Analysis & Conclusion

Using all three prints and evidence from multiple medieval pieces of literature, it is evident that the line between monsters and humans is not their physical form. It is seen that many beings that would be seen as monstrous due to their appearance are truly just humans at their worst. In the texts Bisclavret and Beowulf, it can be seen that the monsters resemble humans influenced by their emotions. It is also through these that we are introduced to the idea that form does not dictate whether one is human or not. Werewolves, being part human and part beast, are evidence of this as they only demonstrate monstrous behavior towards specific individuals, ones that have invoked their vengeance. Similarly, the different prints indicate and show the medieval line of thought that form does not determine if something is a monstrosity or not. It is introduced that humans in form could be monsters, demonstrated by the first print and by Beowulf himself. It is also demonstrated that monstrous shapes are simply humans corrupted by emotions or the phantasmic representations of these human emotions.

In conclusion, neither the term human nor monster can be assigned strictly off of physical attributes. Like medieval beliefs, a monster is simply a being that demonstrates something and in most cases, they are simply demonstrating humans at their worse. Monsters, originally human, are those that allow ill emotions to cloud their judgment. In stories, they serve the purpose of warning the reader of the consequences of falling victim to emotions like greed, jealousy, and vengeance. With medieval beliefs so accurate, why are modern monsters attributed to being savage beasts that roam in the dark? Why are most monsters no longer associated with negative traits like they used to?