It is difficult to create discussion on Plaint of Nature. Honestly, this is a complex text to analyze, but I have a point I want to address. I know we discussed in class that Nature appears to be this ‘othered’ being. It should also be noted that it is through this entity that we are given lists of monstrous deeds which are allegorized with mythical tales. One of the repetitive monsters discussed in the story is the monsters we all know from The Odyssey-that being Charybdis and Scylla.
A quick background on The Odyssey: these two monsters inhabited the sea. Courageous sailors would dare try to navigate between these beasts in hope of safe passage. The danger was to avoid one monster, you might encounter the other, and the strait between the two was treacherous and almost unfeasible to pass through.
Introduction to these monsters does not occur until page 149, where Nature explains the burden of love. “It is sweet, shipwreck, light burden, pleasing Charybdis, sound debility, insatiate hunger” Here, love is described as something dangerous that one does not perceive as such. Instead, one blissfully follows, only to meet a gruesome end. A little later in the text, Nature explains how love alters the way one perceives the world, where “Scylla lays aside her fury” (150). Of course, this is not truly possible, because the monster of Scylla only exists as a dangerous man-eating monster. The only thing that alters it is the illusion created by intense desire. Intense desire for something can become idolatrous and then lure one to their doom. It leads to a struggle between the monsters which will prove fatal. This idea of an inevitable shipwreck is repeated in the text when addressing other sins to evade.
When Nature explains the idolatrous nature of gluttony, she states, “the employ the suction-process of a broad whirlpool and gulp down with the greedy throat of a Charybdis” (172). Nature assimilates gluttons with mythical monsters, but goes further in explaining the allegorical concept of these ideas on the same page, “they experience shipwreck where there is no sea” (172). Nature is pointing out here how this shipwreck is clearly possible through sins. Nature also points out the idea of this shipwreck with the sin of idolizing money. She describes, “the rich man, shipwrecked in the depths of riches” (176). The idea of travelling through Charybdis and Scylla is allegorized in these passages as the strain in navigation to avoid idol pleasures. Any sway towards these monsters of sin will lead to destruction and shipwreck.
Alan of Lille uses the story of Charybdis and Scylla to emphasize the issue of avoiding sins but appears to be in a similar situation himself. Lille himself is stuck between these two monsters as he attempts to write this story and keep consistency in his argument. The difficulty with gender relations in regards to grammar brings about an issue that could “shipwreck” his entire text. The narrow pathway between these monsters is difficult to find, but Lille believes it is there and possible to travel through.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I really liked your blog. I think myths such as Charybdis and Scylla are clearly illuminating the monstrous nature of men, or better said, those qualities man suffers from such as gluttony, money, avarice, and arrogance, that taint his actions, and thus make him act ‘unnaturally.’ Allan of Lille in utilizing an array of myths is not only illustrating Nature’s perspective/attitude, but even foreshadowing the present downfall of men. The binaries he sets up also reinforce your argument, and we can literally see how man seemed to be pinned between, for example, Nature’s idea of love or desire, and the threat of not adhering or fulfilling notions attached to love/desire. The ending of, “Plaint of Nature,” seems to solidify your argument for man is figuratively shipwrecked when he’s promised ‘excommunication’ if he ‘sins’ against Nature.
Post a Comment