We Are What We Eat and We Eat What We Are – Cannibalism in John Mirk’s Festial; a Transgression against God vs. a Mystical Union with Christ

Joanna Witkowska - PhD Medieval Studies

Image One: A Jewish Woman Devouring Her Child during the Siege of Jerusalem, c. 1413-1415, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, MS. 63, fol. 241. (http://www.getty.edu)

There are three narratives in John Mirk’s Festial that can contribute to a discussion about cannibalism – one is about a cannibal mother, another presents a miracle of a bleeding host, and the third one is a story of a Jewish boy receiving the Eucharist from the Virgin Mary.

Unlike most of the other didactic stories of the Festial, the aim of the narrative involving the cannibal mother (Powell 2009, pp. 107-108, ll. 82-92; pp. 125-126, ll. 110-124) is ambiguous, as the narrative in question does not follow a simple 'sin-punishment' order. Hunger and cannibalism are the outcome, already a punishment for the shameful act of rejecting and killing Christ. This can be seen as a warning against committing similar mistakes, or enacting a similar rejection, which can apply to any nation or society. In the end, it may all be about the context, which for the Festial was the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453), the fairly fresh memory of the Black Death (c. 1348-1350), the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, and the vigorous activity of the Lollards, who questioned some dogmas of the church, including the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Cannibalism is universally considered to be a marker of ‘otherness’, which is reflected in the narrative – a Jewish woman committing an inhuman act is a representative of the nation she belongs to, as opposed to Christian society, where such an act would be unthinkable (Heng 1998, p. 110). However, despite Christianity’s condemnation of cannibalism, it is also a feature of Christian society. For example, some Christian knights participating in the First Crusade were allegedly quite barbaric: cannibalism reported at the siege of Ma’arra, among other locations, presents Christian inhumanity towards Saracen opponents (p. 103).

Which is then more barbaric – a Jewish mother eating her child, or a Christian Crusader eating bodies of his fallen enemies? It may be argued that the woman in the sermon is, in a way, more barbaric, because she kills her child specifically for the purpose of eating it. On the other hand, though the crusaders eat the bodies of their enemies to prevent their own starvation, hunger is not the reason for the killing. Objectively, both actions are equally barbaric, but not to the Medieval Christian audience. The inhumanity of eating a child clashes with the idea of eating those who are considered God’s enemies (Ambrisco 1999, p. 507).

In the Festial, Mirk’s narrative is not focused on the actions of the woman, but on God’s vengeance. It may be going too far to say that Mirk's anti-Lollard writing had anything to do with this story. However, Lollardy, and heresy in general, was considered a rejection of Christ, an attack on His Church, and a betrayal of the one true faith. If the fall of Jerusalem is an example of divine punishment – torment reserved for those who actively oppose Christ – then reform according to Lollard beliefs would qualify for a similar type of retribution.

Image Two: Bleeding Host of Dijon, Hours of Mary of Burgundy, c, 1470s. Vienna, National Library MS. 1857, folio 2v

Eucharistic cannibalism in Mirk’s Festial is best presented in a narrative about a baker, Lasyna, who does not believe in Transubstantiation because she bakes the host wafers and is certain that there is nothing extraordinary about them (Powell 2009, pp. 158-159, ll. 163-180). Gregory the Great and the whole community pray for a miracle and the Eucharist wafer turns into a piece of bleeding flesh, which is presented as proof of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Here, cannibalism seems acceptable and no one is disturbed by it – it is God’s miracle. Clearly, even if one believes in the real presence of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist, there is a significant difference between consuming raw human flesh and consuming it in the form of bread (Himmelman 1997, p. 187). However, Geraldine Heng argues that the underlying cannibalism of the Eucharist could have contributed to the reoccurring emergence of dissent groups denying the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament (Heng 1998, p.109).

Image Three: Desecration of the host, British Library MS. Harley 7026. Detail of a marginal painting of two men desecrating the host, in the lower margin of the folio. (http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/welcome.htm)

A story connected both to miracles of a bleeding host and to a narrative of a cannibal woman is a story about a Jewish boy receiving Eucharist from the Virgin Mary (Powell 2011, pp. 205-206, ll. 201-220). As Miri Rubin argues in her book Gentile Tales, the story was common and would usually be connected to stories of host desecration, blood drinking, and the kidnapping of Christian children by Jewish people (Rubin 1999, p. 122). These accusation stories seem to intensify, starting with episodes of stealing and desecrating host wafers, which were believed to be Christ’s flesh, and evolving into these kidnappings. The Jewish boy in the narrative receives Communion and his father tries to kill him for it. In the context of sacred cannibalism that takes place here, the boy becomes spiritually one with Christ – he is figuratively Christ – and the father’s attempt to kill his son metaphorically represents the situation of Christ’s Crucifixion. The father is a representative of the nation blamed for killing Jesus, just like the cannibal mother.

In conclusion, whether literal or figurative, cannibalism seems to cause unease. The disturbing nature of literal cannibalism is unquestionable, whether it is a mother killing her child to satiate hunger, or a hungry crusader knight desperately eating his enemies. It is therefore a perfect medium to convey otherness, either as a sign of the barbarity of the enemy, or as a statement of one’s own national identity. The figurative cannibalism involved in consuming the Eucharist is no less disturbing, especially if it resulted in dissent over the real presence of Christ’s flesh in the Sacrament. However, its cannibalistic nature is hidden and it is a more acceptable notion. After all, literal cannibalism often qualifies as divine punishment, in absolute contrast to the Eucharist, which is a blessing in disguise and a bodily and spiritual cure.

Works Cited

Ambrisco, Alan S. “Cannibalism and Cultural Encounters in Richard Coeur de Lion.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. Duke University Press. Fall 1999, 29:3, pp. 499-528.

Heng, Geraldine. “Cannibalism, the First Crusade, and the Genesis of Medieval Romance. " Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies. 10.1, 1998, pp. 98-174.

Himmelman, Kenneth P. “The Medicinal Body: An Analysis of Medicinal Cannibalism in Europe, 1300-1700.” Dialectical Anthropology. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, 22: pp. 183-203.

Powell, Susan, ed. A Critical Edition of John Mirk's ‘Festial’, edited from British Library MS Cotton Claudius A.II: Volume 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

---. A Critical Edition of John Mirk's ‘Festial’, edited from British Library MS Cotton Claudius A.II: Volume 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Rubenstein, Jay. “Cannibals and Crusaders.” French Historical Studies. Duke University Press. 22 Sep 2008, pp. 525-552.

Rubin, Miri. Gentile Tales: the Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews. London: Yale University Press, 1999.