Unnatural

Alan of Lilly is very depressed about homosexuality. At least, that is what we as modern readers would say. The text, however, never uses this word, since it was coined long after Alan was writing. Instead he chooses to compare this perversion of nature as a perversion of grammar. Why does he do this? It would seem, in his mind, that the issue is to do with fruitfulness. Just as “proper” (by which I mean heterosexual) sex can produce children, so too does proper grammar beget language. “Gay” sex is not reproductive, so in Alan’s way of thinking, it is unnatural, because, according to him, it is natural that sex results in offspring. This is how it is with the long catalogue of creatures and plants that appear on Nature’s garments. Nature is fruitful, so anything that is not fruitful, or barren, is unnatural. Grammar, too, must produce language, so if grammar is perverted in the same way sex is, it will be sterile. This is why Alan (and other people) are afraid of homosexuality. For them, it works against the fecundity of nature. If plants, animals, and people do not reproduce, what will happen to the world? It is a depressing thought. This is why Nature makes her plea or plaint. Her whole existence is based on reproduction. Nature is all the living things that inhabit the world (as represented on her robe). They are both producers and products of her. If they die out, she will die out, and vice versa. That is why it is so important for her and Alan to stamp out anything unnatural. It will destroy everything.

What Alan Leaves Out

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?