In class, we discussed medieval conceptions to creatures we
know call “fantastic” or “monstrous” especially dragons. We looked at the
dragon as a thing of the wilderness and the swamp, a sign of a place inimical
to human life. It became very complicated, though, since it was clear that
medieval society viewed dragons and other monsters as very real. We eventually
learned that most of our conceptions of medieval monsters come from the Early
Modern period. The Satanic connotations of the creatures were more a product of
the humanists than any other group. So, that left us with the idea that often,
the creature was just another creature, created by God to beautify His
creation.
However, a situation that we didn't discuss is when “monsters”
have very positive connotations, instead of being symbolic of disease or
personified sins. The primary example of this is Saint Christopher, a holy
cynocephalus. His story, as told in the Nowell Codex (the Beowulf manuscript),
tells that he was initially unable to speak except in barks, which is supported
by the other tales of dog-headed men. However, through baptism, he gained human
speech. During his travels, he was captured by a pagan king, Dagnus. After
enduring various tortures, including being burned on an iron table and being
shot with arrows for an entire day, Saint Christopher reproaches Dagnus’
arrogance by striking him blind. After this, he does die and go to heaven, but
by mixing Christopher’s blood with dirt and applying it his eyes, Dagnus was
cured of blindness and promptly converting to Christianity (translation of the
Old English can be found at http://anglosaxonpoetry.camden.rutgers.edu/saint-christopher/).
It
seems to me that St. Christopher provides a useful consideration for us looking
at medieval attitudes towards monstrous things. It is the human, not the
inhuman, which is portrayed as wicked and cruel. In this case, then, it becomes
clear that our discussion was on the correct track regarding monstrous things.
As long as the individual believes in Christ, they shall be accepted and
redeemed by the Church. If the person does not, and seeks to harm and destroy
the will of God, then they shall be punished. Dagnus is punished by blindness,
but at the moment of conversion, he was redeemed.
However,
there is a complication to the picture. Firstly, while St. Christopher was
holy, his kin were not. A different manuscript of the text tells us that
cynocephali are “from the country where men devour each other” (translation by
George Herzfeld, found at the site listed above). It seems, then, that the pagan
monsters are not viewed so favorably. It seems that these can symbolize the all-destroying
nature of sin. A “wulfes heafod” is the mark of an outlaw according to Edward
the Confessor, and so the rest of the cynocephali are symbolic of how those
outlawed from Christ’s society tear each other to shreds, mirroring the
self-blinding actions of Dagnus (the Old English claims that the points of two
arrows he had fired struck his eyes). St. Christopher, then, is the outlaw
redeemed, which certainly would be an encouraging tale for the actual outlaws
of England. In that sense, St. Christopher is a positive allegorical figure,
despite being a creature quite different from other humans.
Looking
at dragons specifically, Riches mentioned a different sort of positive
encounter with the beast. St. Ammon, she writes, “kept two dragons as guards
against persistent thieves at his remote monastery” (page 205). This encounter
is extremely interesting, as, unlike most cases we discussed in class, this is
an instance in which the dragon cooperates with the saint, and serves as a
protector rather than an enemy to be driven out. This reverses every
understanding other texts give us as dragons as being creatures of wilderness,
kept at the edge of society. In this case, in the micro-society of Ammon’s
monastery, the people are the creatures kept at bay, and the dragon is an
integral part of society. There is no reason to view these dragons as merely
symbolic, but as real things protecting the monastery. Admittedly, this
monastery is “remote” and is therefore part of the wilderness, bringing
Christian faith into the home of these beasts, but it makes it no less odd. St.
Marcellus, St. Senan, and many others drive out the beast in order to somehow
make the location habitable; Ammon uses the beast to do the same thing. Many of
the authors we read suggested that the driving out of the dragon symbolized man
controlling nature to suit his own ends. In this suggestion, the preserving of
the dragon could symbolize the simplicity of Ammon’s life; he does not need to
corral nature, but lives among it. The thieves then serve the role the dragons
used to; they are the creatures who stand against society. The wicked nature of
humanity must be kept outside of the monastery to preserve its holiness, and
the placing of the monastery in the wilderness where these beasts live and are
compelled by the power of God to protect it is a way to do this.
In this
case, the role of the dragons is undoubtedly a positive one. They are
protectors and guardians, bring security for the monks in Ammon’s monastery.
Just like with St. Christopher, the monstrous is not working against humanity,
but is preserving it. They are not Satanic, or even “evil”, as Shilton
describes Beowulf’s dragon, but beneficial parts of the divine Creation.
Sometimes, it is the humans who are the outlaws in need of saving, and those
from the margins are those who hold out and destroy sin. So, it is clear that a
discussion of whether dragons are primarily symbolic creatures in medieval
thought is incomplete without acknowledging that dragons can be positive
symbols instead of negative ones. As real things in this world, they cannot be
only things of the wilderness, living by rules completely apart from human
society, but as cooperators, placed by God as a marker and a tool for the saint
to utilize to redeem the world.
~AFB
