Analyse the significance of rationality and/or superstition in The Monk
In The Monk (1796), superstition is frequently criticised as a ‘stain upon [one’s] character’,
suggesting that harbouring superstitious thoughts is irrational in Matthew Lewis’ Gothic text.1
Despite this, opinions that superstition is wholly ‘puerile and groundless’ (The Monk, p. 279)
appear ignorant to the Gothic conventions of Lewis’ world wherein unbridled supernatural is rife
within the chapters. As such, characters who adopt a superstitious viewpoint (believing in
supernatural entities like ghosts) are certainly more convincing than those who adopt a
rationalistic (disregarding events that do not have empirical proof) perspective. By allowing
superstition to take precedence over rationality in The Monk, I will argue that Lewis is indulging
in the enjoyment superstition allows for the reader by subverting the early Enlightenment ideas
of rationality, allowing them to appear flawed and ignorant when faced with the Gothic mode.
Lewis foregrounds his preoccupation with superstition early in the narrative by
employing the use of a gypsy to curse Elvira and Antonia, stating that ‘destruction o’er [them]
hovers’ (The Monk, p. 31) thus predicting their demise at the hands of Ambrosio. As expected,
‘the impression [of the gypsy] soon wore off’ (The Monk, p. 31) the minds of the characters
suggesting that their rationality has caused them to ignore the particularly ominous warning. This
is supported later in the novel when Elvira chides Antonia for showing ‘childish prejudice’ (The
Monk, p. 229) when she refuses to leave her bedroom because of an ungrounded suspicion that
something bad will happen to her. This feeling is proved accurate as Elvira, acting upon ‘a
frightening dream’ (The Monk, p. 233), goes to check on her daughter and identifies Ambrosio
attempting to rape her. Though this causes Elvira’s death as she attempts to save Antonia, it is
1
Matthew Lewis, The Monk (London: Oxford UP, 2016), pg. 143. All subsequent references to The Monk are from
this edition, and are given in parenthesis after quotations in the text.
clear that Elvira acting on her dream allowed for an increased likelihood of capturing Ambrosio
and saving her family from sexual assault. Put simply, acting upon what she termed ‘childish
superstition’ is rewarded within the narrative space whereas Antonia’s disregard for the gypsy’s
prediction did nothing to remove her naiveté when communicating to Ambrosio, arguably
leading to her destruction. This suggests that rationality, and thus the mode of thought that
dismisses superstition, is at best useless to the dangers of The Monk or at worst ignorant as it
leads to the characters’ complacency in the face of danger. This is foregrounded in the epigraph
of the text as Lewis uses a quotation from Horace which refers to ‘dreams, miracles, magical
terrors, Witches [and] ghosts in the night’.2 By using a highly superstitious quotation, Lewis
seems to be suggesting that the unbridled supernatural will be rife throughout the novel whilst
adding credence to superstitious thoughts and characters throughout the text. As such, the reader
will likely be persuaded to disregard their rational prejudices towards the supernatural whilst
reading the novel and thus revere the superstitious conventions of dreams and gypsies early in
the narrative, further aided by the pleasure gained by indulging in superstitious warnings and
premonitions.
Indeed, Lewis frequently undermines the characters’ rationalist viewpoints using
evidence found outside of the narrative space. For instance, Ambrosio’s parish believe him to be
a ‘character [who] is perfectly without reproach’ (The Monk, p .17) due to his wilful seclusion in
the Convent and his rousing speeches on religion; both of which are certainly strong evidence for
Ambrosio’s purity. Despite this, the reader is invited to identify Ambrosio’s unconscious failings
due to an epigraph from Measure to Measure wherein Angelo is suggested to be prideful and
2
Horace, Epistles, trans. by A.S. Kline (2005),
http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceEpistlesBKIIEPII.htm [accessed 18/5/16], BK. 2 Ep2: 180216.
flawed despite his reputation for extreme stoicism.3 By drawing parallels outside of the narrative
of The Monk, Lewis is allowing the reader to gain insight into his eponymous protagonist that is
not available to the characters of the text. Though the readers can rationally deduce that
Ambrosio will suffer failings of virtue due to the evidence placed outside of the narrative by
Lewis, characters within The Monk can only grasp this conclusion early in the text with
superstitious aid. This is particularly clear when Lorenzo dreams of a powerful ‘Unknown’ (The
Monk, p. 23) character attempting to capture Antonia who has a ‘swarthy’ complexion, ‘gigantic’
height and ‘fierce and terrifying eyes’ (The Monk, p. 23) who – unnoticed by Lorenzo – seems
physically similar to Ambrosio with his ‘[b]rown skin’, ‘lofty’ stature and ‘large black eyes’
(The Monk, p. 15). Though it is clear that the ‘Unknown’ is intended to be similar to Ambrosio,
the origin of this dream is unclear as Lorenzo only has positive sentiments towards the Monk,
suggesting that his precognition of Ambrosio’s faults comes not from rationality but rather
supernatural means. This is even supported within the narrative space as Lorenzo’s reason for
remaining in the Church is to marvel upon ‘Gothic obscurity’ (The Monk, 21), a term coined by
Edmund Burke who stated that it ‘is one thing to make an idea clear, and another to make it
affecting to the imagination’.4 By referring to Burke’s literary theory within the narrative space
of The Monk, Lewis is both suggesting that his text is governed by Gothic theory and concepts
rather than rational logic, due to Burke’s influence in his writing. Hence, it seems appropriate
that Lewis is utilising superstition to forebode the end of the novel rather than using Lorenzo’s
rationality to come to the same conclusion.
3
4
William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, ed. by Grace Ioppolo (London: Prentice Hall, 1996), I. iii, 50-53.
Edmund Burke, Enquiry into the sublime and beautiful ed. by J. T. Boulton (Routledge: London, 1958), pg. 60.
Though superstition is foregrounded at the beginning of The Monk, it is most prominent
during Raymond’s subplot with the ‘Bleeding Nun’. During this narrative, Raymond embodies a
rationalist viewpoint by calling the nun ‘some invention’ (The Monk, p. 108) and even
capitalising on the ‘influence of superstition and weakness of human reason’ (The Monk, p. 119)
by utilising the folklore to help Agnes escape from Castle Lindenberg. By directly critiquing
superstition as the ‘weakness of human reason’, Raymond is drawing a strong dichotomy
between rationality and superstition, suggesting that rationality is superior to and the polar
opposite of superstition, creating a sense of conflict between the two modes of thinking. Indeed,
it initially appears that Raymond has successfully used his rationality to dupe the castle guards as
he escapes with a character who he assumes to be Agnes, utilising the ‘Bleeding Nun’ folklore to
scare the castle guards to prevent their opposition to her escape. As such, it appears that the
rational mind has conquered the superstitious one in this subplot. Lewis does subvert this
conclusion however as there is actually ‘an animated corpse’ (The Monk, p. 124) in the carriage
with Raymond rather than Agnes; a truly supernatural entity that cannot exist within the rational
framework propagated by Raymond. Rather than authors adhering to logical rules in their works,
Sigmund Freud proposed that the main enjoyment of literature is the joy of escaping ‘the
impoverishment of life’.5 In much the same way, Lewis is juxtaposing a rational, realistic way of
thinking with the unbridled supernatural in The Monk to highlight the terror and enjoyment to be
gained from the Gothic mode. Rather than empirical rationality destroying the mystery of the
‘Bleeding Nun’ in Castle Lindenberg, rational thinking is shown to be wholly ignorant of the
power of the supernatural, especially due to Raymond’s failed manipulation of the potent
folklore. Much like Antonia’s disregard of the gypsy’s warning, Raymond’s obsession with
5
Sigmund Freud, Character and Culture trans. by Phillip Rieff (New York: Macmillan PC, 1963), pg. 123-124.
rationality has forced him to discount the dangers of the supernatural and thus his rational
success is revealed to be a superstitious failure. Though Raymond begins his subplot
championing rational thought over superstition, he certainly ends the subplot understanding the
potency of the supernatural.
This superstitious understanding is further embedded in Raymond’s mind due to the
spectacular amount of supernatural events that plague his subplot, primarily from intertextual
references to further Gothic tales and folklore. When Theodore seeks the help of an exorcist to
free Raymond of his hauntings, he comes into contact with a character who has a great deal of
mysticism around him due to his ‘mad’ nature and the fact that he is ‘supposed to be a foreigner,
but from what country one cannot tell’ (The Monk, p. 129). The focus on the traveller’s race is
particularly revealing as it suggests he is part of the racial ‘Other’ in the Gothic as he
encapsulates what H.L. Malchow defines as ‘the evil of the outsider […] because he is alien to
both communities’ of existence.6 In The Monk, part of the traveller’s intrigue is precisely his
alien nature in the town as two servants discuss the traveller’s unique position at length in front
of Theodore. Rather than detecting an accent or even asking the man of his beginnings, the
patrons soon depart from rationality to discuss his origins as the Germanic ‘Dr. Faustus’ or the
equally fictitious ‘Travelling Mounteback’. Indeed, Lewis does imbue his character with an
intertextual origin story as he reveals himself to be a character from The Wandering Jew tale,
blurring the distinction between fiction and reality within the narrative space of The Monk.
Equally, this also blurs the lines between clear rational understanding based on the external
world and the largely superstitious world of the Gothic. As Raymond’s subplot is largely distinct
from Ambrosio’s and Antonia’s, Lewis seems to be using this narrative to further reinforce how
6
H. L. Malchow, Gothic Images of Race in Nineteenth Century Britain (California: Stanford UP, 1996), pg. 174.
Gothic conventions can affect the narrative space of his text. By using intertextuality in such an
explicit manner, Lewis is normalising Gothic conventions as a whole hence Ambrosio’s
punishment with the devil will not seem absurd. As such, it appears that Lewis is attempting to
make the audience disregard all true rational thought in this subplot and merely enjoy the
supernatural elements that will occur later in the plot.
Lewis’ use of the supernatural does seem to become more potent as the narrative goes on,
with characters only being able to predict future events using superstitious means in the
beginning to the implementation of ghosts and demons at the end. Despite this, the supernatural
is not always horrifying in the latter half of The Monk. Humour ranges from playful lexical
choices when Cunegonda refers to Agnes as ‘Ghost-ship’, mocking the superstitious reverence
used by other characters, to Elvira’s damnation to hell by breaking the petty laws of Good
Friday. This event is particularly excessive as Elvira – a pious and law abiding character – has
‘clouds of fire’ erupt from her mouth whilst her ‘room was filled with the smell of brimstone’ as
she exclaims: ‘Oh! That chicken wing! My poor soul suffers for it!’ (The Monk, p. 250). Though
other supernatural occurrences in the novel are used to incite terror in the characters such as
Raymond’s encounter with the corpse, Ambrosio’s awareness of Matilda’s demonic powers and
Lorenzo’s highly Gothic dream, this event seems too hyperbolic to be used for anything other
than parodying the same Gothic conventions that Lewis has used throughout his text. Though
parody of other texts often mocks the source text’s genre constrains, Richard Poirier argued that
‘self-parody empower[s] an idea with a style’ rather than diminishing it.7 Indeed, empowerment
of the Gothic does seem to be the only valid explanation of this event as the gross hyperbole
appears incongruously comic in relation to other supernatural events that allow for the rape of a
7
Richard Poirier, ‘The Politics of Self-Parody’, Partisan Review, Vol. 35, No. 3 (1968), p.339-353 (p.345)
young girl and the eternal damnation of Ambrosio. By including this, Lewis seems to be
celebrating the excess that the Gothic mode can allow in narratives and, as such, he is
paradoxically emphasising the restrictions of a purely rational narrative. By damning a character
whose petty faults range from ‘childish vanity’ (The Monk, p. 29) to restricting Lorenzo’s visits
to Antonia due to jealousy to die in a particularly cruel way that equals Ambrosio’s destruction,
Lewis is allowing readers that dislike the character of Elvira to enjoy catharsis for her faults and
seek humour in the excesses of her punishments. By being damned in such a way, Elvira proves
that this novel is not concerned with a strict adherence to rationality but rather the enjoyment and
terror that can be gained from the Gothic form.
By creating a strong dichotomy between rationality and superstition throughout the novel,
Lewis encourages the reader to identify a conflict between the two modes of thought. This
conflict pervades the text as a rational perspective is frequently invoked by the characters then
conquered by the Gothic conventions that are rife within The Monk. As such, the novel perfectly
encapsulates the enjoyment to be gained from superstition and an awareness of the supernatural
even if it conflicts within the focus on rationality that was a contemporary issue for Lewis’
England.
Word count: 2,187
Bibliography
Burke, Edmund, Enquiry into the sublime and beautiful ed. by J.T. Boulton (Routledge: London,
1958).
Freud, Sigmund, Character and Culture trans. by Phillip Rieff (New York: MacMillan PC,
1963), pg. 123 -124.
Horace, Epistles, trans. by A.S. Kline (2005),
http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceEpistlesBKIIEPII.htm [accessed
18/5/16]
Lewis, Matthew, The Monk (London: Oxford UP, 2016).
Malchow, H.L., Gothic Images of Race in Nineteenth Century Britain (California: Stanford UP,
1996)
Poirer, Richard, ‘The Politics of Self-Parody’, Partisan Review, Vol. 35, No. 3 (1968), p.339353.
Shakespeare, William, Measure for Measure, ed. by Grace Ioppolo, (London: Prentice Hall,
1996).
I hereby certify that this submission is wholly my own work, and that all quotations from
primary or secondary sources have been acknowledged. I have read the section on Plagiarism in
the School Style Guide / my Stage & Degree Manual and understand that plagiarism and other
unacknowledged debts will be penalised and may lead to failure in the whole examination or
degree.