７１

The Theme of Human Freedom
in Malamud’s “Talking Horse”
Takashi Noguchi*

In the short stories of Bernard Malamud, thetheme of human freedom certainly exists.１ Even
though this theme doesn’t seem explicit in manystories, it is almost always implied, in varying degreesof depth, in each protagonist’s struggle to be free fromthe metaphoric prison, which Malamud employs toexpress various kinds of limitations which prevent theprotagonist’s human possibilities.２ And there arecertain types of Malamudian prison, such as “theprison of self” (Richman 111) as in “A Summer’sReading” (1956) and many other stories which, inmany cases, have lonesome protagonists who can’t orrefuse to communicate with others, what could becalled the prison of fate as in “Idiots First” (1961), or
the prison of economic system as in “The Loan” (1952).
Unlike in the other stories, Malamud addresses
the issue of human freedom directly and comprehensively in “Talking Horse” (1972). And Abramowitz’simprisonment is not only “the weirdest of the many
imprisonments in Malamud’s fiction” (Solotaroff 131)but it is a symbolic complex of the prisons which haveappeared in his previous stories, so that the freecentaur which Abramowitz transforms into at the endof the story is a symbol of human freedom. To
understand the human freedom symbolized in thecentaur clearly, we must begin by examining thetypical Malamudian prisons which compose Abramowitz’s prison.
One of the typical Malamudian prisons is theprison of self, self-incarceration which has resulted
primarily from the ignorance of one’s own nature anddeep-seated needs. Since this is a kind of selfdeception, prisoners in the prison of self have to go
through painful recognition and acceptance of theirtrue identity to be free, as Leo Finkle in “The MagicBarrel” (1954) or Kessler and Gruber in “TheMourners” (1955). Though Abramowitz is not so selfdeceptive as the above mentioned characters initially
are in their respective stories, he also has to find out
who he really is to be free from his imprisonment.
＊General Education“Talking Horse” opens with Abramowitz asking
himself, “Am I a man in a horse or a horse that talks
like a man?” (338) and not until he comes to theconclusion that “he knows more than a horse should,
even a talking horse, so therefore, given all the builtup evidence, he is positively not a horse” (343) hedares to take action to free himself from his deaf-mutemaster, Goldberg.
In order to understand the plural nature ofAbramowitz imprisonment, we must turn to Goldberg’srole, since he represents the imprisoning force of each
Malamudian prison Abramowitz is locked in. SíoCastiñeria presents an allegorical interpretation of“Talking Horse” in terms of Freudian psychoanalytic
theory :In the story, the animal part of Abramowitz represents theid . . . . The animal's capacity to talk corresponds to theego. . . . Goldberg represents the superego, a defender ofpride, social hyper-correctness and purified conscience, andthe impulse toward perfection. (132)

Though my interpretation is not Freudian, herinterpretation of Goldberg as the superego suggeststhat he represents the self-imprisoning force within
Abramowitz. This is especially true of the scene
where Goldberg rebuts Abramowitz’s dreams of “otherlives he might live” in Abramowitz’s sleep (340−41).
Goldberg also has some divine aspects. Beth andPaul Burch point out that “Goldberg embodies aspectsof both Greek and Judaic systems of mythology,”
because Goldberg and Poseidon, the Greek god of thesea, has common features, such as the trident, thepower to create vibrations, the arbitrary, omnipotent
nature, and the link with the horse, and also because,
like God, Goldberg plays the role of creator, possesses
the secrets of the universe and manipulative ability,and does not communicate in an ordinary fashion.
(Burch 176−78).
Though the link between Poseidon and Goldbergseems more systematically intended by the author, it
平成１３年９月２８日受理７２弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

is the link between God and Goldberg that suggests
Abramowitz’s imprisonment has the aspect of theprison of fate. After the above mentioned question of
Abramowitz, he compares himself with Jonah selfmockingly :If the first, then Jonah had it better in the whale ― moreroom all around ; also he knew who he was and how he
had got there. About myself I have to make guesses.
Anyway, after three days and nights the big fish stopped at
Nineveh and Jonah took his valise and got off. But not
Abramowitz, still on board, or at hand, after years ; he's noprophet. (329)

Despite all the difference between Abramowitz andJonah, the relationship of Abramowitz to Goldberg
turns out to be that of Jonah to God. In the world fullof freaks, Abramowitz plays the role as a prophet
telling the unintelligible words of Goldberg to theaudience, and he is the only one who knows thenature of Abramowitz’s fate and has the power torelease him from it.
This aspect of Abramowitz’s imprisonment thatimplies the link between Abramowitz and the Biblicalcharacters like Jonah or Job who suffer badly fromtheir fates further links Abramowitz to other Malamudian characters, such as Manischevitz in “AngelLevine” (1955) and, especially, Mendel in “Idiots
First,” who are also confined in their own prison offate. And it is evident that what Salzberg has called“Malamud’s quarrel with God” is behind this prison offate :
In such early stories as Take Pity" (1958) and Idiots
First" (1963), one discovers a Malamudian anger directed atdivine indifference in the face of human suffering. Indeed,
subsequent works such as Talking Horse" (1972) and,more recently, God’s Grace, bring to the surface what
seems to have been a private conflict implied in his earlier
stories ― Malamud's quarrel with God. (2)The “divine indifference” suggested by Salzberg is best
expressed in the same words in both “Idiots First” and“Talking Horse.” In the final struggle with Ginzburg,
Mendel, who tries desperately to send his idiot son,
Isaac, to his brother before his own death, says,“Whichever business you in, where is your pity?” In
response, Ginzburg, the Angel of Death, says, “This
ain’t my commodity. The law is the law” (44).
Likewise Goldberg talks in Abramowitz’s sleep : “Thelaw is the law, you can’t change the order” (341).
Although Goldberg as God is “so flawed that he exists
only through human capitulation” (Solotaroff 131), he
certainly represents the tyrannical God in Malamud’s

stories who burdens humans with their fates.
Divine as he is, Goldberg also has traits incommon with other petty human characters in Malamud’s stories whose economic concerns block their
human possibilities as well as those of others. Like
Feld in “The First Seven Years” (1950), who can see
Sobel only in terms of economic values and cannot
allow his daughter Miriam to marry him initially, orBessie in “The Loan” (1952), who, because of poverty,
refuses the loan which Kobotsky begs for to buy agrave stone for his wife, Goldberg rejects Abramowitz’s
plead for freedom because of his economic concerns :If it makes you feel any better, I will admit to you I can't life
without you, and I won't let you live without me. I have myliving to make and you are my talking horse I use in my act
to earn my living, plus so I can take care of your needs.
(342−43)

Like Feld’s and Bessie’s, Goldberg’s economic concerns
are self-imprisoning, since they prevent him fromunderstanding Abramowitz’s predicament and blind
him to his moral obligation to Abramowitz. And
Goldberg’s economic concerns, in turn, build up thebars of the prison of economic system aroundAbramowitz.
As we have seen so far, Abramowitz’s imprisonment in the body of a horse is not only physicalconfinement. It is also a mixture of various types ofMalamudian prisons３ that prevent his protagonists
from fulfill their own human possibilities. Therefore,
Abramowitz’s fight for freedom and his original form
after he decides that he is a man in a body of a horseassumes a symbolic meaning of every man’s fight for
freedom from the limitations that the Malamudianprisons suggest, and the free centaur which Abramowitz finally transforms into through the struggle withGoldberg is a symbol of human freedom.
Critics have offered various interpretations on thecentaur,４ but the intricacies and ambivalences of thehuman freedom symbolized in the centaur have yet tobe examined. At the end of the story, Abramowitz isfree from the prison of self, since he knows who he is.
He is also free from the prison of fate and the prisonof economic system, since Goldberg has disappeared.
But he is still half-tied to the body of a horse.
The image of the centaur suggests that there is nosuch thing as absolute freedom : just when we havereleased ourselves from one prison, we find ourselvestrapped in another. In this respect, Solotaroff’scomment on the centaur is sound :The Theme of Human Freedom in Malamud’s “Talking Horse”（野口）What seems to be the culminating joke in what is perhaps
the wittiest of all of Malamud's stories is the suggestion that
if only Goldberg had not run away when he did, the human
who was suffering the weirdest of the many imprisonments
in Malamud's fiction might have pulled himself all the way
out and avoided the new organization of man and horse.
Beneath this joke lies the pervasive human comedy : something will always come up ; our liberations will always be
partial ; wholeness, perfect unity will always recede before
the grasp of creatures whose existence is, in Santayana'swords, lyric in essence, tragic in fate, and comic inexistence. (131−32)

The centaur suggests that the human freedom is amatter of degree : we can only become freer than weinitially are.
What is unique to the freedom that Abramowitz
has gained is that it is equivalent to loneliness.
Compared to the other stories in which the protagonists manage to become free from their prisons, what
is characteristic in “Talking Horse” is that there isabsolutely no communion with others by which many
Malamudian characters can break through the walls of
their prisons and which is best expressed in Morris
Bober’s words, “I suffer for you” (The Assistant 125).
Whatever type of the prison they are confined in, thekey to freedom in other stories is generally the same :painful recognition and acceptance of one’s true
identity, if necessary, and communion with others.５
But Abramowitz has achieved his freedom fromGoldberg without any help from others.
This loneliness, or singleness, of the centaur
implies the difficulty of achieving this level of freedom.
But, more importantly, it counterpoints the seeming
freedom of people in general, who are represented in
the audience of Abramowitz’s act. They are anonymous masses in the story but represent people ingeneral, since they are the only ones that see
Abramowitz in a realistic mode in this fantasy of adysfunctional God and a talking horse. The othercharacters, such as the circus master, the woman in
an old riding-school, and the conductor, don’t seem
surprised to hear Abramowitz talking, but the audience does :In the sideshow days people used to stand . . . laughing
beyond belief at Abramowitz talking. He remembers one
man staring into his mouth see who's hiding there.
Homunculus? Others suggested it was a ventriloquist's act
even though the horse told them Goldberg was a deaf-mute.
(336)

Only the audience responds to Abramowitz just like７３

we would respond to a talking horse.
Though the audience appears to be free physically,
they are also imprisoned mentally in the same sensethat Goldberg is, as Abramowitz says, “somebody who
all he does is repeat his fate” (343). They have thefreedom to choose where to go and what to see, butwhat they have chosen is the same old act which they
have already seen before, and they are totallycontrolled by Goldberg. And what is worse, they don’t
seem to notice it. That is why none of them help
Abramowitz get out of his prison, even though they
are moved to tears by his performance for freedom.
The theme of human freedom in “Talking Horse”
is both optimistic and pessimistic. Optimism lies inAbramowitz’s liberation from Goldberg, and thence heis a typical Malamudian character, like Leo Finkle in“The Magic Barrel” and Mendel in “Idiots First,” who“fears his fate, is caught up in it, yet manages tooutrun it” (Shenker 34), while unlike those characters,
he is totally alone in his struggles is pessimistc. But,
as “the tie between Abramowitz and Abram” (Burch179) implies, Abramowitz’s singleness is that of abeginning.６ Malamud suggests in the image of thecentaur that human beings as a whole make themselves freer little by little. This is not pessimism, but
Malamud’s move “from optimism about man to a newand serious understanding of how growth and achievement take place” (Salzberg “Interview,” 127).
Note1For example, in his review of The Magic Barrel ,Norman Podhoretz has written that Malamud’s
work “seems a kind of miracle, an act of spiritualautonomy perfect enough to persuade us that thepossibility of freedom from the determinings ofhistory and sociology still exists” (590). And Jeffrey
Helterman has written that the themes of Malamud
short stories collected in The Stories of Bernard
Malamud are “freedom, commitment, responsibility,
and the bonds of love and hate that link man toman” (129). Joel Salzberg has also stated that
freedom is one of “Malamud’s thematic preoccupations” (2).
2
In an interview with Leslie and Joyce Field,
Malamud said that the prison motif is “a metaphor
for the dilemma of all men throughout history.
Necessity is the primary prison, though the bars are
not visible to all. Then there are the man-madeprisons of social injustice, apathy, ignorance. There７４

弓削商船高等専門学校 紀要 第２４号（平成１４年）

are others, tight or loose, visible or invisible,according to one’s predilection or vulnerability” (12).
3Abramowitz’s imprisonment suggests still anotherimprisoning force that appears in other Malamud’sstories. It is “the imprisonment of a character inpast limitations” (Abramson 138). In musing overthe nature of his fate, Abramowitz says to himself,“It might be because of something I said, or thought,
or did, or didn’t do in my life” (329). Like Tommy
Castelli’s imprisonment in the candy store in “ThePrison,” it is implied that Abramowitz’s is due to hispast failure.
4For example, Beth and Paul Burch concludes that“Perhaps through the fusion of the myths, heindicates the futility of man’s relationship with God ;the prospect of man’s fulfilling the covenant is a
ludicrous one, especially since he lives in a dark
world where the mores of the centaur prevail” (179).
In contrast, Kathleen Ochshorn states that “Abramowitz’ metamorphosis to centaur is a step up forhim : he is more human with his intense eyes andpince-nez. He has not become more brutal. If thenew world he enters is ‘a dark wood,’ it represents
the constant danger of further oppression andslavery, Abramowitz’ unknown future, not a darkness in the centaur’s nature” (246). See also SíoCastiñeria 135 ; Helterman 137 ; Abramson 135.
5In “The Magic Barre,” for example, Leo Finkle has
managed to release himself from his prison of selfwith the realization of his true identity, someone
who comees to God not because he loves Him but
because he does not (134), and the love, a typicalform of communion, for another lonely, suffering
human being, Stella.
6“ ‘Abraham,’ meaning ‘father of a multitude,’ is thename give to Abram after he accepts the covenant.
Additional simiarities[sic] between Abramowitz andAbraham exist. Abraham questions God (Gen. 18 :23−24) as Abramowitz persistently queries Goldberg, and Abraham laughs at God (Gen. 17 : 17) as
Abramowitz snickers at Goldberg during performances, which to Abramowitz’s mode of thinking are
sacrificial acts. But Abraham represents . . . abeginning, the seed of a great nation, whereas
Abramowitz is always searching for his beginnings. . .” (Burch 179). But he doesn’t have to search for
his beginnings any longer when he becomes thecentaur.

Works Cited
Burch, Beth, and Paul W. Burch. “Myth on Myth :Bernard Malamud’s ‘The Talking Horse.’ ” Studies in Short Fiction 16 (1979) : 350−53. Rpt. inBernard Malamud : A Study of the Short
Fiction. Ed. Robert Solotaroff. Boston : Twayne,1989. 176−80.
Field, Leslie, and Joyce Field. “An Interview withBernard Malamud.” Bernard Malamud : A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Leslie Field andJoyce Field. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : PrenticeHall, 1975. 8−17.
Helterman, Jeffrey. Understanding Bernard Malamud . Columbia, SC : U of South Carolina P,1985.
Malamud, Bernard. The Assistant. New York : Farrar,1957.
―――. The Stories of Bernard Malamud . New York :Farrar, 1983.
Ochshorn, Kathleen. The Heart’s Essential Landscape :Bernard Malamud’s Hero. New York : Peter
Lang, 1990.
Podhoretz, Norman. “The New Nihilism and theNovel.” Partisan Review 25 (1958) : 589−90.
Richman, Sidney. Bernard Malamud . New York :Twayne, 1966.
Salzberg, Joel. “An Interview with Bernard Malamud.”Jun. 21, 1983. Conversations with Bernard
Malamud . Ed. Lawrence M. Lasher. Jackson :UP of Mississippi, 1991. 123−24.
―――. Introduction. Critical Essays on Bernard
Malamud . Ed. Salzberg. Boston : B. K. Hall,
1987. 1−22.
Shenker, Israel. “For Malamud It’s Story.” 1971. New
York Times Book Review 3 Oct. 1971 : 22. Rpt.
in Conversations with Bernard Malamud . Ed.
Lasher, Lawrence M. Jackson : UP of Mississippi, 1991. 32−4.
Solotaroff, Robert. Bernard Malamud : A Study of theShort Fiction. Boston : Twayne, 1989.
Sío-Castiñeria, Begoña. The Short Stories of Bernard
Malamud : In Search of Jewish Post-immigrant
Identity. New York : Peter Lang, 1998.