It is difficult enough to merely define the term “monster.” What features render something monstrous? Are there exceptions to that rule? Should monstrosity be defined by features at all? Is a monster from centuries ago still a monster now? Would we interpret a historical creature to be a monster now, even if it was not considered one in its contemporary era? The line of questioning one could set out on is endless, and once you have enlisted yourself to such a journey, objectivity is a foregone conclusion. As Cohen says, “The monster always escapes because it refuses easy categorization” (6).¹

Even if we can agree that something is a monster, the specific nature of that monster’s monstrosity might still be a point of contention. Take, for example, Object 38 of Monstrous Marginalia’s collection, which is labeled “A Hybrid from a Psalter (Bodleian Library MS. Douce 118, fol. 009r)

This particular item features a monster that has a woman’s head and torso, but a beastly bottom half. This bottom half appears to consist of an elongated, dark body, two legs, and a long tail. She holds in her hands a mirror and a comb, and seems to be actively brushing her hair. As is evident by the label, and proven if you visit the item page, this was tagged as a “hybrid” in Monstrous Marginalia’s collection. It seems a fitting tag; this particular monster is not so far removed from the other hybrids in the collection. This particular item was sourced from the Bodleian Library, and the content description for the manuscript page she is featured on describes her specifically as “a female grotesque combing hair.”

However, a point of contention emerges when one inspects the content description for the magnified detail image of this same margin monster. In this description, she is labeled as a “Mermaid or Siren with comb and mirror.” Such a circumstances presents a unique conflict when trying to prepare such an item for exhibition in a collection.

Certainly, a mermaid is a type of hybrid, being half-human and half-fish. But arguing that mermaids are technically hybrids does not at all make the task of assigning a label, tag, and description to this item any easier. Moreover, the term “hybrid” is really a more polite way to refer to grotesques, which typically present as distinctly different from mermaids. The monster in this item seems quite grotesque in build, given the strangeness of her beastly lower-half. One would not expect a mermaid to possess legs, animalistic though they might be, either. However, the fact that she is holding a mirror and brushing her hair is posturing that is typically attributed to depictions of mermaids and sirens; There is even another item in this collection that is a confirmed instance of exactly that, a mermaid or siren brushing her hair. Back and forth the argument goes, pondering whether the “hybrid” or “sea_monster” tag is more appropriate for this lovely margin monster.

The simplest solution, of course, would be to tag this item with both tags. They both seem equally as appropriate. The only reason this has not occurred is for lack of certainty that a singular object can have multiple tags. In the very least, this item presents as the perfect candidate to test whether multiple tags would actually function within the collection in the future. Until then, the monster in this item has managed to escape from being subject to troublesome taxonomies.

---

Notes