Werewolves of Easter

I have this paper I’m working on. I thought some people might be interested in the general issue. Here’s the abstract of the thing:

Abstract: This paper will explore the werewolf legends of Quebec, focusing on nineteenth century folkloric accounts of encounters with wolf-men in the wilderness and villages of the rural areas of our province. In particular, this paper will focus on the interpretation of the curse of lycanthropy as a punishment for religious apathy and skepticism. Following a brief description of the historical and religious context of the folkloric record, this paper will discuss the innovative use of the figure of werewolf in Catholic Quebec, and highlight the social benefits of transforming secret transgression into visible stigma. Among the issues involved in this discussion: the representation of native peoples in werewolf tales, the beauty and danger of Quebec’s ‘wilderness’, the tension between urban and rural populations, and the confluence of French and Native folkloric elements.

Now usually, I wouldn’t really bother with something goofy like werewolves, but there are a few elements in these stories that are kind of interesting to me.

The Revelation of Secret Sin

One of the problems the Church has had over the years, in terms of social control, is that sin is usually an invisible transgression: not believing the right things, not being obedient enough, etc… a series of omitted action and transgressive thought or speech… all pretty tough to police.

Historically, the best way to police such things is to get witnesses to accuse the transgressor, or to have people incriminate themselves through confession. All so that they can do penance and return to the fold, of course.

Back in the day, Catholics used to sow little symbols on peoples clothes for the duration of their penance so that everyone could see what they had done. This was particularly effective in larger communities, so that sinners could be easily picked out from the general populace (in a small town there was usually no need, everyone usually knew about the whole situation, including all the participants).

Before this period, trials by ordeal worked on the same principle; that invisible sin could be revealed through ordeals of fire or water, that God and the Devil will reveal guilt or innocence. In a kind of mini-revelation, supernatural occurrence trumps empirical or circumstantial evidence.

Check out some of these Confession stories from the Medieval Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tales-confession.html):

“A certain soldier dwelt in a certain village with whose wife the priest of the same village committed adultery. The soldier was told that the priest was carrying on an intrigue with his wife. He, since he was a prudent man and did not readily believe the story, wished to say nothing about it to his wife or the priest, but to learn the truth more fully. But he was not without some suspicion. There happened to be in another village, not far distant from the one in which the soldier lived, a possessed person, in whom there was such a wicked demon that in the presence of bystanders she revealed sins which were not cloaked by a true confession. When the soldier learned this from common report he asked the priest, whom he suspected, to go to a certain meeting with him. And the priest promised.”

Religion and Lycanthropy

In the werewolf stories, individuals who ignore their religious obligations, usually observing the Easter fasting period and confession, leave themselves open to becoming a servant of the devil and transforming, every night, into a werewolf.

Here’s an excerpt (in awful idiomatic French) from one of these stories:

“Ah ! sainte bénite ! j’me rappelle tout d’un coup qu’on délivre les loups-garous en les grafignant, en leur faisant sortir une goutte de sang, et j’y d’mande ben vite :
– T’es-tu loup-garou ?
I’répétait :
– Tu m’as trop fait mal, tu m’as tué… oui, j’sus loup-garou…
C’est tout c’que j’ai entendu parce que je revins à moué inque le sourlendemain, ou plutôt le lendemain, puisque c’ravau-là s’était passé l’mercredi des Cendres.
Depuis sept ans que c’pendard de Tourteau faisait pas ses pâques, i’avait viré en loup-garou à la première heure du huitième carême qui i’allait encore commencer comme un chien. C’est l’matin du jeudi qu’j’ai été trouvé à la porte du chanquier par Tanascon qui s’vante encore d’m’avoir sauvé la vie, parce que c’jour-là i’ m’a volé mon chevreux pis mon ours…”
- Un histoire de Loup Garou: http://grandquebec.com/legendes-du-quebec/loup-garou/

There are a number of other interesting elements in these stories, just for example:

Chasse-Galerie: from the Devil and the Werewolves:

“Alphonse threw himself flat on the ground and saw a huge canoe flying over him. The canoe landed on the ground in the clearing next to Dubroise house and the Devil jumped out with a whip in his hand.
At the sight of the Devil, Alphonse gasped and rolled under some shrubs at the edge of the field. From his hiding place, he heard the Devil shout: "Come out of the canoe!" and snapped the whip at the occupants. Twenty creatures with the shaggy coats of wolves but the upright walk of men leapt from the canoe. Alphonse recognized them immediately. They were werewolves (called loup garou); men who had neglected their religious duties for so long that they had fallen under the spell of the Devil.”
http://www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/quebec3.html

This whole Devil’s canoe thing is important, read about it here:

“This particular story can be traced back to a French legend about a rich nobleman named Gallery who loved to hunt. He loved it so much that he refused to attend Sunday mass. As punishment for this sin he was condemned to forever fly through the night skies, chased by galloping horses and howling wolves, in a fashion reminiscent of the Wild Hunt.
When French settlers arrived in Canada, they swapped stories with the natives and the tale of Gallery was combined with an Indian legend about a flying canoe.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasse-galerie

Notice the link to failure to fulfill religious obligation.
There is a whole other post in the role of the Native people in these werewolf stories. But I think this is enough for today.

Religious Studies and Bias

One of the trickiest parts of studying religion at the university level is the struggle to maintain clear boundaries between your religious beliefs and your growing and changing understanding of religion. The effort must be made to understand the biases that, for most people, go largely unexamined. In order to understand the beliefs of others, in order to attempt to bridge worldviews, historical periods, differences in language and culture, each student of religion must be prepared to turn themselves into objects of study, always remembering that some portion of the mind goes unexamined.

Students will often talk about ‘being objective’ or ‘having an open mind’, but it is fairly common to see beginners and veterans alike struggling with their assumptions and stumbling over their blind spots.

People’s approach to the study of religion usually reflects their personal interests: the topics they focus on, the information they see as significant, the relevance they find in particular ritual or philosophical elements of particular religions. Their bias warps their reception of other people’s beliefs. At the same time, this bias is the basis of their desire to study religion. The passion and commitment required depend on the student’s understanding of what is valuable and interesting about religion.

The real difference, I think, between doing confessional research into your own religion (Sunday school, seminary, etc…) and the study of religion from a social scientific perspective lies in the constant challenge to acquire an understanding of beliefs that you do not hold. You may use psychological theory, a critical historical method, perform ethnographic research, but in the end you are attempting to communicate with some distant individual, or community, and learn about their beliefs. This dialogue requires self-knowledge.

Ninian Smart called his approach to religious studies ‘methodological agnosticism’. This stance describes the scholar who, ignorant of the actual truth of any religious claims, approaches every such claim with respectful suspicion.

This is an accurate description of the appropriate approach to the academic study of religions, I think. The student, whatever her level of study, needs to recognize the level of uncertainty in the information she possesses, not just about religion but about the ‘truth of things’. This recognition of our lack of knowledge about the ‘truth of things’ is what creates the possibility of taking other people’s beliefs and practices seriously.

Although we cannot remove our biases, and ignoring them is not safe, we should attempt to grow in our awareness of the impact of our biases on our program of study. We should attempt to take seriously Socrates’ observation: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

This is not a thing you learn once. There is no safety from personal bias at any point in religious studies.