Of Reynaert The Fox
In the introduction to Of Reynaert The Fox a paraphrase of the Greek fable of the sick lion is recounted in order to highlight that the themes and motifs in Of Reynaert The Fox have a long and venerable history. The last line of this paraphrased fable reads as follows: "The fable teaches that every sin brings its own punishment" (Bouwman, et al. 11). In assessing the interaction and roles of humans with the animals-that-behave-like-humans in Of Reynaert The Fox we find that humans (with the exception of the priest) escape punishment for their sins while the animals do not. The exception amongst the animals to this is Reynaert who, while everyone is trying to punish him, manages to escape punishment through immorality, deception and lies. In this essay I will analyse the instances where humans and animals interact in Of Reynaert The Fox along with their roles in order to determine if Reynaert is a villain or just a smart crook who nevertheless has our sympathy.
In the prologue to the poem the author, Willem, gives us a direct indication of his attitude towards humans and humanity. He makes a point to tell the reader that his poem is not intended for "peasants and fools" (Bouwman, et al. 43) before comparing such people to an animal in the form of a raven "who always thinks he knows it all" (Bouwman, et al. 43). Slightly further on he does backtrack though as he explains that "Although I denounce the nit-pickers, and the peasants and the fools, I wish it to be heard by those, who like to act honourably, and put their minds, to living in a courtly way, whether they be poor or rich, and who will understand it properly" (Bouwman, et al. 45). This emphasis on the need to understand the poem properly is, at face value, belied by the inclusion of animals; the use of this anthropomorphic storytelling tool potentially causing the reader to question its purpose. It is the mixing of humans and animals-that-behave-like-humans in the story however that, as the introduction states, allows readers and listeners of Of Reynaert The Fox to "see through the 'lies' of the tale (that animals can speak and behave like human beings) before finding the deeper meaning of that story" (Bouwman, et al. 17).
Focusing in directly on the particular instances in the poem where humans interact with the animals, we find the first example of this in the First Summons part of the poem where Bruun the bear is beaten by villagers. Reynaert, in his effort to trap Bruun to prevent the bear taking the fox to court, appeals to Bruun's greed by informing him of the honey-rich villager Lamfroyt who lives close by. Slightly further on in the tale Lamfroyt is described by Reynaert: "He was - if it true what people told me - a carpenter of good repute" (Bouwman, et al. 81). Upon discovering that Bruun is (unwittingly due to Reynaert) stealing his honey, Lamfroyt gathers all nearby villagers with their weapons in order to punish the innocent bear. I find it difficult in this interaction between animals and humans to be able to describe Reynaert as a smart crook who has our sympathy. Firstly he tricks Bruun into stealing honey (taking advantage of the bear's propensity for its taste) and then, as he sees the justifiably angry Lamfroyt and villagers approaching, leaves the bear to his fate while simultaneously mocking him. Perhaps one might argue that the bear should have been more wary and not so easy to give into his desire for honey but then perhaps the king should have sent someone he knew would not be tricked. Of course, the king may have thought that the bear would not be tricked in which case responsibility falls back onto Reynaert. In order to further his own selfish gain he exploits the bear's weakness. You could also argue that he does not do this out of selfishness if you consider the fox's family which he would likely be torn away from by attending court. At some point though you have to put the personal to one side when considering the good of all. In the animal kingdom that basic animal instinct is excusable but in humans it is not. The mixing of animals and humans here cleverly forces the reader to see through the lies of the tale and find the deeper meaning. Willem knows the difference in power that telling someone directly or allowing them to work it out for themselves has.
The second main instance where humans interact with the animals takes place during the Second Summons when Reynaert yet again fools an animal (this time Tybeert the cat) in order to prevent him having to attend court. This time the fox tricks the cat into stealing mice from the priest's barn where he knows the cat will be caught in a snare and beaten. The priest and his wife, Lady Julocke, previously made a brief appearance during the first summons beating the bear with crucifix and distaff respectively. Here they again attack a deceived animal but in a comic role reversal the priest this time wields the feminine distaff and his wife a church candle. The cat is saved when, fearing imminent death, he summons all his remaining courage and bites off the priest's testicles. This causes the attack on the cat to stop and for Lady Julocke and the priest's son Martinet, who raised the alarm, to attend to the injured priest. The comedic role reversal continues as the priest feints and is then carried by Lady Julocke to his bed. Through the author Willem alluding to the motif of mundus inversus (the world turned upside down) during this segment not only does he create comedy amongst the violence but also further blends the lines between human and animal behaviour. Willem also asks us to question the legitimacy of the priest as a moral guide. At the time of the text's writing priests were required to be chaste yet the author gives us an example here of a priest who is living in sin by virtue of being married with children. Additionally, the choice of Julocke as the name of the priest's wife characterises her as a temptress: ju lokke literally means 'you I tempt'. What can be taken from this second instance of humans appearing in the story is further confirmation that the author believes that they can behave just as badly as animals do.
Ultimately we find from my reading above that there is perhaps a deliberate yet subtle manipulation of the definitions of expected or perceived human and animal behaviour. There are examples of animals behaving in the worst ways that humans are able to through cunning, lies, deceit and humiliation. There are also examples of humans behaving in the worst way that animals do through senseless and extreme forms of violence. While Reynaert is clearly the star villain of the piece we find that almost all of the other characters, animal and human, behave in wicked and beastly ways despite their judging of others to be bad and not themselves. The poem is a masterpiece in the way the author lets the reader experience the same deliberations that lead to bad behaviour as the characters do through the reader's judgement of the characters while reading. Willem cleverly manipulates the reader of his poem to end at a conclusion that all are capable of bad behaviour given the right circumstances including the reader.
Bibliography
1. Bouwman, André, et al. Of Reynaert the Fox: Text and Facing Translation of the Middle Dutch Beast Epic Van Den Vos Reynaerde. Amsterdam University Press, 2009.
In the prologue to the poem the author, Willem, gives us a direct indication of his attitude towards humans and humanity. He makes a point to tell the reader that his poem is not intended for "peasants and fools" (Bouwman, et al. 43) before comparing such people to an animal in the form of a raven "who always thinks he knows it all" (Bouwman, et al. 43). Slightly further on he does backtrack though as he explains that "Although I denounce the nit-pickers, and the peasants and the fools, I wish it to be heard by those, who like to act honourably, and put their minds, to living in a courtly way, whether they be poor or rich, and who will understand it properly" (Bouwman, et al. 45). This emphasis on the need to understand the poem properly is, at face value, belied by the inclusion of animals; the use of this anthropomorphic storytelling tool potentially causing the reader to question its purpose. It is the mixing of humans and animals-that-behave-like-humans in the story however that, as the introduction states, allows readers and listeners of Of Reynaert The Fox to "see through the 'lies' of the tale (that animals can speak and behave like human beings) before finding the deeper meaning of that story" (Bouwman, et al. 17).
Focusing in directly on the particular instances in the poem where humans interact with the animals, we find the first example of this in the First Summons part of the poem where Bruun the bear is beaten by villagers. Reynaert, in his effort to trap Bruun to prevent the bear taking the fox to court, appeals to Bruun's greed by informing him of the honey-rich villager Lamfroyt who lives close by. Slightly further on in the tale Lamfroyt is described by Reynaert: "He was - if it true what people told me - a carpenter of good repute" (Bouwman, et al. 81). Upon discovering that Bruun is (unwittingly due to Reynaert) stealing his honey, Lamfroyt gathers all nearby villagers with their weapons in order to punish the innocent bear. I find it difficult in this interaction between animals and humans to be able to describe Reynaert as a smart crook who has our sympathy. Firstly he tricks Bruun into stealing honey (taking advantage of the bear's propensity for its taste) and then, as he sees the justifiably angry Lamfroyt and villagers approaching, leaves the bear to his fate while simultaneously mocking him. Perhaps one might argue that the bear should have been more wary and not so easy to give into his desire for honey but then perhaps the king should have sent someone he knew would not be tricked. Of course, the king may have thought that the bear would not be tricked in which case responsibility falls back onto Reynaert. In order to further his own selfish gain he exploits the bear's weakness. You could also argue that he does not do this out of selfishness if you consider the fox's family which he would likely be torn away from by attending court. At some point though you have to put the personal to one side when considering the good of all. In the animal kingdom that basic animal instinct is excusable but in humans it is not. The mixing of animals and humans here cleverly forces the reader to see through the lies of the tale and find the deeper meaning. Willem knows the difference in power that telling someone directly or allowing them to work it out for themselves has.
The second main instance where humans interact with the animals takes place during the Second Summons when Reynaert yet again fools an animal (this time Tybeert the cat) in order to prevent him having to attend court. This time the fox tricks the cat into stealing mice from the priest's barn where he knows the cat will be caught in a snare and beaten. The priest and his wife, Lady Julocke, previously made a brief appearance during the first summons beating the bear with crucifix and distaff respectively. Here they again attack a deceived animal but in a comic role reversal the priest this time wields the feminine distaff and his wife a church candle. The cat is saved when, fearing imminent death, he summons all his remaining courage and bites off the priest's testicles. This causes the attack on the cat to stop and for Lady Julocke and the priest's son Martinet, who raised the alarm, to attend to the injured priest. The comedic role reversal continues as the priest feints and is then carried by Lady Julocke to his bed. Through the author Willem alluding to the motif of mundus inversus (the world turned upside down) during this segment not only does he create comedy amongst the violence but also further blends the lines between human and animal behaviour. Willem also asks us to question the legitimacy of the priest as a moral guide. At the time of the text's writing priests were required to be chaste yet the author gives us an example here of a priest who is living in sin by virtue of being married with children. Additionally, the choice of Julocke as the name of the priest's wife characterises her as a temptress: ju lokke literally means 'you I tempt'. What can be taken from this second instance of humans appearing in the story is further confirmation that the author believes that they can behave just as badly as animals do.
Ultimately we find from my reading above that there is perhaps a deliberate yet subtle manipulation of the definitions of expected or perceived human and animal behaviour. There are examples of animals behaving in the worst ways that humans are able to through cunning, lies, deceit and humiliation. There are also examples of humans behaving in the worst way that animals do through senseless and extreme forms of violence. While Reynaert is clearly the star villain of the piece we find that almost all of the other characters, animal and human, behave in wicked and beastly ways despite their judging of others to be bad and not themselves. The poem is a masterpiece in the way the author lets the reader experience the same deliberations that lead to bad behaviour as the characters do through the reader's judgement of the characters while reading. Willem cleverly manipulates the reader of his poem to end at a conclusion that all are capable of bad behaviour given the right circumstances including the reader.
Bibliography
1. Bouwman, André, et al. Of Reynaert the Fox: Text and Facing Translation of the Middle Dutch Beast Epic Van Den Vos Reynaerde. Amsterdam University Press, 2009.
Comments
Post a Comment