As I finished our collection of
readings for our class discussion, I was reminded of our early discussions of
the Genesis narrative. Throughout Genesis 1-3, the God of the Hebrew Bible
commands Adam and Even to “fill the earth and subdue it,” which includes the authority
over the animals, plants, and entire natural world. This ecological triumphalist
attitude towards the environment has been used as a way for Christians to
justify their dominion over their Earth and their mistreatment of it for
natural resources. This notion is again highlighted in “The Preaching of the Swallow.”
The poem states that God created all “creatures [for] Man’s behalf, / So that
they might his daily life sustain” (8). In addition to the animals, the poet writes
that “Sunset, and dawn, and season come again, / Fitted for mankind’s needs in
every way; / Our wants are satisfied from day to day” (8). This stanza appears
to further elevate humans to the top of God’s created hierarchy.
Although the ecological triumphalist notion is the most prevalent attitude in the medieval literature we have read, it was fascinating to read “Inventing with Animals in the Middle Ages” because it offered a unique perspective: animals might enjoy a more pleasurable life than humans. The author discusses the “lovelorn warrior Palamon” in the Knight’s Tale from the Canterbury Tales and suggests that animals could be “more valuable to the divinities” (40). He proposes this idea because animals are not punished for their sensual desires and “even [animals] who lead miserable lives are [not] punished in the afterworld for their sins” (41). Besides the cliché line “all dogs go to heaven,” I had never considered the afterlife of animals. In the Christian tradition, animals are present in Heaven, but does this include all animals, or are only some souls of animals allowed? What happens to the other beasts of the world? If all animals go to heaven, it would feel like a divine petting zoo, and humans would be the minority group. The author concludes his analysis by stating that “Chaucer was too pious an author to argue that humans would be better off without the judgement of God hovering over their heads” (41). Still, the author has an arguable point: within a faith that focuses so much on sin and views salvation as a way to avoid a fiery damnation, it could be nice to be an animal and secure a guaranteed ticket to Heaven. With this framework in mind, is it genuinely beneficial to be a human, or are animals the creatures that are actually on the top of God’s hierarchy?