The Ecology of Monstrosity

Key works:

• Beowulf (Old English)

• Bisclavret (Marie de France)

• Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (14c.)

• “Monster Cultures (Seven Theses)” (Cohen)

• “Why Are So Many Monsters Hybrids?” (Asma)

The medieval literature we have analyzed in class so far is fraught with the creative and literary limitations of Manichaeism. It’s an early manifestation of what we have come to recognize in modern literature; for example, when common landforms and natural environments are described in grim tones it means trouble is afoot or when a haggard old lady appears, especially one who is not described in familial terms (comparisons to a respected matriarch in the narrator or reader’s family for example) it oftentimes means that, evil or dark magic is afoot. When something that does not fall within the confines of what the dominant culture deems socially acceptable makes an appearance in their stories, especially ones known to concern the battle between a “good” and “evil” set of characters, the audience is trained to assume villainy. The few times these characters do not turn out to be evil, the writer typically still uses this subconscious association to create a case of situational irony, i.e. the disfigured villain becomes the hero’s friend (Avatar: The Last Airbender or Black Widow). However, I contend that these poems, especially Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, are incredible representations of the conflicting nature of Manichaeism, specifically regarding the demonization of paganism in favor of Christianity. The values held by the protagonists are, for the most part, all very similar and unwavering; however, the attempts at juxtaposing pagan and Christian values are more complex than simply demonizing the former to exalt the latter, leaving me wondering if paganism and Christianity are actually as incompatible as popularly believed. 

Outside this battle of man vs nature, civilized vs barbarian, pagan vs Christian, the most recognizable pattern within these poems that advanced the plots the most, is the values that the protagonists held, namely honor, chivalry, and humility. All three poets dedicated several lines to exalting their protagonist’s noble behavior, and this made him a respectable man both within his community and to the reader. Another interesting pattern connected to this one is the fact that all three poems relate the story of a knight or warrior, in other words, someone who is defending their court in some sort of battle. Thus, every attack or wavering of the protagonist's honor, courage, or overall values is now associated with those of the court and society that he’s defending. The most powerful and direct example of this is Sir Gawain, especially after Gawain enters the chapel and is tested by Bertilak, where the faerie says, “... it turns out / you’re by far the most faultless fellow on earth / … it was loyalty that you lacked: / not because you’re wicked, or a womanizer… / … but you valued your own life; so I blame you less.” (Poet, lines 2362-2368). What’s so interesting to me about Bertilak’s statement is that he essentially says adultery and malice are not faults, but irresolute faith in eternal life and salvation is. Gawain taking the girdle was in effect a renunciation of Christianity itself: he did not show courage in accepting his beheading even though the Christian god promises an afterlife of salvation (to those deemed “worthy”), but instead chose the materiality of the natural world instead. 

This ties in with the corresponding ecological pattern in these poems which is the association of paganism with nature. Where there is nature there is paganism and where there is paganism there is nature, but interestingly enough, the paganization of nature can be easily reversed, the most obvious example being in Beowulf: “A light appeared and the place brightened / the way the sky does when heaven’s candle is shining clearly.” (Unknown, lines 1570-1573).  We are introduced to this underwater cave as some dark, desolate lair filled with all types of reptiles, monsters, and sea dragons. It is described not as the natural, common landform that, at its most basic, it is,  but instead as sort of a receptacle for something evil: Grendel’s mother. We even see the word “haunted” in line 1497. This makes the aforementioned quote in line 1570 all the more complex, because not only is it reifying the Manachaeist ideas regarding good (light) and evil (dark), but it also implies that the once beautiful landform was monstered by the monsters’ presence. Their mere existence in that place cast a shadow over it, smothering “heaven’s candle”, but Beowulf’s murdering of the inhabitants restored God’s light. It could even be argued this represents an exorcism of sorts. The point to be made here is that the writers and their societies believed that areas of abandoned human development, especially those previously holding a religious/spiritual significance such as the “chapels” in Bisclavret and Sir Gawain, are like beacons or breeding grounds for pagan monsters. 

Here is where we also see Cohen’s fourth thesis: The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference. We see these “crossroads” (as they were so aptly described) in each poem. In Beowulf, I find the most explicit example of this thesis is not in the monsters’ lair, but in their physicality. The imagery of Grendel and his mother does not go far beyond a description of somewhat monstered humans, using words like “warped” and “unnatural” to imply that while Grendel’s mother was some sort of monstered human, her son was always a monster: “One of these things, as far as anyone ever can discern, looks like a woman; the other, warped / in the shape of a man…” (Unknown, lines 1349-1352). This is, in essence, “difference made flesh” (Cohen 7). The other two poems both make use of “chapels” for this portrayal of the gates of difference. Bisclavret makes use of the abandoned chapel as the titular protagonist’s “resurrection” from a man into a wolf, both as a crossroads of paganism and Christianity, human architecture and religious architecture. Sir Gawain does something somewhat similar albeit in different locations due to Bertilak “living” in two different places. The castle that is later revealed to be faerie world exists as a gate within a gate in a sense. In a physical, terrestrial sense, we see this unnatural castle in the middle of nowhere after Gawain has traveled through the woods and distant, undeveloped lands that “God and good men have quite give up on,” (Poet, line 702), but in a spiritual, extraterrestrial sense, we see the actual gate between the natural world and faerie world. Both forms of this “gate” rely on each other for sustained existence though, further reifying this connection between the natural world and paganism. The “green chapel” is somewhat of a paradoxical anomaly, not even because Grendel couldn’t tell what it was, but precisely because there is no way to define the structure. It is meant to make no sense: a chapel is a Christian place of worship but this one is a hill covered in weeds and moss, even though nature represents paganism; so, not only is the structure paradoxical by Medieval Christian standards, but the chapel itself, denoted as the “green chapel”, is a paradox of ecological values. Gawain sees how nature dominates the structure of the chapel and immediately associates it with the devil: “Green Church? … / More like the devil’s lair / where at the nub of night / he dabbles in dark prayers” (emphasis added) (Poet, lines 2185 - 2188).  

This brings us to Cohen’s third thesis: category crisis. “The horizon where the monsters dwell might well be imagined as the visible edge of the hermeneutic circle itself: the monstrous offers an [escape] from its hermetic path, an invitation to explore new spirals, new and interconnected methods of perceiving the world.” (Cohen 7) This thesis incorporates itself well with the fourth one. We’ve already analyzed its presence in Sir Gawain, and I think Bisclavret offers a more powerful example. Regarding the location of Bisclavret’s transformation, we’ve already seen two examples of category crisis, but there are even more in this story that are connected to his monsterization. Central to all of them is the institution of marriage, which can be seen in and of itself as a perpetual state of category crisis: Who am I? Who am I without this person? Who are we? In Bisclavret, we don’t necessarily see the protagonist answering these questions, so much as who am I outside of this (Christian) marriage? There is much debate as to what his transformation into this monstrous creature is “supposed to” represent or be analogized to: Homosexuality? Adultery? Marital discord? I don’t find any single answer sufficient because I believe de France intentionally left the poem vague enough so that all these analyses would make sense. The common denominator between all three aforementioned “themes” is their antithetical nature to Medieval Christian values. Even though it feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy- literary analysts and historians will consider all behaviors antithetical to Christain values when suggesting what this metaphor is symbolizing, thus when someone “discovers” the answer it will always be something detested by Christianity- the fact that a nun wrote it makes it very plausible. Then in Beowulf, we see what Asma was saying in his article as well, “Our brains create predictive models of the world… Category violations strongly arouse the human mind. When our expectations about the world—“humans have two arms,” “snakes don’t fly”—are disrupted by Vishnu, with dozens of arms, or flying snakes in the form of dragons, the images grab our attention…” (Asma 2). The broader context to this quote is about survival instincts that become ingrained in our genetic code/psyche, but I’m using it specifically in regards to Herot’s fear of Grendel and his mother. Of course, fear is struck into the people’s hearts when Grendel is murdering the townspeople, but something I’ll expand on more later is that it’s almost implied that this was actually Grendel’s reaction to being shunned by Herot. He wasn’t allowed in the kingdom, and it’s most likely because he was feared as a “monster”, “demon”, “descendant of Cain”. It almost certainly also had to do with his appearance, described as a monstrous morph of a man and hellspawn.

This is where I see conflict arising in the Christian “logic” supporting these stories. First, it’s rather difficult to completely divorce paganism and Christianity when, even within the poems, they seem to hold most of the same values. The Christian protagonists and pagan antagonists do actually share most of the same principles, to the point where Sir Gawain is seeking approval from a faerie. We learn that the knight’s imperfection stems from his love of the material world from Bertilak, the same character who is (was?) the story’s antagonist. In Bisclavret, the category crisis is so strong that it’s difficult to decide whether or not describing Bisclavret the man is the same as describing Bisclavret the monster. Is he a monster even when he transforms back into a human? If so, what exactly makes him a monster then? Regardless, when he is a man, he still tries to honor his wife and his marriage by finally deciding to remain honest about his whereabouts. He also kept his honor by retiring to the woods, sequestering himself from his wife and the townspeople while he reverted to his wild and violent ways: “My lady, I turn bisclavret; / I plunge into that great forest. / In thick woods I like it best. / I live on what prey I can get.” (de France, lines 61- 64) There was nothing he could do to stop this curse, so he did what he could that was least disturbing or harmful to those around him. In Beowulf, it may be more of a stretch to apply my theory, especially since the antagonists are described in much more monstrous detail, but I believe even Grendel and his mother showed some sense of honor, especially the mother. Upon finding out Beowulf critically wounded her child, she immediately attacked to avenge her son, a response that although was described in horrific detail, would have been read as noble or honor-bound had she been human or even a “natural” animal. Being a descendant of Cain completely monsters the noblest of human actions; there is no recourse. Even her murdering of Aeschere can be seen as “taking an eye for an eye” as encouraged in Leviticus. We are even subliminally encouraged to see Grendel as a monster who might just want to belong, to be allowed in and invited to the kingdom and feasts and parties. If we can legibly dissect these behaviors, principles, and emotions from both the pagan and Christian sides of these stories, and we find that there are several overlaps, then how can we analyze a complete distinction between the two? If the almighty God created the natural world, then how did malicious pagan spirits come to overtake the lot of it? Why do some of them like Bertilak share the same values as Christian folk? 

While this may sound odd, the culmination of my thoughts has brought me to the conclusion that these poems could honestly be read as a critique of Christianity and, even further, an argument for the synthesis of pagan and Christian values as opposed to “one or the other.” Sir Gawain was the most striking illustration of this line of thought. Bertilak is a faerie, a pagan deity, yet respects the Christian god: “... by Him in highest heaven, I’m not here to idle in your hall this evening.” (Poet, lines 256-7). In this one scene, this pagan spirit (in the form of a knight at that) acknowledges and affirms the Christian god’s existence, is held to the standards of chivalry, and issues a challenge evoking the principles of honesty, honor, and courage. Lines 224-456 alone represent all facets of my theory. Bertilak is in effect a melding of pagan deities, animism, Christian prophets or messengers, and, in some senses, a “monster.” He essentially kidnaps Gawain in order to run him through the trials of honor with Lady Bertilak, and even tries to sweet talk him into returning to the faerie world after the game is complete. It’s during this scene at the end that the audience is forced with another category crisis: who is Bertilak? Is he a spirit sent by the Christian god to test Gawain’s honor and faith? Or is he a pagan faerie trying to abduct Gawain into the faerie world so he can starve him to death? Is he even the antagonist at this point of the story, and what values does he even represent? He says that Gawain’s only flaw is valuing life in the material world, but then offers him an escape into the faerie world, so does he even believe that Gawain’s only fault is a lack of faith in eternal life in salvation since that isn’t in line with pagan values? If not, do we still believe that’s the message we are meant to absorb, given that the message comes from Bertilak? I believe the answer to these questions is that he represents an incomprehensible syncretism of pagan and Christian values. He’s a representation of how compatible the two religions can in fact be. Paganism has its roots in the natural world, but under Christianity, it is still the natural world that God created and therefore reigns over: Grendel is a descendant of Cain, whose parents God formed from clay; Bisclavret always returns home by Sunday; Bertilak still acknowledges the supremacy of the Christian god despite representing a pagan deity.

My lady, I turn bisclavret; 

I plunge into that great forest. 

In thick woods I like it best. 

I live on what prey I can get… near that wood, 

Where I come home, along that road, 

Standing there is an old chapel, 

Which often serves me well. 

The stone is there, hollow and wide, 

Beneath a bush, dug out inside; 

I put my clothes there under the bush 

Until I can come back to the house.

(de France, lines 61-88) 

Bisclavret is not just difference made flesh. He is amalgamation made flesh, syncretism made flesh, the liminalities of Christian and pagan segregation made flesh. The physical manifestation of his pagan self resurrects at the abandoned chapel as he enters the woods, that wild and natural space. The physical manifestation of his Christian self resurrects at that same chapel when he leaves the woods and enters his town, representing human development and civilization. He even puts his clothes back on, one of the most popular symbolizations of  “civilized vs barbarian” trains of thought. He represents the struggle for this former pagan society to completely ward off their roots, and rather than demonizing Bisclavret, we as the audience are meant to sympathize with him, maybe even understand his plight. Lady Bisclavret in fact is the one who is punished for not understanding his situation, and she is even cursed in the end for it. We see an allegory for the difficulties of Christian marriage and the liminal confines of Christianity, but at a deeper level we see the struggle for people to have to choose between paganism and Christianity, but all three poems state that we don’t have to.