Objects & Analysis
The illustration from the Rochester Bestiary (figure 1) depicts a clear boundary between humans and animals. It is separated into two sections: Three wolves are illustrated at the top and a naked man at the bottom. In medieval bestiaries, wolves rendered humans voiceless and they had to strip off their clothes to regain their voice.[1] This implies that the man and the wolves are interacting in the illustration, and yet, they are separated by a clear boundary – the boundary between man and wolf. Bisclavret questions this clear-cut categorization of humans and animals through showing that humanity and bestiality are not necessarily congruent with outward appearance.
However, the implication in the story, and in Victoria Blud’s reading, is that ‘wolfish’ behaviour exists. In other words, Bisclavret suggests that while humans cannot be defined by form, they can be defined by behaviour. In contrast, the illustration of “monstrous races” from the Arnstein Bible (figure 2) challenges this idea through showing various human- and animal-like monsters, some of which display expected monstrous behaviours and others, typical human behaviours. For example, the dog-headed person on the top left is eating a creature whole, in a typically monstrous way, while an individual with hooves on the bottom row is playing the violin, an activity associated with humans. This drawing challenges whether monstrous, or animal-like, behaviour can really be defined.
Lastly, The Map Psalter (figure 3) is a map of the world made some time between 1262 and 1300 in London. Christ presides over this map with two angels at both sides. The map shows Jerusalem at its centre and other sites relevant to Christian belief, like Noah’s Ark. Of particular note, there are creatures depicted at the right edge of the map: Some of them are vaguely human, with human bodies but with faces on their chest, other with animal-like heads. These animal-like humans and humans who deviate from ‘regular’ form, are positioned at the edge of the map in discrete sections, which recalls Bisclavret and Beowulf’s usage of wolfishness and general deviation from ‘normal’ human form as a metaphor for exile from society. Although the creatures of this map are technically within Christ’s kingdom (they are within the map), they are marginalized to the edges, a line drawn between them and everything else.
Drawing boundaries, whether on a map or between human and non-human, is a political act that necessarily marginalizes. That is, with the category of human, there must be the category of non-human, and the criteria for these categories are enforced by the powerful. In Bisclavret, the king says, “That’s a man’s mind; it begs the king / for mercy.”[2] He is human, but under the criteria created by the king, the most powerful man in his society (and also my own beliefs as the interpreter of the text). Bisclavret also leverages his power over his wife, transforming her appearance and marking her for exile – both from society and from the category of human. Through dehumanizing his wife, Bisclavret maintains his own humanity. Like the Map Psalter, the categories of human and non-human do not reflect an objective reality, rather they are informed by dominant belief and power.
-- --
[1] Latin Bestiary of the Twelfth Century, trans. Terence Hanbury White, in The Book of Beasts: Being a Translation from a Latin Bestiary of the Twelfth Century (Wisconsin: Parallel Press, 2002). First published in 1954 by G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
[2] Bisclavret, ll. 154-155a.