Analysis
Augustine said that a human is anything that is rational and mortal[1], and a living thing’s ability to think is what makes it rational. In that sense, appearance does not matter and neither does the nature of one’s actions because even if a person makes poor decisions, they are still a human at the end of the day. In that humanity, it could then be argued that room for change is still allowed in comparison to monstrosity that immediately marks beings as eternally evil. This is the case of the witch in Kallimachos and Chrysorroi. Despite being a rational being who was able to make the decision of trying to appeal to the most powerful being in the kingdom (i.e., the king), she was marked as a monster solely because her connection with the king caused her to make the subpar decision of kidnapping Chrysorroi. However, the king, who plays just as strong a role in the kidnapping as the witch, is left without little punishment for his actions. In that sense, the king, despite kidnapping and trying to control Chrysorroi, starts to receive the protection of a hero in that he can involve himself in violent acts like “bashing, thrashing... killing”[2], or more specific to the king’s case, kidnaping and confining a woman, and not face any repercussions. However, unlike the hero whose violence is celebrated and what makes them a hero as Le Guin[3] argues, the king’s violence is not necessarily seen that way, but the absence of punishment removes him from being tied to the label of monster. Yet, why is that? Why did the witch end up being scorched alone, when it was the king who ordered her to help him kidnap Chrysorroi in exchange for wealth and status? Why is he allowed to go scotch-free when he manipulated the witch with those same promises of gold and even went as far as calling her “mother”[4], signalling just how close he was trying to appear to the witch in order to connect to her? It seems unfair that he is suddenly able to shed all those connections now that his plans have been ceased due to Kallimachos’ interference. It is this injustice of the king not being punished that Goldwyn uses as a foundation to explain how the witch is a victim, rather than a monster.
Goldwyn[5] further pushes this idea of the witch being a victim by highlighting the end of the story where the witch is burned, while the king, again, is left unscathed. In fact, after Kallimachos and Chrysorroi explain their love, the king questions the witch about the golden apple used to both kill and revive Kallimachos, and pushes all the blame on the witch[6]. Furthermore, in this same discussion of the events surrounding the killing and kidnapping, it is very important to acknowledge how everyone is given an opportunity to defend or deflect their guilt except for the witch[7]. For example, Kallimachos, who had been engaging with the king’s lover, was not sentenced to any form of punishment, but instead, was able to explain his and Chrysorroi’s situation, which ended up absolving him of his guilt[8]. The king, through his questioning of the witch[9], was able to distance himself from his participation of the kidnapping and murder, thus appearing more as a sensible king undoing wrongs that had been committed, while failing to acknowledge his own part in those very wrongdoings, making the witch the only perpetrator.
The witch is also subject to an unfairness beyond being used for her powers and as a scapegoat, as the same qualities that make her evil, do not have the same effect on Chrysorroi. The most notable element is their sexuality. As seen in the works of Dürer, Baldung, and Qadimi, as well as the witch from Kallimachos and Chrysorroi, the witch’s sexuality and erotic behaviours (shown through the lack of clothes for the witches and abnormal frolicking) is painted in a negative light. However, Chrysorroi’s beauty, which lets her be described as “completely alluring”[10] and allows her to be compared to Aphrodite[11], lets her become an object of desire, shifting her sexuality from something that is negative to something that is positive. However, one facet of the two characters that ends up tying them together, thus making the witch more human and Chrysorroi more monstrous, is the fact that they both are seen as objects that need to be controlled. Chrysorroi by her sexuality becomes something both Kallimachos and the king desire at multiple times throughout the story. Chrysorroi is also controlled earlier in the story by the dragon who kept her locked up in his castle because “[he] loved Chrysorroi [solely] because of [her] beauty”[12]. The witch is controlled by the king who uses her magic to obtain Chrysorroi and as mentioned earlier, entices her with the promises of material wealth and status[13]. Here, both Chrysorroi’s beauty and the witch’s powers are things that need to be controlled by males. The witch’s sexuality, although seen less as an object of desire and more as a perverse thing that marks her monstrosity, is still another thing that must be controlled by men in order to reduce the reach of her powers[14].
The need to be controlled seems to be a signifier of one being a monster, however, in history there are many cases of groups being given the label of monstrous simply to exert control over them that then seems justified[15]. For example, Indigenous people in North America were labelled as uncivil, in order to justify the colonial projects of Britain and other European entities[16]. Similarly, the Nazis used old depictions that unjustly framed Jewish people as vile beings that “[bled] Christian children”[17] as an excuse to commit the Holocaust. In the same way, the witch can be seen as an exaggeration of women having “sexual inconstancy and destructiveness”[18], that creates the perfect justification for the king to use and discard the witch, and for both him and Kallimachos to control Chrysorroi.
However, because the witch is still immediately marked as ugly, old, and as a demon early on in the story, she fails to become an object of desire in comparison to Chrysorroi, whose beauty allows her to become desired positively by the king and Kallimachos. As a result of that failure, despite sharing some similarities, the witch becomes a monster and Chrysorroi remains a heroine.
[1] Maschio, Week 11, Slide 7
[2] Le Guin, “The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction”, p. 4
[3] Ibid.
[4] Betts, “Three Medieval Greek Romances”, p. 58
[5] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 83
[6] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 82
[7] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 82-83
[8] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 83
[9] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 82
[10] Betts, “Three Medieval Greek Romances”, p. 53
[11] Ibid.
[12] Betts, “Three Medieval Greek Romances”, p. 50
[13] Betts, “Three Medieval Greek Romances”, p. 58-60
[14] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 76
[15] Cohen, “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)”, p. 8
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Goldwyn, “Towards a Byzantine ecocriticism”, p. 78