outcastalone in an alien land,and indirectly makespossiblehis rehabilitation underthe Pharaoh.Once more this extendstextualreflection on cleavagesin ancientHebrew societyand their forGenesis, return to an honouredstatus is possibleresolution: typically Joseph's in partby a marital allianceand, subsequently, legitimized problematized once morein partby a further interplay of antagonisms amongbrothers. Of course,in will be yetanother exileand return. thesaga of Moses there Third,thestory of Potiphar's wifebrings into relief whatis possibly the most in important allegiance ancientHebrew society, thatof man and God. At one in his master's level, thisis portrayed by the innocenceofJosephas a servant of hisalienation household;theirony from Potiphar undersuchcircumstances as a falseaccusation on othermen of Genesis, provokesretrospective commentary orJacob,whose piety(or wantof it) was to be a central such as Abraham theme lives(cf Good 1981). The struggle ofthesemento achievean apotheosis oftheir withinthe framework is conceivedafresh, of Genesis,byJoseph'sattempts to on behalf ofPotiphar hisdutieshonourably and thePharaoh. perform At another level, the tunicseized by Potiphar's wifefrom Josephbecomes a between one's body and one's moral symbolof the intimate correspondence ancient Hebrew mythology. The imageofJoseph condition that naked pervades and fleeing beforehis master's wrathrecalls Adam, Noah and manyothersfor whom clothingbecame a marker of theirrelationship to God, a mnatter that be set out in detailunderthe aegis of the Mosaic covenant. would eventually the sexual implication of Joseph'ssupposed betrayal of Potipharis Similarly, linkeddirectly to hissubmission of hismaster, to theauthority just as theriteof in theAbraharmic covenant is a fleshly circumcision of sexualcontainmetaphor descent undertherigorous of God. Again,thiswill mentand legitimate scrutiny in theMosaic covenant. strictures be made thesubjectof manyadditional at yetanother Finally, level,Potiphar's wife,by heraccusation against Joseph, of the narrative his relationship to the forefront to God. Joseph's brings junior in Israel'shouseholdis not, froma patrilineal an especially status perspective, his fora patriarchal and whenJosephtriesto assert fortuitous beginning career, he escapesdeathat thehandsof his brothers future ascendancy, onlyby a hairsbreadth.In this context,Potiphar'swife seems to have put paid to Joseph's It is precisely whenJosephhas been stripped at thepoint,however, aspirations. and freedom, thathistrueworthiness it is as ifthe of kin,possessions is revealed: theutter humiliation ofitsheroto emphasize that when all else is myth required of resourceof a directand personalintuition lost, thereremainsthe ultimate

492

ALAN AYCOCK

to revealthe truemeaningof the ability Joseph's God's wishes.In thisinstance is 'endowed withthe causesthePharaohto observethatJoseph Pharaoh'sdreams story in a wifemaybe seen as a climactic spirit of God' (41: 38). Thus Potiphar's with God, and mythicseriesthatbegan in Genesis with Adam's encounters visionssuch as thoseof Abraham thesequence of patriarchal through continued The provisional nature revelations. ofJoseph's inJoseph's and Israelto culminate thatof his descenexactly 'endowment'at the pleasureof the Pharaohmatches into myth who must eventually rely upon thedramaofSinaito move from dants, history. episode such as obscureand trivial then,an apparently In structuralist terms, wifecan be understood as the raw stuff of a more convoluted thatof Potiphar's who of thecritic thecontrivance is not merely This artfulness domainofartifice. is the aesthetic dimension forin structuralist thought suppliesan interpretation, interrogathetext, and requires onlya careful embeddedwithin 'alwaysalready' 'in men's minds'.From thispoint of tion to show how the mythis operating that perhaps it is unfortunate collectionof stories; view, Genesisis a remarkable cycleso sumtreat theproto-Yahwistic religion manyworkson ancientIsraelite 1966; Fohrer1972; Rowley 1976; Gottwald1979). marily (Ringgren manynuancesof ancientHehere,Genesisilluminates As I have suggested be overlookedor dismissed. reading, thatneed not,in a structuralist brewsociety than charters are moretroubled In particular, Genesisseemsto arguethatmythic examination. further within thetextthatinvites given,a resistance
NOTES of this article,I was made aware of another AfterI had alreadycompletedmy initialdraft approach. I take our aparticleoni Potiphar'swife (Hollis 1989) which adopts quite a different to be complementary. proachesand our conclusions 2 Here anidelsewhereon severaloccasions I use the word 'man' to expressthe comlmonastext.This the mythological not women, speak withinHebrews thatmen, sLumptioni of the anicient Where I refer to thatI am studying. but thatof the narrative is not minie genider bias, therefore, of inclusivelanguage. convention I am coniforminig withthe moderni 'huml-ani' 3 All Biblical referenices Bible,Wansare to the English text of Genesis (The NewJerusalemll indian-d verseare takenfromGenesisunlessotherwise to a chapter brough1985). All references cated. 4 Althoughin thisarticleI shall not emphasizethe continuation of these themesbeyond the forfurther analysis would of courseprovideample opportunity boun-ds of Genesis,thatpossibility lines. along similar 5 For simplicity's sake I have not taken up the image of water or tearswhich on numerous rebirth and reconciliation (e.g., 2: 10-14; 7:6 sqq.; 16: 7; 18: 4; 21: occasionslikewiserepresent 19; 24: 10-49; 29: 1-14; 43: 30; 45: 2; cf. Gaster1975: 82-131; and the classicaccount by Smith 1972: 165-84).

REFERENCES

New York: Basic Books. narrative. Alter,R. 1981. TheartofBiblical In Structuralist in Biblicalmythology. mediation Aycock,A. 1983a. The fateof Lot's wife:structural ofBiblical i?lyth1 (eds) E.R. Leach & A. Aycock.Cambridge:Univ. Press. intetpretations (eds) E.R. Leach & A. ofBiblical myth interpretations 1983b.The markof Cain. In Structuralist Univ. Press. Aycock.Cambridge: Theol.9(2/3), 9-19. view. Relig.Stlud. anlanithropological 1989. The myth of Abraham: ms. Unipublished a structural ofJacob/lsrael. analysis n.d. Embodiedantagonisms:

ALAN AYCOCK

493

PA: PickwickPress. Barthes, R. 1974. Structural analysis andBiblical exegesis. Pittsburgh, a framework forthe comparative Bourguignon, E. 1973. Introduction: studyof alteredstates of and socialchange In Religion, altered consciousness. states ofconsciousness, (ed.) E. Bourguignon. Columbus,OH: Ohio StateUniv. Press. Campbell, J.K. 1964. Honour, family, andpatronage. London: OxfordUniv. Press. Am. Ethnol. M. 1977. Leach, Genesis,and structural Carroll, analysis. 4, 663-77. London: Humanities Press. the artoftheintelligible. Caws, P. 1988. Structuralismn: CA: Univ. of California Press. Certeau,M. de. 1984. Thepractice ofeveryday Ife.Berkeley, Culley,R. 1976. Studies in the structure ofHebrew narrative. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity anddanger. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Israel(ed.) R.E. Clements. Emmerson, G.I. 1989. Women in ancientIsrael.In The world ofancient Univ. Press. Cambridge: E.E. 1965. Theories London: OxfordUniv. Press. Evans-Pritchard, of primitive religion. M. 1985. Feminist In Feminist Farley, consciousness and theinterpretation of scripture. interpretation PA: Westminster oftheBible(ed.) L.M. Russell.Philadelphia, Press. Fohrer, G. 1972. History ofIsraelite religion. Nashville, TN: AbingdonPress. Fox, R. 1967. Kinship andmarriage. Harmondsworth: Penguin. T. 1975. Myth, in theOld Testament Gaster, legend, andcustom (vol. 1). New York: Harper& Row. M. 1965. Politics, lawandritual in tribal New York: MentorBooks. Gluckman, society. in theOld Testament. AlmondPress. Sheffield: Good, E. 1981. Irony N. 1979. Thetribes NY: OrbisBooks. Gottwald, ofYahweh. Maryknoll, thebook New York; McGraw-Hill. Graves,R. & R. Patal 1966. Hebrew myths: ofGenesis. Heschel,A.J.1975. Theprophets (vol. 2). New York: HarperColophon Books. K21 11. In Gender and Hollis,S. 1989. The woman in ancient examples of thePotiphar's wifemotif, MN: Fortress in ancient Israel (ed.) P. Day. Minneapolis, Press. diference In Myth Leach,E.R. 1967. Genesisas myth. andcosmos (ed.)J.Middleton.GardenCity,NY: Natural History Press. 1976. Culture andcommunicationt. Cambridge: Univ. Press. & A. Aycock1983. Structuralist Univ. Press. interpretations ofBiblical myth. Cambridge: Levi-Strauss, C. 1967. The structural study ofmyth. In C. Levi-Strauss: Structural anthropology. Garden City,NY: Doubleday. 1975 Therawandthe cooked. New York: Harper& Row. Malina,B. 1981. TheNew Testament world. Atlanta, GA: JohnKnox Press. McKenzie,J.L. 1976. A theology oftheOld Testament. GardenCity,NY: Doubleday. PA: thestatus in theOld Testament. Ottwell,J.H. 1977. AnidSarahlaughed: ofwomen Philadelphia, Westirnnster Press. Patte,D. 1976. "hat is structural exegesis? Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. In Honour and shame Pitt-Rivers, J. 1966. Honour and social status. (ed.) J.G. Peristiany. London: & Nicolson. Weldenfeld inAmerican New York, NY: SchockenBooks. a study Radin, P. 1972. Thetrickster: Indian mythology. H. 1966. Israelite PA: Fortress Press. Ringgren, religion. Philadelphia, andmeaning. inancient Israel: London: SPCK. Rowley, H.H. 1976. Worship itsforms New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. Scholes,R. 1989. Protocols ofreading. New York: Schocken. W.R. 1972. Thereligion Smith, oftheSemites. A. 1977. Whyisshameon theskin? In Theanthropology the London: Strathern, of body (ed.)J.Blacking. AcademicPress. M. 1972. Women inbetween:female roles world: Mount Strathern, ina male Hagen,New Guinea.London: Seminar Press. PA: Westminster L. 1979. Biblical Press. Swidler, affirnations ofwoman. Philadelphia, Tylor,E.B 1903. Primitive culture (4thedn). London:JohnMurray. Israel. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vaux, R. de. 1965. Anicient B. 1977. OtnGenesis. Vawter, GardenCity,NY: Doubleday. H. (ed.). 1985. TheNewJerusalem Bible.GardenCity,NY Doubleday. Wansbrough, GrandRapids,MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Wenham,G.J.1979. Thebook ofLeviticus.

494

ALAN AYCOCK

L'epouse de Potyphar: prelude 'a une exegese structurale

des mythes est sa capacitede montrer Un des pointsforts de l'analysestructurale commentles Comme en temoignent lesrecits de la Genese, memesthemes se retrouvent dansdesrecits differents. utilelorsquedes detailsapparemment structurale des mythes estparticulierement l'interpretation ne peuventetre eclairespar des methodesanthropologiques plus directes. obscursou triviaux dansla sagadeJoseph, l'epouse de Potyphar, L'article analyse i'histoire d'un personnage secondaire se retrouvent dansles autres de la Genese. et montre sagaspatriarcales que les ideesqu'elle contient problemes de la societehebraYque antique(les L'articlese termine par une etude des troisgrands infrastructurales, et l'obligation de fideliteet relationshommes-femmes, les configurations deshommes envers pari'histoire d'ob6issance Dieu), telsqu'ilssontpensesdansla Genese,etillustres de l'epouse de Potyphar.
Resumne

Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Department ofAnthropology, University of Canada TlK 3M4