Publicity poster of Asif Kapadia’s film adaptation of Ali and Nino. — IFC Films
The biography was impressive, but I must confess to a certain disappointment that Ali and Nino may not have been written (albeit in a Western language which wasn’t even Russian) by an Azeri. And I wouldn’t have been surprised if Azeri critics had rushed to criticise the work for flaws and inaccuracies. But they didn’t. In 2011, an entire issue of a journal was dedicated to the subject of the novel’s authorship, following a thesis that had been current in Turkish-speaking literary circles since at least the 1990s, and was supported by his heirs, that the author was in fact Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli, a novelist of the generation before Nussimbaum’s. This was substantiated by Chamanzaminli’s diaries, writings and stories, and some elements of his biography.
Today, though, the evidence designating Chamanzaminli as ‘core’ rather than sole author points increasingly to the fact that what we have before us is a either a fascinating case of blatant plagiarism, or of some sort of collaboration in which Nussimbaum, with or without Ehrenfels, translated the work into German with certain folkloric embellishments to make it palatable to the German readers of the time. Matters are complicated by the fact that Nussimbaum knew little Azeri, but Chamanzaminli was certainly alive when the book was published: he died in a labour camp some years later. How much he knew about the finished product we will never know, and I haven’t discovered yet whether he read German. However, ‘Kurban Said’ is the pseudonym Chamanzaminli is meant to have chosen for this work, being a Syed who was willing to sacrifice himself for the cause of his nation.
Today the world has two Kurban Saids — the ‘core author’ with whom Azeris can identify, and the shape-shifting Orientalist who evokes, in his career, so many of the literary theories of the last century about hybridity, métissage, border-crossings and cultural appropriation. Whoever its author might be, Ali and Nino retains its readership and its status as a minor classic which, while deeply rooted in its historical background, transcends simple categories of nation and narration.
In another library — London University’s — I chanced upon a sadder story at just about the time the Nussimbaum biography was in the spotlight. The story was that of Elissa Rhais, an Algerian writer who had been celebrated by her contemporaries in France in the 1920s and 1930s as the first Muslim woman to expose life in the harems and souks of her time in a series of lushly-written romances with exotic titles. However, it seems that her career came to an abrupt end in the ’30s when it was discovered that she was possibly completely illiterate but definitely all, or part, Jewish; her Muslim identity was a pose.
Almost half a century later, a distant relative, Paul Tabet, fictionalised her story in an account which claimed that his father, Raoul, her nephew by marriage and also her secretary, had authored all her books from her orally transmitted tales. Tabet further complicated — or exoticised — Rhais’s story by tracing her origins to a Muslim father, a Jewish mother, and a long sojourn in a harem as the wife of a Muslim merchant. He named her Laila Boumendil, and added a dimension of ‘authenticity’ to her storytelling. Again, the question of primary and secondary authorship arises, of how tales from one culture can be transmitted in another language, and the extent to which this implies a degree of cultural betrayal.
The story that emerged in the wake of Tabet’s fabrications was starker and simpler. Rhais was actually Rosine Boumendil, the daughter of a Jewish baker and his wife, and had been educated in a French school, a privilege that the colonial administration allowed to Jewish but not to Muslim girls in North Africa. It appears that when she arrived in Paris to promote her literary career, she was persuaded to pose as a Muslim woman rather than a Jew, but she certainly seems to have enjoyed the finery and the masquerade of her assumed identity. Critics today hold that while her works about ‘native’ women have a significant element of kitschy pulp in spite of a certain implicit desire on the author’s part to blur boundaries between cultures and present a clear picture of Arab/Berber women’s lives, her (rarer) portrayals of North African Jewish life have more value, as she portrayed the milieu she knew best.
The question of ‘sole’ authorship remains unresolved: the consensus today among critics of Francophone North African literature, however, is that Boumendil, with only a primary education in French, leaned heavily on her children and on her amanuensis, Tabet, to correct, refine and polish her prose. Tabet is, however, given a role in this revised script, if not as sole author, as a collaborator to a greater or lesser degree. The question of a name — Laila or Rosine — revived Rhais’s reputation as an author and different editions of her work brought back into print endorse one or the other account. (For what it’s worth, I choose the Rosine version.)
Rhais was forgotten and it wasn’t until the Algerian war that a young Muslim woman studying in Paris decided to speak bravely in a series of novels about the double oppression of colonialism and patriarchy she had experienced. Fatima-Zohra Imalayen was to be recognised by many readers all over the world as one of the finest North African writers of her time. Acclaimed in France, she was the first writer from the Maghreb to enter the Academie Francaise, but throughout her career, although she was a public intellectual and her real name was known to many, she signed her books with the pseudonym she had chosen to create a literary identity: Assia Djebar.
Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, December 4th, 2016