Help on Paper Topic

As I've been scavenging about for a paper topic, I keep coming back to the "Talking Animals" section of our syllabus. Possibly because I'm a child at heart, I'm very interested in getting to write a paper about stories or fables. That said, I have absolutely no experience (before this class, anyway) with medieval literature, so I'm not always sure what's viable. I've come up with a couple of different ideas on how I could approach a paper about talking animals in literature. I'd be very grateful if you all would look at the ideas and let me know which ones you think will be most viable or interesting (and any source ideas you have!).

Idea 1:

My first idea was spawned by Albertus Magnus. Albertus states that animals all act in the same general ways (because of the "natural powers" which dictate the passions and actions of a species)¹. This general way of thinking about the actions of animals (that they have predictable and common habits and actions) should carry over into literature. For instance, if there are two foxes in a fable, they should have similar personality characteristics and perform similar actions.

However, we come into further complexity when we talk about talking animals. Speech, at least in the modern sense, conveys intelligence and memory (and probably free will). We choose what to say, formulate it based on our intelligence, and often reference memories of prior events or knowledge and extrapolate them to the current situation. Although medieval scholars indicate animals can produce sounds to communicate certain things (Albertus, for instance, states that birds make certain sounds when searching for a mate), I doubt any of them would have called this "speech". Similarly, although Albertus talks about training animals, he does not express any belief that this learning indicates an understanding of speech similar to that of humans. According to Aristotle's tripartite model of the soul (which Albertus uses), although animals have sensory abilities and some cognitive ones (estimation, imagination, memory of a sort), animals do not have higher reasoning abilities like intelligence and free will ².

Status and Animals: Second Attempt

    In class on Friday, I tried to put forward the idea that in the Middle Ages, human interactions with animals may have varied along the lines of status. In the end, I wasn’t particularly articulate or successful, so, finding myself lacking more world-shattering subject matter for this post, even at the end of several days of refection, I decided to give the idea another try. I am sure you all (this does not apply to you, unknown readers) will forgive the repetitiveness.

I’ll start with the shortest thing we read, which was, incidentally, also the first one I finished. I ended up sending Steve Farrar’s article¹ to my mom, whose 4-year old cat just recently died from FIV. I sent it to her because I thought she’d enjoy reading about the similar attachment of owners to pets in the seemingly so different a world as Medieval Europe. We later talked about the article, and she commented that animals (especially cats and dogs) are just so endearing…it’s hard not to get attached. Indeed, that falls along the lines of why I thought this article was so thought-provoking. After all, humans back then could not have been so un-sentimental as to never get attached to the loyal friend that a dog is, or the warm purring thing that is a cat. And for proof of such attachment, we don’t just have my questionable deductive skills, we have literary evidence! The example of abbot Thierry’s of St. Trond verses, written on the death of his dog is quite perfect. Indeed, all the examples in the article point at the same idea: the commonplace of owners becoming attached to and loving their pets is not actually a modern commonplace.

What Pascal Said

H'llo, y'all. 

So I was thinking about my paper last night and then I was reading Pascal (1623-62) and then I was having this thought.

See, Pascal says this:

"

It is dangerous to make man too aware that he is on the same level as animals without demonstrating to him his greatness. It is also dangerous to make him too aware of his greatness without showing him his baseness. It is even more dangerous to leave him ignorant of either state, but very helpful to demonstrate both of them to him.

Man must not think he is on a level with either beasts or angels, and he must not be ignorant of those levels, but he should know both. 

" - Pg. 38 (of the 1995 Oxford World Classics edition of the Pensees, translated by Honor Levi)

What a Joy

While we were all talking today about animals as pets/meat/skins/and livestock what do you think Joy was thinking about? (and we have already established that animals have imaginations and can think for those of you who beg to differ if she was even thinking at all) Later I might add she was chewing on her tail, if that helps you answer the question.

From the position of the picture you might know who took this, however I am not about to give myself away in case my participation grade is on the fence.

This Country Life: Animals as Help and Hindrance to the Medieval Farmer

It is very hard to discover the way that medieval people actually used and experienced animals, as became clear in our class discussion. Obviously archaeological evidence and tax rolls can give us evidence of the animals that were present, help us approximate their value, and suggest the manner in which they were used. But it cannot give us solid answers, even about those questions, and certainly cannot reveal much at all about human interactions with animals or the ways humans processed those interactions. For this we need supplementary information.

There are two main types of sources which we have not approached but which provide more evidence for the ways in which people used animals during daily farm life in the Middle Ages. These are literature and art. Although these were largely created for a rich audience, many pieces of literature and also artwork such as illuminated psalters, contain descriptions and images of medieval peasants going about their daily lives. Through these we can get some sense of what actual farming looked like.

Through examining the Luttrell Psalter, the Très Riches Heures, and the “Nun’s Priest’s Tale” from the Cantebury Tales, I would like to make several observations about both medieval farming practice and the broader relationship between humans and animals in the Middle Ages. This will include a further look at using oxen and horses on the farm, as well as a glimpse of something not captured in tax rolls, the natural predator. Through this discussion I would like to advance a very modest claim: Medieval people, although well-versed in using animals in their farm work, had a complicated relationship with the natural world because of the unpredictability of nature and the dangers posed by many animals.

Medieval Economics in Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds

As we spoke about manorial advice of Sir Walter Henley in today’s discussion I wondered whether or not this advice was actually put into practice throughout most manors and Abbeys during the Middle Ages. Later on when we explored further readings, most specifically Postan’s Village Livestock in the Thirteenth Century, who mentions that he based his calculations mostly upon the tax accounts and jury records and surname accounts of the manors within Hinderclay , that happens to be a part of the larger Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds I was further motivated to explore the general economic state of the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds. I had also been reading this piece of literature for a separate class and therefore I thought that this exploration would help to better my understanding of the text.

Animals, Salvation, and Humans, oh my

On Monday morning while crawling through the depths of the internet and desperately trying to avoid writing this blog entry, I stumbled upon this comment in an opinion piece on Religion Dispatches:

Perhaps some religions can be compatible with evolution and the closing of the gulf between humans and other animals, but Christianity can’t. Christianity is based on the concept of Jesus dying for the sins of man, and acceptance of his name granting eternal life in heaven. That argument makes no sense if humans and other animals are ultimately the same. ¹

Leaving aside certain other problematic aspects of this comment², my eyebrows did raise slightly at the assertion of a deep gulf between humans and animals within Christianity. Especially given the understanding of humanity's relation to animals that we have encountered in Albertus Magnus and the bestiaries.³ Inspired by this bit of eyebrow raising, I hope to investigate exactly how Albert, along with others, depict the distinction between humans and animals and what, if any, soteriological ramifications this distinction may have.

Is it Science?

Two questions came up in discussion on Friday that I think are particularly worthy of continued discussion: does Albert have a specific audience (and purpose) in mind for the De animalibus, and can his work be called science?

      We established fairly firmly that while Albert’s work lacks the scientific and experimental rigor of our modern conceptions, it is anachronistic to deny this the title of “science” on methodological grounds. Likewise it appears to me anachronistic to apply a polarized notion of science as being in opposition to theology— we have said on multiple occasions that rather than viewing contemplation of the physical world and contemplation of the divine as two separate disciplines, medieval scholars see one as aiding in the understanding of the other. In other words, science is not an end in itself.

To Beef or not to Beef?

I think I’m going to do something slightly less formal for my post than has been done previously.

It seems to me that one of the main problems that we’ve had so far in talking about the ways that animals are classified or identified is the vocabulary we use. We struggle to find ways to express exactly what we mean. Often we carry over connotative meaning without intending to. The English language still carries with it some built-in distinctions that are left over from Medieval ways of talking about animals.

Prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066, most people in England were speaking a variation of either Old English or Old Norse. The OE word for cow is cú. Not much of a surprise there. Cow is one of those words that has come down to us through the Indo-Germanic roots of our language and hasn’t changed much in the last 2,000 years. Pigga is another word that probably looks pretty familiar, along with cicen (chicken), scéap (sheep), and déor (deer). All of these words are Germanic in origin, and the main difference between the way they are now and the way they were 1,000 years ago is the spelling. All of them, with the exception of deer, refer to domesticated animals, and they all played an integral role in the agricultural societies of northern Europe during the Middle Ages.

Evil Non-Men and Some Very Dangerous Newts

  

 For the natural science theorists in the late Middle Ages, Aristotle's word was law - and advancing interpretations that were too novel required some very careful side-stepping and sliding around in order to make it seem like there were no conflicts with the theoretical standard. The Resl's "Philosophical Beliefs" chapter references this complication quite explicitly, most memorably in the case of Jean de Jandun and Albertus Magnus's suggestion that some degree of imagination and fantasy exist in all animals - and it wasn't that Aristotle's denied this in his description of bees and ants in De Anima but rather that the translator must simply have gotten it wrong.
     For this reason, among a host of others, it behooves us to take a closer look at pre-Medieval natural science commentators. These men, who lived their lives in the wake of the sack of Rome and before the full onset of the Dark Ages, interpreted the hierarchy of beasts in Christian Neo-Platonist terms - often in the best cases with Aristotle as a non-infallible commentator and source. Of these, perhaps Boethius is one of the most well-established early Aristotelians and most ultimately influential authors (as is noted in the Resl, it was his early Latin translations of Aristotle's logical corpus that eventually found their way into the Medieval mind). In his Consolation of Philosophy, he makes this powerful remark about the moral symbolism of animals and the construction of the tripartite soul:

Animals in Court

I was doing random searches trying to find possible bibliographical data for my paper and came across a couple of webpages dealing with the trial and/or execution of animals for a variety of offenses against humans as well as witnesses and character references! Punishment for guilty animals included exile, excommunication, execution, and damnation and consideration was taken by the court regarding age, sex and infirmity, just as if the animal was human. If animals don't have the rational soul with gives them free will, intellect, and memory, how can they be held accountable for their actions in a court of law? By thier very actions, they are fulfilling the existence that God created them for, so how can that be considered a crime? I'm very curious as to the logic of this since - from what i can tell - this was not an extremely rare occurence. Yet it seems to clash with the whole system of logic that was in place during this time period regarding the place of animals in the medieval world.

LRW

PS: I've already decided on a topic for my paper and since I'm a MAPSS student, i am keeping it semi focused on my larger thesis. Therefore, i can't use this idea but it would make for such an entertaining paper i can't resist putting the idea out there for someone else to use (if you are having difficulties coming up with a paper topic).

Bestiaries and the Book of Nature

In descriptions of medieval bestiaries, we are often told that the texts make extensive use of symbolism.  That the animals described within act as symbols for particular moral truths that the authors wish to convey.  For instance, White’s appendix to The Bestiary touches on this at length.  On the surface, this seems to be a wholly reasonable supposition.  Surely the authors of these bestiaries did not simply intend to communicate bare biological facts or amusing anecdotes about various creatures,[1] as is evidence through their constant references to Scriptural and theological themes.  However, I would like to argue that classifying the contents of a bestiary as merely symbolic obscures the true medieval understanding of animals, and nature as a whole, by imposing modern distinctions between humanity, nature, and God onto a medieval world of thought which does not share them.  In fact, the bestiaries, of which I’ll particularly focus on the Aberdeen Bestiary, provide one of the best means of elucidating exactly how medieval thinkers understood nature, particularly the immanence and manifestation of God within the created world.

Avicenna and the capacity for discernment

While Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) is on our minds, I thought I might point out something else about his perspective on animal minds that could provide food for thought. Unlike Plato, whose dualistic concept of the ideal image and the fundamentally flawed or imperfect nature of materiality results in his near-absolute censure of carnal love and full exaltation of sublime love (at best, carnal love excited by physical beauty is nothing more than a stepping stone to higher truths and should be cast aside as soon as possible), Ibn Sīnā believes that the different faculties of desire are all essentially positive forces, each with a role to play in the elevation of the spirit. The key to moral conduct lies in your knowing which faculty comes first, which takes precedence over the others. In his Treatise on Love (al-risālah fī al-ʿishq), he expands on Plato and divides the soul's capacity for desire into five categories: the love of the simple and inanimate, the love of the vegetative faculty, the love of the animal faculty, the love of the noble-minded and gallant (ẓurafāʾ and fityān) for external beauty, and the love of divine souls. These loves do not cancel one another out, but rather add to one another to cumulatively produce a higher state of existence.

A donkey, in Ibn Sīnā's example, possesses no less than three faculties for discernment, the simple, the vegetative, and the animal (spirited). These all contribute to his well-being by allowing him to discern different levels of Good; the vegetative faculty tells him that grass is tasty, but when a lion appears on the horizon, his spirited faculty tells him that continued life is better, and he accordingly runs away. He chooses the greater good over the lesser, and this is a sign of his acting according to God's plan, a behavior that is fundamentally good. Humanity is merely expected to do the same. Possessed of the capacity for discerning sublime truth, we should be able to override our appetites just as the donkey did and choose eternal pleasure in virtue over the temporary pleasure of earthly desire. It is not that the desire of the appetitive soul is inherently bad, it simply needs to be held in check by the higher faculties at the appropriate time. The bulk of humanity, of course, rarely strays beyond the appetitive faculty of other animals, and therein lies our shame; we dishonor our Creator by ignoring the capacity for exalted thought we possess.

I find it interesting that in this text, as well as some of the others we have read, Ibn Sīnā does not see any fundamental difference between humans and other animals as far as how our minds work. Like humans, animals are capable of discernment and choice between lesser and greater goods. The only thing that separates humanity from the rest of the animal world is this question of capacity, which is more rooted in the realm of the potential than in that of the actual.

You might want to check out:

Von Grunebaum, G. E., ‘Avicenna’s Risāla fī ʾl-ʿIšq and Courtly Love’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 11 October (1952):4, 233–238

Bell, Joseph Norment, ‘Avicenna’s Treatise on Love and the Nonphilosophical Muslim Tradition’, Der Islam, 63 (1986):1, 73–89

--Cam C

Modern and Medieval Approaches to Animals

“Marge, don’t discourage the boy. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel.”

Devoted fans of The Simpsons might recognize the above quote and have a good chuckle. But hidden in that quote is a cultural norm that seems to permeate modern consciousness: the idea that we are more advanced, and thus, separate from “the animals.” Most of us accept the idea that we are different than every other species that walks, flies or swims on this planet, and most of us accept without question that humanity is the very pinnacle of evolution. Animals serve as a form of downward social comparison for us, however much we might laud their individual features.

Indeed, part of the joy of having a pet for many people is watching the seemingly illogical things they do: my grandmother’s dog is terrified of vacuums, and a particularly odd acquaintance of mine once demonstrated to me that if one places a sock over the head of a cat, it will continuously walk backwards, perhaps thinking it is in a tunnel. These displays of what would be considered subhuman intelligence are endearing to pet owners, similar to how it never ceases to amuse us that infants really think we can’t see them if they cover their own eyes. Of course this is not the only way we derive enjoyment out of pet owning. We are often impressed by animals’ sensory perceptions, and there are plenty of incredible animal stories, wherein an animal, often a pet, performs some feat of bravery, which, if a human had performed it, would earn him/her a medal and the key to the city. Pets have called 911 for their owners, they have rushed into burning buildings and rescued children, and they have travelled incredible distances just to get back to their owners. Also, the loyalty and dependence that pets display create emotional attachments and a feeling of connection. Pets are often “part of the family.” Animals not held as pets have their attractions too: wild animals are often described as noble or majestic. People will pull their cars over to the side of the road just to take a picture of a moose or a deer.

Research Paper Brainstorming Ideas

After attending class this past week and upon reading  our discussion assignments,

I aimed to decide upon a paper topic and to begin researching as soon as possible. Our discussions have definitely sparked several ideas into my mind about the topics I would like to research. Despite that, I am still greatly undecided and will appreciate any advice or comments from classmates upon my present ideas.

I first thought of researching more about a quite domestic animal, the lamb, based not only upon the fact that I grew up around them when I was little and have always had an affinity for them, but also because it takes up such a central position within the Catholic religion. I looked within the index of the Brigitte Resl text, and browsed through the pages that made reference to lambs. I really thought it was interesting how often the lamb came into context within religion as a symbol of God and the divine, and yet it was rarely used within daily life beyond the use of its skin. I also had an inkling to research the origin of the lamb as a symbol of divinity, since we rarely see such a domestic animal taking on this grand type of symbolism. Usually lions, doves, eagles, panthers, and leopards and other more extraordinary animals are considered perfect and divine.