Steel quotes from Metamorphoses on page 20. Given this quotation, what religious implications do you think surround the concept of a “wild child” in the Medieval context? Is it paradoxical that one can be closer to nature but farther from God when nature is often characterized as one of God’s methods of operation in Medieval literature? Or does a human with animal qualities defy nature?
ENGL 361 | Medieval Natures
Dr. Myra Seaman | Spring 2017
I think the characterization of nature as a tool used by or created by God is a social construct, so I don’t see an opposing idea as being a paradox. Plus, the idea of God’s dominion over nature also extends to man, who is supposed to have this same control over the natural world. A human that becomes animal goes against this, since he is no longer above nature, but apart of it. In this way the “wild child” is sacrilegious. This is interesting because the “wild child” stories were chronicled by monks and classified as marvels, however we are told they appear amongst stories of ritual murder and pogroms.
If we consider this quotation from Ovid, we are led to assume that man is naturally made to be superior to all other life on earth–that our very bodies are proof of this, that we are naturally oriented “upwards towards the sky”. By this token, I suppose the religious implications of a “wild child” would be of denying human nature, thereby denying that which naturally connects man to heaven and elevates man above all else. I think that this could definitely be paradoxical if we are to view nature as God’s method of operation, but I think that in medieval literature nature has a different slant. When we refer to nature in a medieval context, as Stanbury argued, we’re not referring to a place but a separate entity entirely, one that acts independently and with agency. Nature is more than a place we can be closer to God, it’s an internal connection, something working within us that we need not travel outwards to access. I’m not sure if this is making any sense at all, but basically I think that it’s not paradoxical because to a medieval audience human nature is closer to God, and (to them) for a human to deny that true nature is to deny God. So yeah, I guess a human with animal qualities would defy nature, but it would defy the medieval idea of human nature, not Nature in general. . . maybe?