This unit was really fun to read; the language was very easy to understand and all the stories were very straightfoward. There was no really overarching moral. Saints and Animals was just that, a recounting of famous saints and their legends which involve animals. There was a mutual understanding that the saints were completely good. Because of this simple fact, it made it much easier to believe that they could control animals the way they could. I would love to also include animals in my storytelling, but perhaps not in this way. In each of the four tales discussed in Part A of this reading, the saints commanded the animals. To be fair, they were doing it for the greater good of the people, and the animals were more than willing to do what needed to be done. I think I like more friction and deeper relationships and communication between the animals and humans. Rather than being completely good, I think it is more realistic for people to be inherently good or evil, but not 100% one way or the other. What I also noticed was that the human was often an outcast by either their own actions or others. If they did not puruse a solitary life like a monk, they were ostracized by people who were jealous, or just not as holy as them.
These stories also focused solely on one character and his use as animals almost like a tool. It was clear in the writing style that humans were above animals rather than equals. It wasn't negative in anyway, but the good saints always commanded the animals, who gladly did their bidding. One thing I really liked in The Wonders of Saint Berach was his dismissal of the wolf's sin of eating the calf. He understood that the wolf had no other choice, that it was in his nature to want to hunt and eat, and that the wolf couldn't be blamed for what he was. But with that, actions have consequences, and the wolf had to fulfill them by being a son to the cow. The reader initially feels mad at the wolf and angered over the loss of the calf, but the saint's reasoning makes the reader feel almost silly, as he justifies the wolf's actions and motives.
The Book of Saints and Beasts. Abbie Farwell Brown. 1900. Web Source.
These stories also focused solely on one character and his use as animals almost like a tool. It was clear in the writing style that humans were above animals rather than equals. It wasn't negative in anyway, but the good saints always commanded the animals, who gladly did their bidding. One thing I really liked in The Wonders of Saint Berach was his dismissal of the wolf's sin of eating the calf. He understood that the wolf had no other choice, that it was in his nature to want to hunt and eat, and that the wolf couldn't be blamed for what he was. But with that, actions have consequences, and the wolf had to fulfill them by being a son to the cow. The reader initially feels mad at the wolf and angered over the loss of the calf, but the saint's reasoning makes the reader feel almost silly, as he justifies the wolf's actions and motives.
The Book of Friendly Beasts cover by Fanny Y. Cory; source
The Book of Saints and Beasts. Abbie Farwell Brown. 1900. Web Source.
Comments
Post a Comment