Abstract
Monsters in the medieval period have constantly terrorized humanity, proving themselves to be the opposite of the hero. However, this opposition holds interesting implications that monstrosity is then in fact a commentary on the social status of both the hero and the community surrounding them, which can be analyzed through literary analysis with a monster theory lens. Sea monsters in particular connotate an extreme difference from the typical social sphere in both their sociophysical status and their environmental placement. Before the sea monster is revealed to the hero, it is shrouded in mystery, hidden by the waters it resides in. This creates a strong fear of the unknown, but also arouses human curiosity – we are drawn to explore, but also to conquer. After the sea monster is revealed, it is portrayed as aggressive and dangerous, which promotes a higher level of fear, spreading across the community and sending a warning that they should be avoided. This social-based fear even created moralistic interpretations of these creatures, labeling them as bad omens or causes of chaos. Yet for the hero, there lies a higher social status to be achieved by not only achieving the great feat of killing the monster, but gaining the valuable resources to offer. This creates the need for human domination – yet sea monsters inhibit a place where humanity loses control and civilization cannot exist. The battle then becomes civilization as the hero and the wild as the monster, implying that to not conform to “civilized” social standards is to be monstrous. These ideas can be studied in pieces of medieval literature such as “The Whale.” This piece is a short description written anonymously in the 10th century in Old English, which depicts the creature as monstrous, and even “a figure of the devil,” showing a society intent on spreading fear throughout the people in order to warn them of a death in hell and the terror it brings.
*Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.
Monsters in the medieval period have constantly terrorized humanity, proving themselves to be the opposition to the hero. However, this opposition holds interesting implications that monstrosity is then in fact a commentary on the social status of both the hero and the community surrounding them. Sea monsters in particular connotate an extreme difference from the typical social sphere in both their sociophysical status and their environmental placement. Before the sea monster is revealed to the hero, it is shrouded in mystery, hidden by the waters it resides in. This creates a strong fear of the unknown, but also arouses human curiosity – we are drawn to explore, but also to conquer. After the sea monster is revealed, it is portrayed as aggressive and dangerous, which promotes a higher level of fear, spreading across the community and sending a warning that they should be avoided. This social-based fear even created moralistic interpretations of these creatures, labeling them as bad omens or causes of chaos. Yet for the hero, there lies a higher social status to be achieved by not only achieving the great feat of killing the monster, but gaining the valuable resources to offer. This creates the need for human domination – yet sea monsters inhibit a place where humanity loses control and civilization cannot exist. The opposition between monster and hero thus becomes a contradiction between the natural world and humanity, implying that to not conform to civilized social standards is to be monstrous and unnatural. These ideas are largely perpetuated by the time period’s rapid culture shift towards Christian authority, which consequentially uses the literature of that time to also create a perspective shift that advocates for the natural behavior of the world to reflect civilized, heavenly behaviour in texts such as “On the Whale, that is, the Aspidoceleon,” written anonymously in the medieval Physiologus to describe nature’s beasts. Through the comparison of the wilderness as unnatural and humanity as natural, the author of Physiologus portrays the whale as a direct representation of the devil due to the monstrous nature it assumes from its environment, which perpetuates the submission to Christian authority in order to control the social behaviors of civilization.
This shift in social perception is demonstrated in Chet VanDuzer’s cartographic work in his book, Sea Monsters on Medieval and Renaissance Maps, which largely analyzes the visual representations of sea monsters to claim that the creators of these illustrations largely determine how these creatures are perceived. In his analysis of Francesco Beccari’s large cartographic commission, VanDuzer claims that “It seems likely that when an artist was paid to paint a large number of sea monsters on a map, he would do so without seeking information in works of natural history about where a particular sea monster had been seen. That is, payment for a large number of sea monsters changed their nature, tending to separate them from their geographical or historical sources, and thus reducing their geographical significance on the resulting map” (VanDuzer 50). This supports the argument that cartographers often took creative freedom that originated mostly from additionally requested and compensated commission details. In fact, it is important to note that most medieval maps did not feature sea monsters at all because they were an optional decoration – if you didn’t pay for them, you didn’t get them in your drawings. Because of the elective nature of a visual aspect, cartographers then often chose supporting sources for their illustration from incredibly eclectic sources (if they don’t just use their own creative liberty), which resulted in little to no connection between different maps and the sea monsters they displayed and multiple contradictions between different cartographers mapping the same area. In this way, VanDuzer claims that cartographers, through their illustrations, ultimately determine the social visualization, and therefore the public perception, of a space.
The strength of an individual’s influence over social opinion is largely rooted in the strength of the empiricism and individualism centralized within a community – or rather, over a community by those who hold authority – which is exemplified in Sarah Harlan-Haughey’s article, “Uncanny Cetology in the Sagas and Later West-Scandinavian Balladry,” where creatures such as whales are treated like little more than roadkill. Whale beaching in particular demonstrated the value in the material resource the sea monster offered once no longer a threat, since the scarcity of the material often caused feuds among humanity. Whales still held a large importance even as a carcass, what the author calls a “powerful residual meaning-holder.” This means that even in death, with no threat to humans, the existence of a sea creature is still monstrous to civilization because it tears at the social fabric that thrives off of material possessions. Regardless of its living status, the whale therefore still has the power to negatively affect the relationships between social groupings because “These whale-beachings serve as a window into the worst of the human soul—and a channel for the chaotic forces of chance and nature. Even when battle does not break out, characters are compelled to steal—beachings draw them away from ethical behavior and towards a more “primal” way of life, of killing or stealing” (Harlan-Haughey 76). In this way, the whale assumes the monstrosity of humanity’s choice and becomes the portrayal of behavior that a dominant Christian ideology actively argues against within much of medieval literature. Like VanDuzer states in a later chapter of his work, the whale becomes a monster that, “at least to some extent can be controlled by humans” (50), but whose resources then draw the conflict out of humanity as they fight for the individuality that is perpetuated by the dominating social influence.
The value held in the material possessions of the sea monster, combined with the terrifying and threatening behaviors it emulates when interacting with humanity, categorizes the whale as monstrous and destructive against humanity. However, in Sophia Hendrikx’ brief analysis of this nature, “Monsters, Sea Monks, and Mermaids: Strange Creatures from the Sea from Antiquity to the Modern Age,” she clarifies that “accurate depictions and descriptions were scarce and the line between whale and monster remained difficult to draw [until] The Swedish chronicler Olaus Magnus published depictions of monstrous whales based on folklore on his 1539 map of Scandinavia Carta mørina et descriptio septentrionalium terrarium and in his 1555 chronic of Scandinavia Historia de gentibus septentrionalíbus, which became instantly popular” (34). Olaus Magnus and other writers like him then become the source of this monstrous perception of sea creatures as they exemplify the uncanny resemblance that the aquatic world carries to the terrestrial one. The whale thus transforms into the representation of a mirror to the space where humanity resides, yet a place that humanity cannot go, creating the idea that this unnatural connection to the civilized world is in fact another threatening behavior. Lindsay Starkey further analyzes Magnus’ conceptions of sea monsters, presenting his claims that the water presents the ultimate space for monstrosity because of the unknown and the perceived chaos that comes with it, which eventually creates an additional sense of wonder that threatens to draw in the unsuspecting. The effectiveness of the monster is due to the spectacle caused by chaos, the wondrous events that “astonish the spectator so that he stands for the moment stone-still, but at the same time they demand explanation, and with this explanation his emotion subsides and order prevails’” (Starkey 36). The need to know drives humankind, demanding that the wild share its secrets in order to civilize it; so, by highlighting the link between water, sea monsters, and wonder, a juxtaposition between the potential for monstrosity and utilization in a sea monster demands the social response to also then be a contradicting connection between fear and further investigation, which then results in the emotion behind a choice to subside and for order to control societal structure instead.
Wonder is reinforced as a socially self-destructive effort in the article “‘God created, according to their kinds, the sea monsters and every living creature that moves in the waters.”: The Centrality of the Monstrous in Medieval Maritime Imagination,” written by Paulo Lopes. He claims that sea monsters mirror the seas' mystery and thus exposes human fear by centralizing the monster and consequentially communicating information from beyond the boundaries of what is known, and what is known to be true – “A Monster does not follow the customary laws of being; it is something complex and hard to define. It is outside the norm because it is extreme, and this nature of disproportion and immoderation originates precisely from the place it inhabits and where it proliferates” (Lopes 115). The water is automatically a place from beyond these boundaries since it is immense, unstable, and unknown, which then automatically creates the perception that it houses monstrosity and is thus monstrous itself. This fear response is largely attributed to Olaus Magnus and Pliny, who wrote a “nefarious and disquieting” view of water, portraying the animal life there as chaotic rather than orderly, emphasizing the wild and untameable nature of the water and the monstrosity that this wilderness somehow implies. A monster is largely different because it is extreme, and this extremity originates from where the monster inhabits, so since there are sea monsters and they look too much like what is considered normal but represents different values, the sea inherently shares these values and therefore shares its monstrosity. However, Lopes also importantly points out later in this article that in an increasingly Christian social atmosphere, it is crucial to analyze this monstrosity with a Christian lens. He therefore highlights a core value that must be true under Christian ideals: a monster is, like all living things, a manifestation of God, and therefore cannot be a mistake. They must be real, and must mean something, even if just to serve as an example of what is socially “wrong.” Sea monsters can then easily become the justification for religious concepts, or at the very least as examples of how to correctly respond to fear and the unknown. Overall, the monster becomes the physical manifestation of the physical, social, and religious fears of the individual and therefore perpetuates the power hierarchies of Christian ideology as a solution and comfort to these threats, which can be further studied within Physiologus’ descriptions of the whale.
Written anonymously during the 10th century, originally in Old English, Physiologus became a prominent piece of literature in the medieval era that described natural elements of the world and assigned them either a positive or negative connotation. These meanings were largely determined based on the Christian values that idealized orthodoxy by inducing fear around certain behaviors that were deemed deviant and therefore monstrous. The excerpt titled “On the Whale, that is, the Aspidoceleon,” portrays what modern-age society commonly known as a familiar aquatic mammal instead as a monster capable of great demonic power. By illustrating a common sea creature as a devilish villain, the author shows a society intent on spreading fear throughout the common population in order to control them with a warning of a death in hell and the terror it brings. This reinforces the social standard that Christian ideals “should be” the core of an individual’s personal morals and community function. These standards are largely communicated through the rhetorical choices made by the author to further their own social goal of universalization, namely through metaphoric and illustrative language that displays the Christian narrative.
Take for example the monstrosity that is portrayed by the environment of the whale that causes the natural to become unnatural. A simile is used in the opening description of the whale to compare it to a space of refuge within this unnatural environment, depicting the creature as “exceedingly large like an island” (Anonymous 45). This device overdramatizes the size of the whale, emphasizing the difference between humanity and the vast land they keep trying to conquer, which then invokes a sense of fear into sailors who recognize the potential for negative outcomes of encounters with a creature bigger than their ship. The use of the term “exceedingly” connotates an extreme difference between the whale and mankind – if something is “exceedingly large,” it is larger than necessary, and thus unnaturally large. Because the whale is unnaturally large, it is then associated with a sense of uncanny monstrosity, where the creature does not meet humanity’s perceived requirements for being humane and instead becomes the figure of the space that needs to be conquered and civilized by the dominant Christian culture. Since these social standards are not met, the monster then perpetuates the monstrous and unnatural behaviors that are not wanted in a civilized culture and represents these qualities of the wild environment in which they reside. By comparing the whale to an island, a typically safe place of refuge, the simile functions as the connection to the human experience while also depicting the unnatural and threatening behaviors that terrorize humanity. These unnatural behaviors are exemplified when the whale “urinates” right before diving under the waves and taking the sailors on its back with it (Anonymous 46). Since civilization was formed, this urination is not only socially unacceptable, but a disgrace to the bodies of the humans interacting with the whale. It is odd behavior compared to the civilized manners of human society – an unnatural reaction to the natural. This exemplifies an overall lack of understanding towards what motivates the whale to choose this reaction, representing the strength of the imposed dominant ideology and the consequential disregard it has for those who do not comply. In other words, the whale is persecuted in the text for being an animal rather than a human, creating a direct contradiction between the two and demonizing the animal’s wild behavior while condoning humanity’s idea of social civilization.
A wild animal is reduced to simply an unownable object, meant to be conquered but never able to stay under human control, thus reflecting the nature of the space it inhabits and perpetuating the idea of monstrosity coming from separation between the self and the dominant Christian perspective. This illustrates using the wild aspects of life to induce fear and therefore the hegemonic reinforcement of societal standards that control social behavior with the threat of what will happen to their souls if they don’t. By inducing this fear, the author is able to continue building the monstrosity of both the sea and its creatures with metaphoric language in their description of the whale, calling it “heavier than sand” in order to reflect the mysterious and therefore unnatural qualities of both the whale and the sea (Anonymous 45). This comparison structurally serves as a connection back to the island simile(especially since islands are usually largely made of sand), but also gives no specificity to the amount of sand, providing an ambiguous paradox that creates its own mystery. A single grain of sand is barely able to be seen or felt, but hundreds of pounds of sand would bury you alive. Dry sand is loose and shifty, but wet sand is thick and heavy, and would seal you in place like cement. Without any type of quantitative or qualitative term to signify the comparison to sand, the reader must instead return to the size comparison of the whale and an island. With only the creature’s size to guide the reader’s analysis, the author forces the assumption that there must be enough sand in this metaphor to cover an entire island at the minimum, which implies that the whale also has the same physical qualities of sand. Not only could the weight of such a creature easily bury and crush a human, much like getting buried alive, but it has the same invasive, drifting, and uncontrollable movements that sand does. What man cannot control becomes threatening and dangerous and thus again adopts unnatural monstrosity – because the whale and the environment it comes from do not fit into the mainstream idea of what is civilized and therefore considered normal, they must be monstrous in order for those in control to continue their dominance of power over those without any.
Additionally, any safety from the harsh conditions of the sea that is offered by the whale’s size comparison to an island is rapidly taken away by both the unstable qualities of the sand and the illustrative and metaphoric language later in the poem, when sailors anchor their ships and light fires on the whale’s back; “but, when he feels the heat, he urinates and plunges into the depths, sinking all the ships” (Anonymous, 45-46). Fire, alongside being depicted as a symbol of life, is often referred to as “man’s red flower” (or something similar) in narrative language, which indicates an association with humanity and the way they choose to interact with the wilderness around them. Water is already the natural enemy of fire, but the addition of the whale creates a sense of choice that the sea monster actively makes against humanity and therefore causes any fire to go out. By choosing to illustrate the heat of fire as the triggering moment for the whale’s dive underwater, the author perpetuates the creature as a contradiction to humanity and the necessary tools for their survival, and therefore a monster directly attacking civilization. In this way, the natural environment that the whale is compared to and thus associated with becomes unnatural, and the wilderness becomes a dangerous space that threatens the existence of civilized humanity. The creature that represents that space then takes on the monstrous nature now associated with that space, meaning that the whale therefore must become the monster to be feared and avoided in order to communicate the monstrosity that occurs from humans conquering and mistreating the uncivilized space that they find. The poem also carefully uses the phrase “plunging into the depths,” which often refers to the sinking of ships in narrative language. This illustrates the idea of the waves the whale creates swallowing the ships as humans are pulled down with the creature, which directly reflects the monstrosity of the environment in the actions of the creature that inhabits that space. Thus the safety of the island is suddenly stolen from humanity and the island becomes an uncanny representation of what refuge looks like, but not how it is supposed to function, supporting the claim that whales, as a representation of their unnatural environment, display uncanny and monstrous behavior that contradicts the function of the natural environment found in civilized humanity.
However, there is also a distinct religious connotation found in the use of the word “depths,” often associated with the “depths of hell,” to describe the whale’s descent into the sea. Humanity often feels safe on land, where they can conquer and build have the power to create their own authority, but the ocean is still a prevalent modern-day fear, indicating that the unnatural mystery and behaviors reflected in the whale during the middle ages were both strongly convictional and foundational to the social ideologies of an individual. It makes sense that these convictions come from a Christian domination over the function of human interaction, especially when the whale is depicted as practically swimming to hell. The depths that the whale can reach are unnatural to the humans who were not designed to live in that environment, and thus are portrayed with the same uncanny monstrosity that is present in their environment while also depicting demonic power. Only a creature of demonic power would be able to drag sailors and their ships down to the depths of the water, which then becomes the depths of hell. By including the direct correlation of the whale as a child of Satan rather than of God with its physical description, the author creates the whale as a “figure of the devil” (Anonymous 45). This indicates the furtherization of the power hierarchy perpetuated by Christian values, where the believers are superior to the non-believers, by connecting the whale to the common socioreligious fear of going to hell. This association with the devil establishes a clear separation between a wild animal being wild and a wild animal actively choosing to cause chaos and destruction over humanity, placing whales in the latter and therefore creating a fervent religious fear surrounding the implications for humanity based on the creature’s social engagement with civilization.
The societal fear that already exists is cast onto the monster in order to make them more monstrous and become the outside force that unifies and standardizes the community it interacts with (although this unification is usually a mutual hatred for the monster). In this way, Christian ideology takes over societal perspective and creates the guidelines of what is correct or incorrect behavior by using the fear from the perceived monstrosity of the whale to coerce conformity over the general population. The representation of the whale as a demonic figure is further emphasized by the author’s use of metaphoric narrative, stating that “When he grows hungry he opens his mouth very wide and many a good fragrance comes out of his mouth” (Anonymous 46). There is an interesting distinction of the whale’s mouth opening “very wide,” which indicates more than the usual width and therefore an unnaturally large space for fish to fall prey to. In this sense, the trap for the fish grows to an uncanny size and becomes the representation of the monster eating the fish and therefore the people that the fish are serving as metaphors for. With the lens of the whale as a satanic perpetuation, the trap of the creatures mouth then becomes the pull of worldly behavior rather than the pure heavenly behavior of Christian ideals, and the fish swimming into the trap become the weak of humanity who succumb to these worldly desires and behave in an heathenish manner. In this way, the whale serves as a metaphor for the temptation that Satan offers humanity and thus assumes the social-based monstrosity that comes from the wicked sins of the devil in addition to the physical-based monstrosity that reflects the uncontrollable monstrosity of the sea. This emphasis on demonic temptation is reflected in the uncanny “good fragrance” that comes from the whale’s mouth. This specific fragrance coming out of an aquatic mammal (known to have incredibly strong and often unpleasant smells) is already an unnatural occurrence, and therefore reinforces the uncanny monstrosity of the whale. However, this sweet smell is depicted as the bait for the fish that swim into the trap, meaning it serves as a metaphorical representation of the physical yet non-visible manifestation of the temptations that turn pure and good behaviour corrupt and sinful. The lack of tangibility mirrors the type of temptation that is faced in social engagement, meaning that by comparing these non-visible efforts to bait, the author develops a narrative where remaining strong and convicted in Christian faith ultimately saves the human soul from the actions of the devil and protects them from the fragrances that tempt them.
By using these metaphors to connect to distinct references of the Christian narrative, the author tells the audience exactly how they should act in order to avoid these temptations and the hellish consequences that come with them by stating that “We do not find the larger and perfect fish approaching the whale, for the perfect ones have achieved the highest degree…Job is a most perfect fish as are Moses and the other prophets” (Anonymous 46). This line makes a direct correlation between humanity and fish, claiming that social behavior should be “larger” and more “perfect” in order to avoid the consequences of wrong behavior. In other words, following Christian values makes humanity bigger and better than the efforts of the devil – if a fish is large enough, then it cannot get sucked into the mouth of a whale and can more easily swim away unscathed. Although the exact meaning of these terms are unclear, the author signals that the way to become a large and perfect fish is to "achieve the highest degree.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “degree” (figurative) as: “A step or stage in a process, etc., esp. one in an ascending or descending scale.” The author’s insistence that social perfection develops from the highest “step or stage” therefore perpetuates the need to keep climbing the social ladder, essentially to outclimb the monstrous behaviors that threaten to drag down humanity. In this way, humanity must keep moving, progressing, and civilizing the spaces they encounter, for if they stop they risk becoming a smaller and less perfect fish and thus are more tempted into the behaviors of a heathen. This is emphasized again when the author provides examples of what these “perfect fish” look like with prophets from the Bible. Job and Moses in particular are noted for their stories of obedience and perseverance through times of disaster. Job loses everything, from his land to his sons to his health, but remains faithful to God and does not question his will. Moses is faced with the impossible task of building a boat to save his family and enough animals to start over before the great flood comes and wipes out the rest of the world, but remains faithful to God and does not question his will. Both of these characters then represent the type of obedience that will raise someone’s “degree” and thus the sheep-like following that Christian society demands through the metaphorical portrayal of monstrous consequences. This continues the large societal emphasis placed on conformed obedience by inducing fear around the uncontrollable, unpredictable, demonic, and monstrous behaviors of the whale and therefore of uncivilized heathens.
The satanic and the holy are more clearly distinguished and intrinsically written into the author’s message through the addition of references to specific bible verses. Not only does this make a clear connection between the poem and a systematically Christian society, but it provides direct contextual support to the author’s push for good and “perfect” ideals rather than any unnatural and therefore wrong behaviors. These citations then add a large level of social credibility to the text as the reader is then assured that the message is well researched and reflective of what was considered important social values. The first verse referenced, “[II Cor. 2:11]” (Anonymous 46), claims that we must forgive instead of hold onto hate, “so that Satan will not outsmart us. For we are familiar with his evil schemes” (1553). This distinguishes the uncanny monstrosity previously identified in the whale as a similar “evil scheme,” which supports the idea that the whale is then a “figure of the devil” that induces fear to control the behavior and social engagement of the general population. In the metaphor comparing fish to humanity and the whale to demonic temptation, the author supports the biblical reference by telling the fish to turn away from the whale’s mouth, meaning to turn away from those who tempt you with evil. This idea is then exemplified in the very end of the poem with the references to “[Gen. 39],” which describes Joseph after he is sold into slavery and his refusal towards the sexual advances of his owner’s wife, and “[Dan. 3],” which depicts three Christian men saved by God from religious persecution for refusing to bow to other cultures’ gods (Anonymous 64). Both of these stories villainize an unfaithful and disobedient character that is then placed into a natural opposition of the prophetic heroes, calling them “the whale” as a device for creating an automatic reader association with devilish and heathenish behavior (Anonymous 64). This forwards the power imbalance between Christian authority and the masses as it creates a commonly understood meaning of who people are and how they should be treated based on the ideals of the dominant social group rather than the actual opinions and voices of the people.
However, both of these stories also hold large themes of compliance and faithfulness, supporting the previous mention of obedient prophets and the social perpetuation of their behaviors. Through the use of character dialogue, the Bible illustrates what this faithful, socially acceptable behavior looks like. For example, in Genesis, when Joseph refuses the woman for the first time, he says, “[My master] has held back nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How could I do such a thing? It would be a great sin against God” (53). This signifies not only a respect placed in the authority over him, but an acknowledgement and willing submission to that authority because it is what God intended. Furthermore, the contradiction of this intention is treated as a personal affront against God himself, creating a sense of necessary obedience – God would surely punish a slave who went against their master in such a manner, especially since respect to authority is so crucial to the core beliefs of Christianity. Obedience thus becomes necessary to the function of a civilized society when dictated by Chrisitan influence, which is exemplified again in Daniel, where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego boldly proclaim to King Nebuchadnezzar that, “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God whom we serve is able to save us. He will rescue us from your power, your majesty” (1191). While this line can be read to reflect confidence in the power of God, it better represents the encouragement of blind faith . Even when faced with death, the three men remained obedient to the command of God and blindly held the hope that they would be saved. God saves them; but if he hadn’t, then they would have died for their faith, showing an unparalleled level of determination and conviction for holy behavior that reinforces the notion of “larger” and “perfect” social etiquette rather than the monstrous tendencies of the water or the creatures it hides. However, it is also important to note that there is still a submission to the multiple levels of authority that perpetuates the intrinsic power hierarchy that allows Christian authority to remain in control of social power. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are actively breaking the law and rebelling right in the King’s face, but they still recognize the power he holds and refer to him as “your majesty,” his proper title. Additionally, much like in the story of Joseph, there is still a higher power and authority found in God above all else. This lack of resistance when it comes to creating meaning and taking power is essential to the spread of Christian influence, which explains why there is a need for polarizing literature that creates a harsh binary between what is heavenly and therefore right, and what is monstrous and therefore wrong. Physiologus’ “On the Whale” overall functions as this polarization, categorizing the “unnatural” as monstrous and therefore demonic, and the “civilized” as Christian and therefore inherently good.
Works Cited
Anonymous. “On the Whale, that is, the Aspidoceleon.” Physiologus, pp. 45-46.
Harlan-Haughey, Sarah. “Uncanny Cetology in the Sagas and Later West-Scandinavian Balladry.” Ballads of the North, Medieval to Modern: Essays Inspired by Larry Syndergaard, edited by Sandra Ballif Straubhaar and Richard Firth Green, Western Michigan University, Medieval Institute, 2019, pp. 73–90.
Hendrikx, Sophia. “Monsters, Sea Monks, and Mermaids: Strange Creatures from the Sea from Antiquity to the Modern Age.” Fish and Fiction: Aquatic Animals Between Science and Imagination, 2018, pp. 30-46.
Lopes, Paulo Catarino. "‘God created, according to their kinds, the sea monsters and every living creature that moves in the waters.”: The Centrality of the Monstrous in Medieval Maritime Imagination." Lusitania Sacra, vol. 40, 2019, pp. 111-138.
Starkey, Lindsay J. “Why Sea Monsters Surround the Northern Lands: Olaus Magnus’s Conception of Water.” Preternature: Critical and Historical Studies on the Preternatural, vol. 6, no. 1, 2017, pp. 31–62.
The Holy Bible. The New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois, 2015.
The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University, www.oed.com/?tl=true. Accessed May 8, 2026.
Van Duzer, Chet. “How to Buy a Sea Monster.” Sea Monsters on Medieval and Renaissance Maps. British Library, 2013.
Van Duzer, Chet. “Whaling Between Myth and Reality.” Sea Monsters on Medieval and Renaissance Maps. British Library, 2013.
Add comment
Comments