Man’s Physical & Internal Monstrousness

In our last class discussion we determined how the maiden, Nature, can appear ‘fantastical’ and ‘monstrous’ within, “The Plain of Nature.” The long description of her gown containing and organizing a number of living creatures reinforces this. The passage on page one-hundred-twenty-seven, where the poet sees her as a ‘phantom, something anomalous, and monstrous,’ also works towards strengthening Nature as both fantastical and monstrous. Janel pointed out how it is these two elements that push Nature into the realm of the other, and marks her as ‘marvelous,’ as causing wonder, admiration, and astonishment. I would even venture to say that in light of the descriptions of Nature, and her ties to celestial bodies, semi-gods, Gods, etc. she is a subliminal character, one whose voice is spiritually and literally dominating in this poem; her authority is unquestionable for it comes from God. With this in mind, Nature seems to purposely set up binaries, for example between sensuality and reason. Man always appears at odds with these binaries, or better said, subject to change; hence, man can be seen as an unstable character, because he is constantly wavering between ‘beast’ and ‘man.’ The promise of being one or the other is constantly invoked with the poem to such a degree that Nature’s words take on the tone of a warning (exile/excommunication) ; in the second half of this poem, her persistent emphasis on gluttony, money, avarice, and arrogance seem to reinforce this last assertion. Despite this promise of salvation, of becoming a god, I believe, man can be seen as the epitome of the monstrous in this poem.

Man is a fallen character in this poem, and Nature establishes this, for she grieves because ‘man has inverted the rules of Venus, its arrangement of genders, and has deviated from the true script’ (134). Homosexuality or coupling that is not in the service of regeneration/reproduction seems to ‘other’ man; Max pointed out how this is a new ‘sexual-identity’ or otherness we’ve been confronted with. Despite this, Nature’s attitude towards man and this kind of otherness or unnaturalness, clearly marks man as a monster. The violence we’ve come to associate with the monstrous is instilled in man on page one-hundred-thirty-five. The passage states:
“He disfigures the fair figure of Venus by ugliness, that he discolors the colour of beauty by the meretricious dye of desire, that he deflowers the flower of pulchritude by having it bloom into vice.”

Here man is not only seen as physically inflicting violence and ugliness through his actions, but is infringing on and determining the ultimate downfall of ‘beauty,’ what comes to be associated with purity of action; at the same time, he is manipulating desire so that it is tainted, takes on a form that deviates from the purpose Nature meant it to have. Man can be seen as inflicting harm on Nature herself for his actions not only ‘divide parts of her self,’ such as desire, but transforms them in a way that Nature does not approve of, and in a way that Nature perceives as harmful. The words ‘disfigures, discolors, deflowers,’ give some weight to this argument, while figuratively illustrating the violence he inflicts in the way Nature describes him as changing and spoiling beauty.

Page one-hundred-thirty-seven reinforces the instability of men when Nature sets up the contrast between those that are outcasts, and those that are ‘armored’ or protected. She states: “Who are guilty with the mark of shame, and to forearm the unaffected with the amour of precaution.” One of the characteristics we’ve established in the monsters from our previous readings is a kind of alienation, a quality that sets them apart from everyone else. Man in bearing ‘the mark of shame’ experiences this kind of alienation when paired with the ‘unaffected.’ Shame has a negative connotation and re-establishes how man’s ‘unnaturalness,’ the way he deviates from gender and sexual constructs, is dishonorable, disgraceful, and wrong; thus, it infringes on Nature. Yet, man is not only infringing on Nature, but inflicting harm on himself, and becomes associated with a ‘monstrous’ violence, at least on a figurative level; shame can be seen as painful feeling inflicted on one’s pride or sense of self-respect, and here, it arises in man because his acts are perceived by Nature as unnatural. Interestingly, shame gains a new dimension on page one-hundred-sixty-eight and further establishes man as a monster.

The passage states: “Without shame a man, no longer manlike, puts aside the practices of man. Degenerate, then, he adopts the degenerate way of an irrational animal. Thus he unmans himself and deserves to be unmanned by himself.” Nature seems to be stating that men no longer repent or regret ‘unnatural’ acts; in this lack of shame they are transformed into beasts/monsters, and lose physical, mental, and moral qualities. Not only is man an outsider, but he no longer retains both a physical and internal humanness; he becomes monstrous because of his lack of ‘reason,’ and this facilitates his transformation into an unsexed beast. The fact that he is unsexed makes him even more monstrous; it illustrates him not only as an ‘unknown’ creature, but an ‘unnatural’ creature, one that does not fulfill the established role of a ‘man’ or a ‘woman.’

“The Plaint of Nature” seemed to mark man as monstrous in his acts; yet, this monstrousness not only marks man physically, but internally, as well as spiritually. I’m interested to see if anyone else had a similar interpretation or if they some how saw man’s monstrousness as ‘othering’ him in the process. Also, I have yet to figure out, why the maiden is established as woman rather than a man. She does gain even more authority by the fact that she can’t be associated with ‘man who bears the mark of shame,’ on a physical and spiritual level; yet, I think, Alan of Lille is pushing for more when he establishes Nature as a woman. If anyone has a theory, I welcome it.