Author Archives: Erin Murray

The Writing’s on the Skin: Supplemental Resources

Posted on by
Reply

Below are the pictures I chose to print on the “parchment” manuscripts.  I tried to choose animals relevant to the texts we’ve read so far: birds (like the nightingale and hawk) and werewolves.  I also consulted The J. Paul Getty Museum’s website on the exhibit of “The Making of a Medieval Book,” linked here.

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourBestiaryEnglish.asp

Photo Description: “An owl being attacked by three smaller birds, Southern England (Salisbury?), 2nd quarter of the 13th century, 310 x 230 mm. Harley 4751, f. 47  According to Hrabanus Maurus (d. 856), whose encyclopaedia, De rerum naturis, is excerpted in this bestiary, the owl signifies those who have given themselves to the darkness of sin and who flee the light of righteousness. When other birds see the owl, they attack it, pulling at its feathers and tormenting it with their beaks. The text likens the owl’s plight, depicted here, to that of sinners, who are justly chastised by the virtuous. The owl, it concludes, is a miserable bird.”

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourBestiaryStudies.asp#ENCYC

Photo Description: “A crane and barnacle geese in the margin of the Topographia Hiberniae, Northern England (Lincoln?), c. 1196-1223  The Topographia Hiberniae of Gerald of Wales (1146-1223) draws on his observations of Ireland’s topography, climate, creatures and people. The depiction of barnacle geese here accompanies Gerald’s account of the creatures, in which he observes that they are born in water as excretions from driftwood and are attached to the wood and enclosed by shells in their early stages of development. The illustration actually depicts an alternate account of the origins of barnacle geese, in which they grow from trees that hang over the water; those that fall from the tree into the water float away safely, while those that fall on land die.”

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourBestiaryStudies.asp#ENCYC

Photo Description: “A priest of Ulster administering communion to a she-wolf in her den in the margin of the Topographia Hiberniae, Northern England (Lincoln?), c. 1196-1223  In his Topographia Hiberniae, Gerald also recounts tales of marvellous creatures and events. He tells of a priest travelling from Ulster to Meath who is approached one night by a wolf who reveals that he is actually a man, cursed by a saint to take the form of a wolf after seven years. He requests that the priest administer the last rites to his companion, who lies dying in wolf form. The priest is shown here administering the viaticum to this she-wolf. Gerald was only too happy to cast the Irish in a morally dubious light, as he does here, because he was writing in part to encourage and justify an English invasion of Ireland.”

Also of interest from this website:  “Within bestiaries and without, animals inspired medieval writers as sources of wonder, entertainment and moral instruction. Observations of the creatures that populate Ireland fill the pages of theTopographia Hiberniae of Gerald of Wales, and he includes many creatures in his accounts of marvels that had been seen and recounted in the land. It is not surprising that some of these accounts found their way into bestiaries, which feature creatures both familiar and exotic.

The animal fables of Aesop (sixth century BC) draw morals from short and entertaining accounts of creatures whose susceptibilities and wiles are all too human. Fabulists like Aesop found in the natural world a mirror that offered both instruction and entertainment. Marie de France drew on Aesop and other sources when writing her Anglo-Norman verse Fables in the twelfth century. At a time when bestiaries were taking lessons from animals on how salvation might be achieved through virtuous living, Marie’s Fables offers morals applicable to navigating the vagaries of one’s life on earth. Equally earthbound is theRoman de Renart, a series of tales that began circulating in the twelfth century. The Renart stories feature the rivalry of the wily fox, Reynard, and his foe, Isengrim the wolf. These tales sometimes have a serious side, satirising the abuses of both church and state.” http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourBestiaryStudies.asp#ENCYC

Here is a link to the parchment making company, Pergamena Handmade Parchment.

Dueling Approaches to Laustic

Posted on by
Reply

Dueling Approaches to Laustic
In this paper, I will be taking two separate approaches to Marie de France’s Laustic and comparing the resulting interpretations. If there is one thing I have learned this semester, it is that there is much more to be found by taking an object-oriented approach to any text. Much more meaning exists beyond just that granted (or conceded) by humans. Looking beyond the surface of a humanistic approach produces a much broader meaning. Here, I mean humanistic as the word humanism appears in the Merriam Webster Dictionary: as a “doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.” I believe that a humanistic (or perhaps feminist) approach to Laustic will produce something much different than an object-oriented approach. Comparing the results of two opposing approaches will speak to the importance of recognizing and performing object-oriented approaches to literature. I hope to be able to contribute some meaningful evidence of this claim through my research.
In my object-oriented approach, I will explore the ways in which the nightingale defies original expectations, exceeding its intended use as an excuse for hiding love. First, it was used as an excuse to stand at her bedroom window, and then as a vehicle to “relate the adventure” (Line 134) and is therefore reduced to a dramatic postcard. Although the nightingale didn’t exactly have a choice in the matter, it had profound effects on the humans in the poem. In this case, the birds (seemingly nightingales) inspire joy when they sing in the trees growing between the two lovers homes: “He listened to them intently / and to the lady on the other side” (Lines 66-67). He listens to the birds first, and his love second. It seems as though the nightingale is in between them, somehow holding them together. I intend to explore the possibility of the love’s existence as a result of inspiration from the nightingale’s song. Once the nightingale is dead, it seems as though their love is also dead. With nothing left to join them together, their connection is severed, and their love seemingly severed too. In this approach, I will engage with texts that also take alternate approaches to medieval poems as well as texts that help me further my understanding of the human-animal connection in the medieval era.
For my alternate/contrasting approach, I am hoping to take a more traditional approach to the text, focusing on the humans involved, such as their actions, reactions, and interests. I will engage with articles that also take a more traditional approach. I am still a bit unclear on a specific, defined approach here. I would like to explore a feminist approach, but am not sure yet if this would prove to be a fruitful endeavor.

Yonec and the Hawk

Posted on by
1

Yonec particularly interested me this week, mostly for its shape-shifting King.  I was curious about why it was a hawk this king was able to transform into.  Although the lai doesn’t come out and say he is a hawk, it does say the bird that flies into the lady’s chamber “looked like a hawk / of five or six moultings” (Lines 110-111).  I think the likeness of the hawk instead of a definite claim to be a hawk is to avoid the king being characterized as less than human.  I found the use of a hawk as opposed to any other bird to be interesting because of the hunting skills hawks possess.  Not only is this King rich, noble, Christian, and courteous, he’s also an excellent hunter, even when he is in an un-human form.  Hunting seems to be a recurring theme in the lais we’ve read.  A knight’s desire, and ability, to hunt is something natural and accepted (as long as it doesn’t prevent other knightly duties).  Even in Equitan, the use of hawks for hunting purposes is presented to the reader.  We’re told the seneschal would never “neglect his hunting, his hawking, or his other amusements” (Lines 27-28).

The description of his castle when the lady (who goes unnamed) follows his trail of blood is similar to the descriptions of fairy possessions we’ve encountered.  “The feet of the bed were all of polished gold, / I couldn’t guess the value of the bedclothes; / the candles and the chandeliers, / which were lit night and day / were worth the gold of an entire city.” (Lines 389- 392).  So, here we have a King from a far away land who has always loved a lady, but had to wait until the right time to appear, and has unimaginable wealth and many followers.  Why not make him a fairy instead of a hawk?  Does this representation retain more of his humanity?  Or is he a fairy who takes the shape of a hawk to travel?

I think I need to encounter the text again before drawing any definite conclusions about the use of the hawk opposed to other birds.

The Nightingale as a Source of Love in Laustic

Posted on by
3

We talked in class yesterday about Laustic and the way in which the nightingale was simply used. First, it was used as an excuse to stand at her bedroom window, and then as a vehicle to “relate the adventure” (Line 134) to her love. More care was shown toward the samite and embroidery and casket than to the actual life of the bird. After it is killed and its dead body thrown upon her, the wife is upset, but only because her excuse is gone.
Though we talked about the way in which the nightingale misrepresented the couple because it was much more beautiful than their “convenient” love, I couldn’t help but think there must be something more to the nightingale than simply being a harbinger of symbolism. Is there significance beyond that placed upon it by the humans?
I keeping thinking there must be, firstly because of the title which literally means “the nightingale.” Is this simply in homage to the nightingale for its sacrifice as a result of their love? Even if this is the case, doesn’t that imply an inherent significance simply by its presence? Although the nightingale didn’t have a choice in the matter, it had an effect on the humans like the rocks Dorigen was so frightened of, or the deer in Guigemar. In this case, the birds (seemingly nightingales) inspire happiness (instead of fear) when they sing in the trees: “He listened to them intently / and to the lady on the other side” (Lines 66-67). He listens to the birds first, and his love second. It seems as though the nightingale is in between them, somehow connecting them. Was their love borne out of inspiration from the nightingale’s song? Once the nightingale is dead, it seems as though their love is also dead. As we pointed out in class, it doesn’t mean they can’t still see each other at least sometimes. So, why does the death of this beautiful bird mean the death of their less than beautiful love? Is it because without the bird’s song to spur them to feel love, they are not really in love?

Submission and Choice in Biclarel

Posted on by
1

While talking about Bisclavret, Melion, and Biclarel in class, the elements of submission and choice struck me as appearing in all three. The men in each of the stories submit to their wives’ pleas to share their secret. When the women abuse the power given to them as a result of the submission, a breakdown of their relationship occurs, starting the problems. Once injustice is rectified, the men retract their love from the women, who are all punished violently in the end.
When the werewolves submit to King Arthur, however, each one is protected against harm, defended for their violent actions, and rewarded for their submission. In turn, the king gains back a loyal subject.
Choice is also very important here. Before divulging their secrets, the men had the choice of whether or not to turn back into humans, whether by putting their clothes back on or by touching a stone in a ring. Once the women take away the objects that allow the change to occur, the men no longer have a choice of what form to take, or whether or not to change back at all. They are stuck. At the end of each story, the werewolf is given the choice of turning back into a human. They are not forced to choose one way or another.
For example, after his clothes (and thereby his choice) are taken away by his wife, Biclarel is unable to change back into a human. When King Arthur decides to go hunting, his dogs endanger Biclarel. Arthur tells Biclarel “’Beast, rely on me / And I shall protect you from the dogs.’ / Then he drove the dogs from him, / And immediately Biclarel prostrated himself.” (Biclarel 325-328) As a result of this submission, Biclarel is spared death at the hands of the dogs and becomes like Arthur’s pet. Later, when Biclarel attacks his wife, she (who appears to be the victim) is tortured until she reveals the reason. His loyalty earns him the benefit of doubt.
When the clothes are brought to him, his choice is restored and he “scrambled into them and became a man” (Line 450). He is then also granted the choice of what happens to his wife, “And consequently she was placed between walls, / From which she could never come out” (Lines 454-455).
Proper treatment of submission and restoration of choice allows Biclarel to return to a state of happiness.

Networks in Guigemar

Posted on by
Reply

After a second visit to Guigemar, I tried to be aware of assemblages at work. Lines 57-58 really stuck out to me and seemed to be the start of networks taking action: “But in forming him nature had so badly erred / that he never gave any thought to love.” As this is the beginning of the conflict, all subsequent actions are therefore aimed at correcting the error. Nature as a network seems to work together with the supernatural, or marvelous, network to fix nature’s error.
The supernatural network seems to consist of such elements as the hermaphroditic deer, the curse, the boat, the church in the lady’s tower, and the strength of the knots.
Nature’s network seems to consist of the error, a desire to hunt, the will to live, the sea, and love (“because it comes from nature” line 486).
The individual networks working alone would not be successful in correcting nature’s error. The hermaphroditic deer and its curse would not have been encountered by Guigemar had he not been “seized by a desire to hunt” (Line 76) which is natural for a man (although the desire to hunt should not replace the desire to love). Had Guigemar not had a natural, human desire to live after his super-natural encounter, he would not have wandered off and found the boat. The natural sea helped the supernatural boat to carry Guigemar to the harbor where he was found by the lady and her servant. The ship is supernatural because it steers itself, but like the fairies in the other stories we’ve read, its extravagance is emphasized and described as being impossible for any human to acquire such as in line 158: “no gold under the sun could be worth more.” The church in the lady’s tower, while man-made, contains paintings of Venus (the goddess of love) and an image of her throwing “Ovid’s book, the one in which he instructs / lovers how to control their love” (Lines 239-240) into a fire. It is after she attends church that she finally confesses her love to Guigemar, as she can no longer “control” her love. This church seems to have a supernatural influence on her.
Finally, nature’s error is corrected. It is through natural love that the knots tied by the lovers are super-naturally strengthened. Fate also cannot be ignored in this story and I believe it falls into the supernatural network.
Although it seemed upon first reading that human actions were the main source of action in this story (though obviously influenced at times by supernatural elements), I believe it is really the non-human elements that drive the action. The supernatural and natural networks work together to drive the humans to action.

Similarities in Sir Cleges and Sir Launfal

Posted on by
Reply

Although these two stories may seem very different at first, upon a closer reading, there are many more fundamental similarities than one might originally think: the element of largesse and subsequent poverty, the failure of the gift giving system, an element of the marvelous, and the saving grace of a woman.
While reading Sir Launfal, I was reminded very much of Sir Cleges in that both men were extremely generous, and once the ability to be generous with their material possessions was gone, so were the friends. Launfal was so ashamed when he was not awarded gifts by the queen, he decided to leave and fell into poverty and then abandoned. Cleges was simply taken advantage of. He was eaten out of house and home due to all the parties he threw. Once he was no longer able to throw his parties, he too was abandoned by his friends. The material possessions (or lack thereof) in both stories determined whether the men not only felt like, but were recognized as, knights.
In both stories, there exists a failure of “the system” that led to the men’s impoverishment. In Cleges for example, there was no reciprocity of generosity. Cleges gave and gave and gave, but received nothing in return (nor did he expect to), making it impossible to sustain his way of life. In Launfal, the failure of the system falls on the shoulders of the queen. There was no reason to leave Launfal out of the gift giving; she just simply did not like him. This failure of the queen to distribute gifts fairly makes it impossible for Launfal to stick around, thus beginning his fall into poverty and shame.
Once the knights in both stories have suffered sufficiently, there enters an element of the marvelous. In Cleges, it is the appearance of the out of season cherries, and in Launfal, it is the fairy lover. These elements make it possible for the knights to regain their honor as well as their riches. Cleges is awarded properly after sharing the cherries with the king, and Launfal is awarded riches by his fairy lover and again redeemed by her in the end.
I can’t help but notice that these men would have been ultimately lost without the women in their lives. Cleges did not recognize the cherries as a good sign until his wife convinced him. He thought, in fact, that they were a bad omen. If she had not been around, would he have destroyed them and thus been in poverty forever? Launfal would have also stayed in poverty were it not for the gifts of his lover, and later on been executed did she not decide to show up. If the fairy never showed up in the first place, would Launfal have stayed in poverty, wallowing in pity? These knights in distress were saved by their damsels.

Conditional Love and Confessions

Posted on by
Reply

I enjoyed reading Le Fresne overall, but I had some lingering issues with the way some characters behaved. The first issue I had was the way the wife had seemingly no consequences for her actions. As Dr. Seaman pointed out, she wanted to first kill Fresne and didn’t choose a different option out of the goodness of her heart or out of recognition that it would be wrong, but only because others came up with a better solution. She does confess her wrong doings at the end of the story, but only after she has secured forgiveness from her husband. Max brought this up in class and it was something that had been bothering me also. What if she had not been granted forgiveness up front? Would she have confessed to her husband, or was her confession contingent on the assurance she would have no consequences?
Gurun was also problematic for me. In his attempt to convince Fresne to run away with him, he promised “I’ll never let you down and I’ll take good care of you” (Lines 287-288). But once his vassals convinced him it was necessary for him to marry a girl of nobility, “Fresne was hidden away, and her lover was to marry the other” (Lines 349-350). As Dr. Seaman pointed out in class, he goes so far as to “joyfully” say he had never seen a “fairer maiden” in the middle English version beginning in line 345. Now, I understand it is part of a knightly duty to take care of his men, but does that mean that his promises to his true love are to be “hidden away” with no further investigation into the possibilities that might allow them to stay with each other? The ring and cloth she had with her were part of her identity and obviously recognizable. They were certainly indicators of her noble background. Why would her true love not take these items around the surrounding areas and ask if anyone recognized them as a way to find out where she really came from? He seemed unwilling to take any action to prevent marrying another girl.
As forgiveness and knightly love were not the central themes of this story, I wonder if the reader is supposed to look past the actions of these two characters?

Anthropocentrism

Posted on by
1

I read and reread the preface to Vibrant Matter and felt as though Dr. Seaman predicted my thoughts exactly. I felt as though I had a sense of things, but not a full understanding. This week’s theories have left me feeling quite perplexed. Our in class discussion helped a bit, but I still feel foggy as I try to wrap my head around anthropocentric thinking and how we can avoid such thoughts. I’m left wondering if it is even possible to think in a non-anthropocentric way? As human beings, I wonder if it is possible for us to completely remove ourselves from the equation. If we have difficulty, does it mean we are just selfish? Since our thoughts about, and perceptions of, the world and “things” around us originate in our human minds, how can we remove the human aspect from the process altogether?
In the instance one thinks about the environment and how pesticides negatively impact the environment and then chooses to no longer use pesticides for the sake of the environment, has this person achieved thinking non-anthropocentrically? Or, is the human interest in the environment’s well being and subsequent actions still anthropocentric because it satisfies a human’s need to “take care of” the environment? Does a human need to be completely neutral to an issue to think about it in a removed way, or is it possible to also reap some sort of satisfaction (i.e. the pesticide free way of living) but not be anthropocentric?
Because so much of this still seems abstract to me, I look forward to employing our new approach to texts so I can get a better understanding of what exactly we mean when we talk about non-anthropocentric thinking. I think once we actually put these new approaches into practice, I may be able to wrap my head around these new concepts a bit more and get a greater sense of “things.”

Sir Iron Man

Posted on by
3

A professor once told me that although it is often differences we study, similarities are also just as important. I try to keep this in mind when learning about a new culture/time period, and was again reminded of this fact when we were comparing the varieties of English that have existed and how many words have stayed relatively recognizable, if not the same, over hundreds of years.
I was reminded of another similarity when talking in class yesterday. I was very interested in what Dr. Seaman said about how much more common it is than one might think for a knight to have a helpful woman assistant/aide at his side, offering advice or helping to keep him on track in medieval literature. I don’t think I ever would have expected it, but it got me thinking about our own modern day heroes and the need for heroes in general. Iron Man and his assistant, Pepper Potts, immediately popped into my mind. Pepper is no damsel in distress, but is instead there throughout the movie to keep Iron Man grounded (when possible) and even help him survive various life-threatening scenarios. She is integral to his well-being. The Green Hornet also has an equally intelligent and independent office secretary, Lenore Case, who offers him advice and helps him (although unwittingly) decide on what actions to take. Some of the characteristics that we’ve talked about in class that appear in knightly tales are a confrontation with danger, maintenance of reputation, and responsibility to do the right thing. I think these characteristics can be found in modern super hero stories as well. Both Iron Man and The Green Hornet face very dangerous and violent situations, they both take pride in their altar ego’s reputation, and they both feel a strong sense of duty when it comes to righting a wrong.
Are comic book super heroes no more than modern day knights’ tales? What function did a medieval knight tale serve, and is it the same function that superhero stories serve today?