The Turn, the Cauldron, and the Scapegoat A Study of the Second Branch of the Mabinogi Through the Mythological Theories of René Girard and J. R. R.

Transcription

1 The Turn, the Cauldron, and the Scapegoat A Study of the Second Branch of the Mabinogi Through the Mythological Theories of René Girard and J. R. R. Tolkien April 30, 2014 Rebecca Fox 1

2 In his book Experiment in Criticism, C. S. Lewis describes his reaction to myth: I shall never escape this. This shall never escape me. These images have struck roots far below the surface of my mind (Lewis, 48-49). Such tales--ancient, strange, and foreign as they often are--have not faded into obscurity, but still capture modern imaginations. However, Lewis suggests that his reaction to experiencing such a story is not shared by all; not everyone is haunted by the shades of minotaurs, salmon grown fat on the fruits of wisdom, or story-telling spiders. The taste for myth is particular, but for those whose minds are overrun with the greenery of archaic fantasies, many questions still remain: Where do these extraordinary tales come from? What might they mean? What is their purpose? What connects the myths of very separate cultures to each other (for connected they most certainly are)? Of the world s many mythological traditions, one of the most haunting and enigmatic is that of the Welsh. This Celtic people has a rich oral and written heritage, filled with poetry, dialogues, and stories. In the Early Middle Ages, the Welsh had a complex bardic order, ranging from lower orders that specialized in only poetry or stories, to the pencerdd, or chief-poet, who was so honored that his place in court was next to the heir-apparent (Charles-Edwards, ). The tales that arise from this tradition are mysterious and obscure. They tell of a bizarre virginity test, a man who must stand on a goat in order to be killed, magic pigs, and kingly shoemakers. Their tone ranges from disturbingly violent to enchantingly cryptic. Their esoteric nature begs interpretation. Of the many scholars who have offered viable theories of myth, this study will focus on two: influential French literary theorist René Girard (b. 1923) and English author J. R. R. Tolkien ( ). The approaches of these two are nearly opposite, despite both men s Christian 2

3 beliefs and expertise in Medieval literature. Out of the many possibilities, Girard and Tolkien have been chosen not only for the prominence of their arguments but because in analyzing their arguments, a difference in religion does not need to be considered. The basic distinction between them can be summed up in their beliefs about the nature of truth in myth: Girard believes that a myth is an ancient story which tells a lie and is meant to explain away a violent crime; on the other hand, Tolkien says that myth is a story which--while maybe not strictly factual--provides reflections of deeper truths and produces specific reactions in its readers. It follows, then, that just as Girard and Tolkien s theories on myth can help a reader interpret enigmatic Welsh myths, so Welsh myth can validate the importance of the two kinds of truth championed by each mythologist. Welsh Myth and the Mabinogion Unfortunately, myth is an ambiguous classification which needs further definition before this study can proceed. Many Celticists are both fascinated and frightened by this word, which Maria Terea Agozzino notes has been out of theoretical favor in the academic community (Agozzino, 359). Thomas Gerald Hunter--professor at Bangor University--is one such Celticist. He raises concerns when medieval Welsh texts are examined as myth because he believes that it s important to remember that the Welsh had been Christian for many centuries by the time [these stories] were written down and that many leaps of faith need to be taken in order to move from that medieval Christian context to any pre-christian worldview (Hunter). This fear arises out of a definition of mythology that places these stories only in the context of the watered-down religious beliefs of a pre-christian society, which has been attempted by some folklorists and neo-pagans. If this is the only definition of myth, Professor Hunter s concerns are 3

4 justified. However, some scholars--such as Joseph Falaky Nagy--hope that Celticists will embrace a more flexible definition of myth (Agozzino, 360). This study s flexible definition of myth is supported by J.K. Bollard, who--while he suggests that the term tradition may better describe the tales in medieval Welsh texts because they refer to real or legendary figures, rather than gods--concludes that there is a broader sense of myth...that is the view of myth as those tales and poems through which a society is able to examine the fundamental elements of its own structure; this he dubs cultural myth (Bollard, 277-8, 300). Of course, even using this definition, Welsh myth remains far too broad a term. Due to the oral nature of early Welsh storytelling, tales written down at different eras are not only the product of ancient Welsh culture, but also of the values and style adopted by the period in which they were written. Since different periods have favored different types of stories and different styles of telling them, Welsh myth can describe a conglomeration of several dream narratives; early Arthurian legends and romances; a large selection of enigmatic eulogeic, prophetic, dialogic, and narrative poetry; the Triads (fragments of myths collected into groups of three); Victorian folk- and fairytales; and the Four Branches of the Mabinogi. Many of these are taken from several Middle Welsh texts dated between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries. In the nineteenth century, interest in these Medieval manuscripts and still-oral folktales was renewed by antiquarians such as William Forbes Skene, Wirt Sikes, P. H. Emerson, William Jenkyn Thomas, William Pughe and Lady Charlotte Guest. Of these, the latter two are the most influential for their collaboration on a collection of translated Welsh Medieval prose, largely from the White Book of Rhydderch and the Red Book of Hergest, called the Mabinogion (Davies, xxxi). This work and its subsequent translations are 4

5 now considered by many--however unfairly--to be a sort of essential canon of Welsh myth. Modern Welsh translator and student of the Mabinogion Will Parker calls Pughe and Guest s original a nineteenth-century editorial creation, consisting of texts that represent a golden age of narrative prose that flourished in Wales over the course of the central middle ages (Parker). Before Guest and Pughe, many of these texts had not been directly linked and should not be considered to be so, since they were from different eras and in different styles. Parker goes on to explain that not only were these texts not related, they also had a history beyond the medieval authors who put them on paper: The Mabinogion texts are concerned with the heroic age or mythological past of the British Isles. They were not original compositions, drawing as they did on pre-existing traditional material, whether from oral or written sources. But these traditions were reworked, often to reflect contemporary concerns. We might read the Mabinogion as both an interpretation of a mythological past and a commentary on the medieval present. (Parker) The Mabinogion s stories are obviously ancient but written down by a medieval Christian (Bollard, 278). Of the tales in this text are four stories, the eponymous Four Branches of the Mabinogi. These tell of members of two legendary, interrelated Celtic dynasties that were supposed to have ruled Britain before the Roman invasion. From these four stories I have chosen the Second Branch, which is called Brânwen Ferch Llŷr, for study due to its enigmatic nature; its villain acts in contradictory ways without evident motive, which makes this tale especially interesting to investigate. Many scholars have attempted to understand this odd story through various means. Some, such as Patrick K. Ford, W. J. Gruffydd, Will Parker, and Proinsais Mac Canna, have analyzed specific motifs in the Second Branch by using what is known of Irish myths, Welsh phonology, and ancient Celtic religion and culture. These attempt to understand the origins of 5

6 the Four Branches through the lens of Celtic culture and context. 1 Others prefer to analyze the Branches by seeing them as part of what Tolkien calls the Tree of Tales or the Cauldron of Story, which includes all of the folklore and mythology of the world (Tolkien, 46, 52). 2 This study falls into the latter category, as it utilizes theories that are meant to apply to the legends of any culture. Tolkien and Girard are among those scholars who desire both to understand human nature--and the nature of storytelling--as well as to interpret specific tales. For them, myth and human nature illuminate each other. The Second Branch of the Mabinogi The Second Branch tells a story of the House of Llŷr, 3 the first of the two dynasties. The current king of Britain is a giant named Brân 4 the Blessed. The relevant (and normal sized) members of Brân s family include his spectacularly beautiful sister Brânwen and his half brothers Nisien and Efnysien 5. The story points out that while Nisien is a peacemaker beloved by all, his twin is a renowned agitator. Briefly, the story covers the events leading up to a war between Ireland and Britain. During the negotiations for a marriage between his half-sister Brânwen and the king of Ireland, Matholwch, 6 Efnysien feels that he has been slighted. He proceeds to greatly insult and dishonor 1 Will Parker seems to more straddle the line I am drawing here. His work is occupied with not identifying not only analogous Irish myths, but Greek and Norse as well. 2 Juliette Wood, J.K. Bollard, and Andrew Welsh are in this camp. 3 Pronounced Ll-eer ( Ll is a sound not found in English. It is pronounced by putting the tip of one s tongue on the roof of one s mouth--as in making the l sound--and breathing out on both sides). The royal house of Dôn descended from the lady Dôn and her husband, Beli Mawr (Beli the Great). They were related to the house of Llŷr through the marriage of Penarddun to Llŷr. Penarddun was a daughter of Dôn and Beli Mawr and mother of Nissyen and Efnysien in her second marriage. It is the twins mother s half-brother who ends the reign of the sons of Llŷr and begins the dynasty of the sons of Dôn. 4 Pronounced Brahn. It means raven. 5 Pronounced Ev-nuh-see-en. 6 Pronounced Math-ohl-ooch ( ch as in the scottish loch ). 6

7 Matholwch by mutilating all of the king s horses. The furious Matholwch must be placated by Brân with many gifts, including a magic cauldron that brings back to life--sans speech--any dead body thrown into it. Matholwch is happy with the magical gift and returns to Ireland with his new bride, where the two eventually have a son, Gwern. Unfortunately, Matholwch s subjects hear of his disgrace in Britain and pressure him to avenge the insult by dishonoring Brânwen. Brânwen, now a slave in her own house, sends a starling, which she has taught to speak, with a message to her brother, who then brings his army to Ireland. Seemingly terrified into submission, Matholwch tries to make peace. He offers the kingship of Ireland to their mutual heir, Gwern, pays homage to Brân, and provides the British with a house so huge that even the giant king can fit in it. This satisfies Brân, and he accepts the terms. However, the Irish intend treachery: they plan to hide warriors in sacks throughout the house to ambush Brân at the right moment. When the British enter the house, Efnysien cast[s] fierce, ruthless glances around and suspects the betrayal. To the Irishmen s dismay, Efnysien murders all of the hidden warriors, which allows the peace-talk to occur as planned. During the negotiations, Brânwen s disgraced son Gwern--who is to be made heir in order to placate his uncle Brân--is brought out. Efnysien takes up the boy and casts him into the fire, to the horror of everyone in the room, declaring: I confess to God...the outrage I shall now commit is one the household will never expect (Davies, 31). War ensues, but the Welsh cannot win the battle because the Irish use the Cauldron of Rebirth to replenish their numbers. Efnysien notices this and is filled with sudden remorse: Oh 7

8 God...woe is me that I am the cause of this mountain of the men of the Island of the Mighty; 7 and shame on me...unless I try to save them from this (Davies, 32). Efnysien then pretends to be dead and is thrown into the cauldron, which he dies destroying. The Welsh defeat the Irish, but only have seven survivors. Brân himself has been wounded by a poisoned spear, 8 and Brânwen dies of a broken heart. Brân orders his men to cut off his head and bury it on the White Hill 9 in Britain to guard the island from invaders. However, Brân tells them: it will take you a long time; you will feast in Harlech for seven years, with the birds of Rhiannon singing to you. And you will find the head to be as good company as it ever was when it was on me. 10 And you will stay for eighty years in Gwales in Penfro. And so long as you do not open the door towards Aber Henfelen, facing Cornwall, you can remain there and the head will not decay. But as soon as you open that door you can stay no longer (Davies, 32). The Assembly of the Noble Head returns to Britain. There, they receive news that Caswallon 11 of the House of Dôn (the second dynasty of the Four Branches) has staged a coup in their absence and has ended the royal line of Llŷr. The Assembly, in anguish, follows the Head s instructions. They are comforted by the glorious singing of the Birds of Rhiannon and feast in joy in an Otherworldly hall with the miraculous Head. After the allotted time, they open the door 7 As Wales is often called in its myths, since the words Wales and Welsh come from the Anglo-Saxon word Wealas, meaning slave. This is set before the Saxon invasion, so also before the derogatory term was invented. 8 The spear was cast at Brân s foot, which may point to him as an early Fisher King figure (Davies, 235). 9 This is the site where William the Conquerer would later build the White Tower, which would become the Tower of London. Legend has it that Arthur dug up the head of Brân due to pride (because he wanted his strength alone to guard Britain), but was invaded by the Saxons as a consequence. 10 The Celts believed that the seat of the emotions was the head, rather than the heart. Therefore, Brân s soul resides in his head. 11 A historical Welsh chieftain who defeated Julius Caesar in 54 BC. Pronounced Cas-OO-AH-llon. He is the son of Beli Mawr by another marriage. 8

9 to Cornwall and every loss they had ever suffered, and every kinsman and companion they had lost, and every ill that had befallen them was as clear as if they had encountered it in that very place; and most of all concerning their lord (Davies, 34). The men then travel to London and bury the Head, which has become silent. Their fates are unknown at the close of the tale, to be continued in the next Branch. Girard s Mimetic Theory In order to understand a Girardian interpretation of the Second Branch, Girard s Mimetic Theory requires examination. The basic concept of the theory is that all human desire is imitative, or copied from a model. In other words, a man unknowingly rates the desirability of an object on its perceived value to others. He wants the object because he feels it is desirable, since others want it too. Since an object can only be possessed by one person, desire therefore must lead to antagonism and violence. All desire is envious and possessive, causing rivalry and conflict. Let us say that there is an object, which a model desires. A subject sees the model s desire and imitates it. Now the two are in rivalry for the object. The rivalry escalates when the two subjects begin to model each other in an ever-intensifying desire. This is called doubling because the two are mirroring each other until all differentiation between them breaks down. The rivalry then escalates until others are drawn into it--for, as Girard puts it, if two persons are fighting over the same object, then this object seems more valuable to bystanders (Girard, Evolution and Conversion, 64). Finally, the object disappears, meaning that the participants in the conflict stop caring about the object itself and are only focused on their antagonism. Eventually, this erupts into a mimetic crisis, where the only effective form of reconciliation-- 9

10 that would stop this crisis, and save the community from total self-destruction--is the convergence of all collective anger and rage towards a random victim, a scapegoat...unanimously adopted as such (Girard, 64). Such a crisis, Girard explains, could also be caused by an objective catastrophic event, such as a plague or natural disaster (Girard, 65). Girard believes that religious rituals, especially earlier primitive ones, are acts of planned, controlled, mediated, periodical, ritualized surrogate violence that repeat the same scapegoat mechanism over and over again on substituted victims (Girard, 71). For Girard, myths are retellings of the original mimetic crisis and scapegoat events, told from the distorted view of the violent mob (Girard, Oedipus Unbound, 109). In order for the self-deception of the mob to take place--because the mob must unanimously accept that a random victim s sacrifice will reconcile the community--the mob s view of the victim will have to be deluded by the scapegoating mechanism. Girard calls this méconaissance, which can be translated as mis-knowing (Girard, Evolution and Conversion, 86). Myth then, is used to justify sacrificial violence and to nurture lifelong resentment by misrepresenting the actual events and agents so that the sacrifice of the scapegoat is no longer the murder of an innocent, but instead the just punishment of the perpetuator of the crisis (Gruenler, 18). As a devout Christian, an important part of Girard s theory is how the Gospel relates to his theory of myth. For Girard...myth is a distortion, a lie that functions precisely to conceal the all-important truth about scapegoating violence that is revealed in the Bible (Gruenler, 2). Therefore, the Gospel is the anti-myth, in which the lies of the scapegoat mechanism are revealed through Christ s own self-sacrifice. The mechanism requires the mob to mis-know the victim and to believe that they are truly guilty and deserve death. However, by declaring 10

11 himself a scapegoat, Girard believes, Jesus breaks the cycle of desire, violence, and lies by forcing people to see him as the perfect innocent that he is. Jesus, then, also presents himself as the only model which man can imitate without sin (Girard, Evolution and Conversion, 63,67,83). This means that the only reason that scapegoats can now be identified is that modern culture has been influenced by the Gospel; we are able to avoid mis-knowledge because of Christ s illumination of the scapegoat effect. Girard and the Second Branch of the Mabinogi When Girard s Mimetic Theory is applied to the Second Branch, it becomes alternately a cautionary tale of the danger of honor, and a lie covering up the persecution of an innocent man. By reading the myth through a Girardian lens, the motivations for the conflict in the story can be put in the terms of mimetic objects. In the story, there are three secondary objects of desire which drive the conflict: Brânwen, the Cauldron of Rebirth, and Ireland. However, these all bow to one primary object: honor. Brânwen is described as the most beautiful woman in the world. This is a common declaration of a woman as a mimetic object; she is said to be the loveliest of all, therefore it can be assumed that she will be desired by all male characters. Brânwen, however, seems to be only an embodiment of the greater mimetic object of honor. 12 Brânwen s treatment by her family, and then her husband, suggest that she is not the primary object. When Efnysien is left out of the decision to give Brânwen to Matholwch, he calls it an insult, which is, naturally, a defamation of his honor (Davies, 24). Efnysien is dishonored by being left out of deciding her fate because it reflects on his station in the family. Later on, when Matholwch discovers Efnysien s 12 Girard describes honor as a false object, meaning it does not actually exist, but is created by mimetic desire (Girard, Evolution and Conversion, 80). 11

12 retaliation, he declares I find it strange, if they wanted to insult me, that they should have first given me such a fine maiden, of such high rank, so beloved by her family (ibid.). Matholwch sees Brânwen s virtues as a mark of her value; by giving such a prized bride, her family is showing the husband honor. These reactions to Brânwen s marriage suggest that neither Matholwch nor Efnysien see Brânwen as a desirable companion for her own sake, but instead as a instrument in the game of manly honor. This is also made clear later on, when Matholwch s subjects do not see Brânwen herself as compensation for their king s (and, therefore, their) dishonor and require that she be dishonored in Brân s place. She is only a pawn in the greater field of male personal and national ego, as both a symbol of honor and, later, humiliation. Like Brânwen, The Cauldron of Rebirth, while obviously an important magical artifact, is also not an end to itself, but only a means. In the Second Branch, Brân tells the story of how he gained the cauldron. It had originally belonged to a family of Irish warrior giants, who claimed to give birth to a full-grown soldier every six weeks (in actuality, they simply used the cauldron to bring back their dead sons). The family gave Brân the cauldron after they escaped Matholwch s attempt to kill them in Ireland. While Matholwch is very pleased with such a longdesired and powerful gift, the gift itself is not what excites him. The cauldron is a highly valuable tool in war, but it is traded as a representation of trust, deference, and respect. To give such a dangerous weapon shows that Brân has faith in the alliance between them and means Matholwch no harm. Such a famous and sought-after gift also shows Brân s respect for the Irish King and his desire to placate Matholwch s wrath. By doing this, Brân is admitting his own fear to face Ireland in battle (thus showing his adversary honor) and demonstrating his value of Matholwch s friendship. The Cauldron of Rebirth also plays a symbolic role. As long as it is in 12

13 use, the war between the Irish and the Welsh is eternal, and it is the destruction of the cauldron which enables the scapegoating and averts the crisis. This, coupled with the cauldron s brutal history, allow it to act as an embodiment of the violent crisis which can only be diverted by the destruction of an individual. The desire to own Ireland is also secondary. It is his sister s (and, therefore, his) debasement that causes Brân to invade, not a hunger for land. While he mentions that he does desire to rule Ireland, Brân is satisfied with his men destroying it (Davies, 30). While this makes Ireland useless as a domain, such destruction does leave it utterly dishonored. Perhaps this explains Efnysien s bizarre murder of his nephew: instead of being content with having a half- Welsh king on the throne of Ireland, Efnysien still wants to disgrace the Irish. Perhaps he kills Gwern in order to get rid of the possibility of achieving the secondary object (the ownership of Ireland) so that he can achieve the primary (the regaining of his own honor through revenge). His self-sacrifice would also, then, be completely in character. Instead of it being due to a change of heart, Efnysien might have allowed himself to be killed in order to gain personal honor. Looking at honor as the primary object of desire in the Second Branch still does not fully explain the war between the Welsh and Irish. As we saw at the beginning of the story, war is not the only way that honor could be regained; originally, Brân sought to placate Matholwch and return his honor through great gifts. However, this did not satisfy the Irish people--who wanted to injure the Welsh, not simply regain their king s honor. Efnysien, and eventually Brân, seem also to have desired destruction of their rivals over simply regaining their honor. This follows 13

14 the mimetic mechanism, where the object disappears and the rivals focus only on their conflict and destroying each other. Girard s theory offers a second layer of interpretation of this odd tale. Through this lens, Efnysien, rather than Brân or Brânwen, becomes the key focus of the story. The reports of his mutilation of the Irish horses and murder of his nephew can be understood in Girardian terms, but--perhaps more importantly--he also fulfills Girard s description of a hidden scapegoat. If the Second Branch is categorized as a myth, Efnysien transforms from an honor-obsessed villain (or perhaps anti-hero) into a misrepresented, innocent scapegoat victim. Girard states that in stories persecution exists, but we do not recognize it...because we do not know how to decipher the documents we do possess (Girard, The Scapegoat, 25). Girard suggests that myth should be read as historical documents are: when the stereotypes of persecution are present, it is assumed that persecution may have taken place. Girard gives the example of the story of Oedipus. When his story is told without any supernatural elements, he becomes an obvious scapegoat. Girard retells the story as if it were in a more modern age: Harvests are bad, the cows give birth to dead calves; no one is on good terms with anyone else. It is as if a spell had been cast on the village. Clearly, it is the cripple who is the cause. He arrived one fine morning, no one knows from where, and made himself at home. He even took the liberty of marrying the most obvious heiress in the village and had two children by her...the stranger is suspected of having killed his wife s former husband...who disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was rather too quickly replaced by the newcomer...they took their pitchforks and forced the disturbing character out. (Girard, The Scapegoat, 29) When read in this way, it brings to mind the scapegoating that took place during the witch trials, World War II, and the Black Plague in Medieval Europe. In these situations, difficult circumstances were blamed on social outcasts, and the crowd fully believed in their guilt. Girard goes on to explain how to decipher the texts if it is assumed that they were written by 14

15 persecutors: the only elements of it that should be believed are those that correspond (1) to the real circumstances of the texts coming into being, (2) to the characteristic traits of its usual victims, and (3) to the results that normally follow collective violence (Girard, 27). This means that everything in a myth should be stripped away until a reader is left with the crisis itself, the qualities of the victim that made him or her a viable scapegoat, and the social reconciliation that took place as a result of the mimetic mechanism. Girard is saying that these are the only things which can be regarded as historically factual, while everything else was imagined by the persecutors or their descendants. If Efnysien, his circumstances, and the people around him are reinterpreted with an awareness that the Second Branch may have been told to blame a crisis on an innocent man, Efnysien s role as the villain is replaced by his role as the victim. Girard lays out three stereotypes of persecution which can help a reader identify a scapegoating event. The first is undifferentiation in society, just as undifferentiation between rivals is the first stage of the mimetic mechanism. The result of this is that social rules and order break down as a crisis pulls the entire community into chaos (Girard, 13-14). There is, indeed, a lack of order in the Second Branch: there is unrest in the community due to the threat of war. There is also a decomposition of social rules, since Efnysien fails to honor guests and royalty by disgracing Matholwch, and later kills a member of his own family. The presence of these crimes also fit the second stereotype: the persecutors always convince themselves that a small number of people, or even a single individual, despite his relative weakness, is extremely harmful to the whole of society (Girard, 15). This person is responsible for the crisis because he or she has committed crimes which attack the very foundation of cultural order, the family and the hierarchical differences without which there 15

16 would be no social order (ibid.). These infractions are contagious crimes which attack the community directly, by striking at its heart or head (ibid.). These describe both of Efnysien s great crimes: the dishonor of Matholwch, which is a violation of the social hierarchy--an attack on its head--and the murder of Gwern, which is a violation of familial bonds--the heart. The third stereotype is also found in the Second Branch: the choice of a victim by the crowd that is of a class easily persecuted due to cultural, religious, physical, or social abnormalities (Girard, 17-19). Efnysien, from the very beginning, is described by his contrast to his brother. His reported surliness could either be an easily persecutable characteristic or could have been attributed to him by his persecutors as justification. His status as a powerful member of the royal house also makes him an easy target. Girard asserts that crowds commonly turn on those who originally held exceptional power over them and that any extreme characteristics ultimately attract collective destruction (Girard, 19). In his list of extremes, he includes wealth and the ability to displease, both of which describe Efnysien (ibid.). Girard uses these ideas to support his claim that the presence of these stereotypes convince us that: (1) the acts of violence are real; (2) the crisis is real; (3) the victims are chosen not for the crimes they are accused of but for the victim s signs that they bear, for everything that suggests their guilty relationship with the crisis; and (4) the import of the operation is to lay the responsibility for the crisis on the victims and to exert an influence on it by destroying these victims or at least by banishing them from the community they pollute. (Girard, 24) Girard is adding to his earlier assertion that the crisis, the victim s characteristics, and the scapegoating event are all factual by proposing that the purpose of myth is to lay the blame for the crisis event on the shoulders of the scapegoat and to explain why they had to be killed or removed from the community. 16

17 A Girardian reading of the Second Branch strips away the magical elements of the tale to reveal a violent history, where the signs of scapegoating are laid bare. To demonstrate this, I will retell Brânwen Ferch Llŷr just as Girard retold Oedipus Rex: The Irish and Welsh have been thrown into a horrifyingly bloody war. This catastrophe is the king s half-brother s fault. He s a proud man who always had a reputation for being antagonistic. It was his terrible crimes-- including the murder of his own nephew, who, if he had lived, could have brought peace--that have caused this war. To make matters even worse, while the king was in Ireland fighting the war his brother started, there s been a coup in Britain, which has thrown everything into chaos. Proof that Efnisien and his crimes caused all of the trouble is that his death resolved the conflict. When the Second Branch is told in this way, it sounds more like a story that today would be interpreted as an episode of scapegoating. If Efnysien is seen in this light, it greatly changes the meaning and purpose of the tale. Girard s theory is able to explain the seemingly inherent violence of the Second Branch, which is otherwise enigmatic and seemingly random. It also is able to redeem Efnysien, who otherwise seems to be the worst kind of villain: one who acts without motive, only out of inexplicable spite. Many scholars who study the Mabinogion are puzzled by Efnysien s odd behavior. His identity, most would probably say, is key to understanding the tale as a whole. This study is certainly not the first to ask Was Efnysien a jealous psychopath or just wronged and misunderstood? but identifying him as a Girardian scapegoat certainly vindicates Efnysien s actions in a way that no other theory has (Jefferson, 5). Tolkien s Fairy-Story Theory For Tolkien, a myth is a type of fairy-story (though, perhaps, a higher one), along with many folk-tales, fantasy novels, and fairy-tales (Tolkien, 49). Just as with Girard s theory, 17

18 Tolkien believes that desire is at the heart of these stories. However, while Girard asserts that there is only one kind of desire, Tolkien writes of two different kinds in his essay On Fairy- Stories. He believes that these two desires are the sources and motivations for the supernatural objects and events that characterize legends and fairy-tales. The first kind is like that which Girard describes: envious, possessive, and violent. In fairy-stories--and, therefore, myth as well--when this kind of desire is given supernatural enablement, it is called Magic. Tolkien describes it as a greed for self-centred power which seeks to produce, or pretend to produce, an alteration in the Primary World (Tolkien, The Tolkien Reader, 73). The second type of desire in myth is a more intense form of art: a yearning to hold communion with other living things made corporeal through sub-creation (Tolkien, 41). 13 Sub-creation refers to the desire of man (or, in the context of fairy-stories, other sentient beings) to imitate their creator by making their own worlds. To Tolkien, this is the origin of both art and the fantasy genre of literature. This Tolkien calls Enchantment (Tolkien, 73). He also asserts that at the heart of such positive desire is the hunger to survey the depths of space and time and the thirst for the realization, independent of the conceiving mind, of imagined wonder (Tolkien, 42). This is what subcreation through Enchantment allows for: the ability to explore beyond one s Primary World, to envision those things that occurred too long ago, too far away, or only in the mind of another human being. Tolkien believes that fairy-stories, like language, developed through a mix of independent evolution (or rather, invention) of the similar, inheritance from a common ancestry, 13 The term sub-creation was coined by Tolkien in On Fairy-Stories. Since sub-creation is imitative, it can also be understood in Girardian terms. In Evolution and Conversation, Girard asserts that mimicry is the most superficial and harmless (Girard, 78) type of mimesis which mimics God s creative acts. This is not possessive, as long as the sub-creation comes out of a desire to imitate, not to own. Girard also suggests that God is the only perfect model--as other humans are sinful, and therefore bad models--and imitating Him protects us because we cannot be in rivalry with God (Girard, 63) 18

19 and diffusion at various times from one or more centres (Tolkien, 47). Primarily, though, fairystories are an invention of language, of mixing adjectives with nouns to create objects and places not in the real world (Tolkien uses the example of the phrase the green sun ) (Tolkien, 48-49, 70). Next, the sub-creator invents a Secondary (or imaginary) World in which such a thing might logically exist, therefore creating Secondary Belief (where a reader can accept a nonexistent object as logical within the context of the Secondary World) (Tolkien, 70). In this way, since the teller of the tale is combining nouns and redistributing adjectives, he is rearranging the creation that is around him. Tolkien suggests that we make...because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker (Tolkien, 74-75). While this creation of an imaginary world may seem to make myth a lie (albeit, of a different kind than Girard s suggestion) Tolkien argues it is not, due its ability to induce what he calls Recovery, Escape, and Consolation (Tolkien, 75). Recovery is the regaining of a clear view, where someone can appreciate the Primary World with awe and wonder due to having spent time in the Secondary World. In other words, when the Primary World seems drab and ordinary, experiencing the foreignness of a Secondary World can remind a person of the curious and fantastic things in the real one (Tolkien, 77). Escape, the second concept, should not be confused with desertion, where one attempts to abandon the Primary World in favor of the Secondary, but is instead the removal of the insignificant and transient in favor of the contemplation of the more permanent and fundamental (Tolkien, 8) Tolkien offers the example of abandoning the electric street lamp to consider the majesty of lightening (Ibid.). Finally, Consolation takes the form of a eucatastrophe, 14 or happy ending. Tolkien also calls this 14 Meaning good catastrophe 19

20 the joyous turn, since he does not believe that true fairy-stories really have an ending (Tolkien, 86). Tolkien explains that it is a sudden and miraculous grace...it does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure...it denies...universal final defeat...giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief (Tolkien, 86). The eucatastrophe is the reversal of evil, the breaking of the spell. It is when Cinderella is freed from her servitude, when the Frog Prince s humanity is restored, and when Voldemort is defeated by his own curse. Tolkien s theory of Consolation is inseparable from his Christian faith. He believed that Christianity is the ultimate fairy-story. The joy produced by the turn of the Gospel is not just a glimpse of the perfect truth, but in fact is perfect truth. For him, the eucatastrophe of the Christ s death and resurrection is ultimate, with good finally triumphing over evil and denying it forever. It is a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories (Tolkien, 47). In the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, the desire for sub-creation is raised to the fulfillment of Creation and the perfect joy of eucatastrophe is finally complete (ibid.). The joy of the Christian story is of the same nature as that of the fairy-story, only of a greater degree, because the nature of that joy is in its very taste of primary truth (Tolkien, 105). For Tolkien, God is the Lord, of angels, and of men and of elves and in His story, Legend and History have met and fused (ibid.). Christianity is, then, both the source of myth and myth vindicated by truth. Instead of Girard s anti-myth, Tolkien sees Christianity as the myth proven true, from which all of the glimpses of truth in myth, including Welsh myth, draw. Tolkien and the Second Branch of the Mabinogi 20

21 While the violence and age of the Second Branch allows it to be understood as a Girardian myth, it also fits Tolkien s criteria for a fairy-story. Tolkien insists that fairy-stories need not be about tiny fey creatures, but instead must be about Faërie, both translated as magic and as the location--the Perilous Realm, or Otherworld (Tolkien, 39). The Second Branch most certainly does not include any fairies (although there are some in later Welsh folk-tales), but it does have both of Tolkien s senses of Faërie, as power and place. Therefore, it is legitimate to study the Second Branch under the lens of Tolkien s theories. While the interpretation of certain elements remains the same as they did under Girard, Tolkien s theories add a second, and more hopeful, layer of understanding to the tale. I am not suggesting that Girard s scapegoat theory applies to Tolkien s interpretation. However, due to the theme of possessive (evil) desire contrasting with communal desire (a desire to share in joy) found in Tolkien s work, I believe that Tolkien s opinions support my Girardian analysis of mimetic possessive desire as the cause of the conflict in the Second Branch. However, Tolkien would not agree with Girard that all desire is possessive and imitative, which can be seen in his differentiation between Magic and Enchantment. In On Fairy-Stories, Tolkien discusses several elements of fairy-stories that are found in the Second Branch. Tolkien writes that in myth, man s desire for communion can often take the form of animals that speak to humans (Tolkien, 43). This explains Brânwen s talking starling: instead of just being a convenient and unexplained plot device, the bird s ability to speak becomes the embodiment of a deep human desire, which is especially fitting for Brânwen in her loneliness. Tolkien also writes that a common trope found in fairy-stories is that the life or strength of a man or creature may reside in some other place or thing; or in some part of the body 21

22 that can be detached and hidden in a bag, or under a stone, or in an egg (Tolkien, 44). This, along with the Welsh belief that the seat of the emotions is the head, explains why Brân s unattached head goes on living after it has left his body. Supernatural power is present in the tale of Brânwen in both of its forms. Magic--the supernaturally powered possessive, envious desire to change and control--can be seen in the Cauldron of Rebirth. Cauldrons are common mimetic objects in Welsh myth--often fought over because of their powerful magic--and this one is no different. It is a tool for domination and war, used to make a supernatural change in the Primary World: bringing back the dead. However, more importantly, Enchantment--the supernaturally powered desire for community, sub-creation, and exploration--is much more abundant in the Second Branch, which Tolkien insists is necessary for a fairy-story. As previously mentioned, Brânwen s talking starling is an example of man s desire for communion. Therefore, supernaturally fulfilling this desire is a form of Enchantment. Brân s great height also suggests Enchantment more than it does Magic because it allows for Brân to literally be a bridge for his people. 15 The Head and the journey it sends the Assembly on, though, are definitely the most obvious examples of Enchantment in Brânwen ferch Llŷr. The Head brings his mourning men ease for their sorrow and even communal joy through the Birds of Rhiannon and the feasting hall in Annwn. 16 The Head brings them into a tangible sub-creation, where time passes without note and joy reigns. Even after the Enchantment of the hall fades and the Head goes silent, it still protects its people from danger, guarding the isle from invasion. 15 When Brân arrives in Ireland with his army, Matholwch flees across a huge river, fearing his retribution. Brân, though, is not deterred; he uses his own enormous body as a bridge for his men. The text notes that he who is a leader, let him be a bridge is a common Welsh proverb, supposedly coined in this tale (Davies, 30). 16 Pronounced An-oon, this is the Welsh name for the land of Faërie, which the English called Avalon, or the Otherworld. 22

23 The Enchantment of the Noble Head and its Assembly are also the eucatastrophe of the story. Tolkien calls the Consolation the joyous turn, rather than a happy ending because he does not believe stories really ever have an ending, which the Second Branch illustrates (Tolkien, 86). As previously stated, the Four Branches of the Mabinogi are not separate stories, but instead a single great story, which has several episodes that bleed in and out of each other. The Second Branch ends with the Assembly of the Noble Head returning to the Primary World from the Secondary World feasting hall. The Third Branch then tells the story of how Manawydan-- Brân s brother and one of the members of the Assembly--and his friends find places for themselves in the new regime of the House of Dôn. Therefore, to call the Otherworldly feast a joyous turn is very accurate: it is indeed a sudden and miraculous grace which does not deny the existence of the sorrow and failure of Brân s death and the carnage of war, but instead denies...universal final defeat...giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy (ibid.). The feast is a communal comfort for the displaced warriors who are returning to a newly hostile land. It is a Joy beyond the walls of the world, and is as poignant as [the] grief that these men bear for their fallen lord and lost home (ibid.). It is an image reminiscent of Last Supper of Christ and his disciples. In both cases, the loyal followers of a great king are sharing a feast in community with their lord before he must be separated from them. Underlying the joy of both situations is the knowledge of future grief. Through Tolkien s lens, the Second Branch is a story of two countries who suffered great loss because of their love for honor, but it is also a story of community and consolation for weary warriors who have lost their leader. A Tolkienian interpretation brings out in a reader the mystery and longing that Lewis described. The images that he highlights are strange, fearful, 23

24 and wonderful: the sad and sweet voices of the heavenly Birds of Rhiannon echoing over the sea, bringing with them peace and serenity; the sumptuous Feast of the Head, where a Faërie hall is full of a joy which covers grief; and the Cauldron of Rebirth, roiling madly with the blood of fallen warriors, who rise up out of its depths to fight again. It is these kinds of images that put down roots in the mind that later may grow into great, beautiful trees of inescapable mystery that forever inspire. Fact and Truth Girard and Tolkien s theories bring out radically different interpretations of the Second Branch. Girard s views are able to give an explanation for the incomprehensible violence of this myth. They also reveal Efnyssien s possible innocence and offer redemption and understanding to this baffling villain. However, Tolkien s views highlight the community of Enchantment, the eucatastrophic nature of Bran s death, and the enigmatic beauty of the myth. Each has the opposite weakness. If Girard s theory is wholly embraced, the solemn joy of the story, as well as its supernatural aspects, is left without explanation. As Bollard says, asking questions of the origin of a myth means that we run the risk of damaging its vital organs as we dissect it, with the result that when we put it back together again, it is no longer a living work of art (Bollard, 281). However, Tolkien fails to offer a suitable interpretation for Efnysien s bizarre crimes and, in fact, does not give any explanation for the violence of the story whatsoever. Efnysien is left as a mercurial murderer, and the role of his actions and the war itself are relegated to that of the dyscatastrophe. In this role, violence s only purpose is to act as the antithesis of the eucatastrophe, even as it facilitates it. 24

25 The Secondary Branch of the Mabinogi conversely lends credence to both theories. The story s fulfillment of the scapegoat stereotypes supports Girard s belief that myths need to be scrutinized, that one must sift through the lies and half-truths in order to discover the original facts. Contrarily, the story also justifies Tolkien s conviction that fairy-stories offer hints and reflections of greater Truth, and therefore questions of factuality are irrelevant, or even detrimental, to understanding myth. The essentiality of each perspective in order to fully appreciate and understand myth can, perhaps, apply to more than just esoteric legends. It is necessary to be critical of what we read and see, to read between the lines, as it were, to search for the facts hidden between layers of human self-deceit. However, this can, in its extremity, lead to cynicism, bitterness, and mistrust. The innocent hope that comes with finding the reflections of Truth in the ordinary, regardless of fact, must join with skeptical analysis, if we are to both understand and appreciate life, as well as myth. The turn can be found, even as the scapegoat is vindicated. 25

26 Works Cited Agozzino, Maria Teresa. "Review: Myth in Celtic Literature. CSANA Yearbook 6." Folklore (2008): JSTOR. Web. 30 Apr Bollard, J. K. "The Role of Myth and Tradition in The Four Branches of the Mabinogi." The Mabinogi: A Book of Essays. Ed. C. W. Sullivan III. New York: Garland Pub., Print. Charles-Edwards, T. M. Wales and the Britons Oxford: Oxford University Press, Print. Davies, Sioned. The Mabinogion. Oxford: Oxford UP, Print. Girard, René. Evolution and Conversion: Dialogues on the Origins of Culture. Ed. Pierpaolo Antonello and Cezar De Castro Rocha João. London: T & T Clark, Print. Girard, René. Oedipus Unbound. Ed. Mark R Anspach. Stanford: SUP Print. Girard, René. The Scapegoat. Trans. Yvonne Freccero. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Print. Gruenler, Curtis. "C. S. Lewis and René Girard on Desire, Conversion, and Myth: The Case of Till We Have Faces." Christianity and Literature 60.2 (Winter 2011): Print. Hunter, Thomas Gerald. "A Fellow American in Love with Wales." to Rebecca Fox. 24 March Jefferson, Carla. Textual Analysis of a Passage from Branch Two of the Mabinogi. Academia. N.p., June Web. 30 April Lewis, C. S. An Experiment in Criticism. Cambridge: At the University Press, Print. Parker, Will. "Introduction." Mabinogion. N.p., Aug Web. 01 Oct Parker, Will. "The Four Branches of the Mabinogi." Mabinogion. N.p., Aug Web. 01 Oct Tolkien, J. R. R. The Tolkien Reader. New York: Ballantine Books, Print. 26