Sacrifice By Peggy Mccracken: Article Summary

This paper will review the article, ‘Engendering Sacrifice: Blood, Lineage, and Infanticide in Old French Literature’ by Peggy McCracken, an associate professor of French and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan. The review will firstly summarize the article. Secondly, it will give more insight into the author’s main points. Thirdly, it will evaluate the evidence, investigating the nature of the sources used and how it is relevant to students studying medieval history. Overall the article was well-organized, clear, and had efficient sources.

The purpose of the article was to come to a explanation for the difference between maternal murder and paternal sacrifice in narrative logic. The article uses classical literature and Christian

tradition as examples to show the narrative logic that describes a father’s blood being shared with his child, gives him the right to sacrifice his child.

The article emphasizes that the narratives suggest that the sacrificing of his child is a paternal right because of the blood of lineage and that a father’s sacrifice is religious, a divine act, for it is God’s will and God’s gift to a father. McCracken uses a biblical example and a medieval legend in order to show that fathers do murder their children. However, a father’s murder is seen as a sacrifice due to religious reasons, paternal right and patriarchal order. In the article, the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac is discussed in order to show that Abraham, the father, is willing to sacrifice his son in the service of some divine purpose. Supporting the point that a father’s murder can be seen as a sacrifice if it is God’s will or sanctioned by God. The willingness of the father to murder his son and the son’s willingness to allow his father to sacrifice him is the most important aspect of the story that justifies paternal sacrifice. A father’s sacrifice being seen as a sacrifice instead of a murder because of shared blood, lineage and

patriarchial authority. However, a mother’s sacrifice is only a murder in narrative logic. McCracken uses Philomena and the story of Medea to further emphasize that a mother’s sacrifice is not divine and is only done to seek revenge. Both women sacrifice their children out of revenge against the father which makes their sacrifice a murder because of the ill-intent, unnatural, criminal, and a sin because it is an act that is inspired by the devil. The feminine blood of child birth being considered polluted and gives the mother no right to sacrifice her child.
The dominant purpose of this article seems to be to convince the reader that narrative logic describes a father’s blood relationship with his child as a father’s right to sacrifice his own blood and explains mother’s infanticide only as a sinful, polluting act.

She uses the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac as an example of paternal sacrifice. The story is about God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on a mountain to show his obedience. This paternal sacrifice being one that is for some higher purpose or higher good because it is sanctioned by God. However, she talks more about the willingness of the father to sacrifice his son and the son’s willingness to be sacrificed. Father is willing, perhaps because Isaac is his son and he can take his life or sustain it. She states that a possible reason for why Abraham decides not to tell Sarah, his wife, about their son being sacrificed is that he is the primary parent which allows him the right to kill his son. After the story of Abraham and Isaac, she begins to talk about the legend of Amicus and Amelius, which is about two men who form a strong friendship and both serve the emperor, Charlemagne. She explains Amicus becomes sick with leprosy after he committed perjury by pretending to be Amelius in a battle which he won and saved his friend from death. Amicus had a vision that informed him that he could only be cured if he bathed in the blood of Amiles’s children. He told Amile of his vision and Amiles made the

decision to kill his children in order to cure Amis which miraculously worked and restored the life of his children. She articulates that the Ami’s sacrifice is equivalent to Amile’s sacrifice due to the fact that Amile owns his children due to engendering. That paternal right through engendering allows Amile the right to kill his children because they are his children by blood. She takes into consideration that perhaps the bathing in blood is a symbol of redefinition of the lineage of uniting through the blood of the children.
She makes it clear that not all paternal murders are sacrifices, but it seems that narrative logic makes all maternal murders to be murder and not sacrifices. Therefore, mothers are only seen as murders when it comes to sacrificing their children. Not only their blood leaves them at a disadvantage, but their intent behind their sacrifice. McCracken uses the story of Philomena and She states that only when a mother consents or approves of the murder of her child is she indirectly participating in the sacrifice instead of an infanticide. She provides support by saying that Barbara Newman’s study of medieval narratives states that a mother has agreed to the sacrifice before and that it is not unheard of. The submission being accepted as a sacrifice because it supports the patriarchal family. Medieval narratives describing father’s blood to be more important than mother’s blood which is an example of how men are portrayed as superior than women when it comes to authority and privilege. McCracken offering the idea of the patriarchial family structure explaining the reason for the father’s lineage or bloodline to be seen as more important than the mother’s lineage. She is not assertive in her writing yet there is a persuasive tone to her writing. She does not just state that blood is the sole reason for why medieval narratives about sacrifice differientate between men and women. She allows her thoughts to be considered and allows her sources to support or allow the viewer to be interested in what she doe not speculate on.
Throughout her article, the sources are secondary which is her commentary, her colleague’s commentary, different versions of a story, more information or other articles that relate to the what the sentence is referring to. She has an enormous amount of source information yet there is enough of her ideas, her paraphrases of the author’s ideas, and her analysis to make It relevant and organized. For example, sometimes she would just cite a one or many sources with no commentary, she would write her commentary, then cite many sources or simply just write little side notes. The sources are from She didn’t just rely on a couple of sources because there were a large amount of different sources in one footnote that allows plenty of insight on what she was trying to accomplish in that sentence. She integrated her sources smoothly by choosing the details carefully.
In conclusion, the article presents a engaging and balanced argument on the difference between paternal murder and maternal murder. The author supports her argument with valid evidence, based on secondary sources like articles, criticisms, and commentaries. McCracken has written persuasively and openly so that she leaves the reader’s mind to gain their own opinion. The author reveals that there was a difference when it came to paternal sacrifice and maternal murder in the narrative logic, and sacrificial logic. Patriarchy and gender representation was shown throughout her article. The article is backed by numerous sources that the author has used to develop her ideas, enhancing its validity. However, there are many different ways of interpreting the stories she used, but there are clear signs of patriarchy and gender roles that affect the narrative logic and sacrificial logic that supports paternal sacrifice as a paternal right through blood, lineage and engendering.