Alan of Lille gives what seems to be an extensive list of animalia when describing the cloak and vestments of Nature in The Plaint of Nature. His structure to this leaves vast room for analysis of how each creature merited importance and what apparently did not.
Alan goes through the birds first, listing at least 34 by my count. It includes birds of prey, exotic birds, commonplace birds, domestic birds, woodland birds, mountain birds, you name it. Aside from considering a bat to be a bird, for which we must forgive Alan given the knowledge of his time, the list is fairly comprehensive. Only 16 fish are named, but they span salt and fresh water, edible and not - also fairly comprehensive.
The land animals less so. We have 27... mammals. Alan gets a good range in, from elephants to squirrels and including even the fanciful unicorn, and yet he only considers the furry critters among us to be worth mention. Why does Alan leave out reptiles, amphibians and - possibly the least forgivable - bugs? It seems that insects and arachnids, etc should be plenty noticeable to Alan, so he does not have the excuse that perhaps lizards and frogs were not present in his mind. Is Alan suggesting by omission that such creatures are not so much within the domain of nature? Or was it merely something he overlooked?
On a tangentially related note - why is it that Alan never mentions Helen of Troy by name? She becomes the Curly's wife of The Plaint of Nature. But while he seems to have no problem with direct name-dropping, why does Alan shy from using hers? Virgil, too, is brought up by periphrasis, though not repeatedly like Helen. Paris and Aeneas, matching to each, are mentioned easily - so why not these?
I wonder if the reason that Alan leaves out insects has something to do with style of genre. His work reminds me of Boethius's
ReplyDelete"Consolation of Philosophy", a late classical work. I don't recall many classical works or works written in a classical style that dwell on insects. Ants and bees are sometimes mentioned as examples of industry and collectivity. Ants also are the source of the Myrmidons in classical mythology.
His work is also a philosophical and religious treatise, thus a more elevated style is required. The "high" style typically avoids more "unpleasant" things such as creepy-crawlies, which is also why Alan may pass them over. This may also explain his use of periphrasis, a favorite stylistic device of classical writers.
Those are very persuasive arguments, Kurt, to a very interesting observation, Leah! To offer a biblical precedent of sorts. Note 136 on page 51 draws attention to the influence of the Old Testament on Alan's work with respect to idolatry, so we might compare the attention paid to various kinds of animals in the dietary restrictions described in Leviticus. Many birds, mammals, and fish are specified, including those permissible to eat and those forbidden (including the bat among birds!)--but insects are not singled out (apart from a few species of permissible grasshopper) and are instead classified as a whole group of "crawling things" whose consumption is an "abomination." (And I need to doublecheck the Hebrew on this, but I think the same word is used to describe the "abomination" of "a man lying with a man as one lies with a woman," which is of course another one of Alan's main concerns.)
ReplyDeleteAn amendment:
ReplyDeleteAlan de Lille uses Helen's name on page 216 of our edition. Here he isn't condemning her so much as saying she is "a demi-goddess in beauty." It's right before the climactic moment in which Genius speaks - a coincidence? Or perhaps changing use of Helen signifies the importance of Genius's moment.