We have seen violence used in many ways in texts of varying themes (religious crusading, courtly romance, etc.), but I believe that this is the first series of texts in which it is seen by all to be completely justified and even condoned/supported by both the readers and the other characters in the texts.
However, before I get into the use of violence by the three werewolves, I wanted to touch on the way that, in each text, the wolf is recognized by the King (either Arthur or the unnamed king in Bisclavret), are able to see the unique aspects of the humanity that are still shown by each wolf, and how they still possess complete use of their human intellect and brain, albeit without the ability to speak: "'My lords,' he said, 'come quickly! Look at this marvel- this beast is humbling itself to me. It has the mind of a man, and it's begging me for mercy!...This beast is rational- he has a mind.'" (Bisclavret, 151-157) This same basic scene is repeated in Melion and Biclarel. This shows that the essence of these werewolf stories is to portray the monster as something that is ultimately and fundamentally grounded in humanity and, by proxy, civilization/civilized behavior in general.
In fact (and in all three texts, the werewolf is a man), the only time the wolves depart from their civilized, tame behavior, is when they are presented with opportunities to enact revenge on their women and their new knightly lovers.
This brings me to the two main emotions/sins/causes of action in all three texts: mainly those of lust and revenge. These can also be tied to both genders, respectively. The women in each text acts out of lust, while the man/werewolf acts out of revenge. In the case of the man/werewolf, his use of epic violence humanizes him, or at least makes him seem like a proper knight who would want vengeance and retribution for being so wronged: "But Melion looked around; He noticed in the middle of the hall the man his wife had taken away with her. He knew that he had crossed the sea And had gone to Ireland. He went to seize him by the shoulder: The man could not keep him at bay; Melion attacked him in the hall: He would have soon killed and destroyed him" (Melion, 486-494). While this is not the most violent image in the three texts, it shows the great deal of anger felt by Melion in seeing his woman with another.
In the case of the women, their lustiness shows them to be even more base, acting not out of any higher nature, but only acting out of the desire to be without their husbands. In each text, the woman purposefully takes away her husband's ability to change back from his wolf form.
So my main question is this: while both the wolves and their female counterparts are indeed human (part-human, at least), who better exemplifies humanity and rationality?
I suppose, going directly off the two instances which you cite, we'll notice that the litmus test of being human or rational seems to be the ability to control one's violent impulses and to distribute violence appropriately. The wolf is expected to react violently to the hounds and hunters, but because it controls its violent impulse it is recognized to have a human mind. The wolf is in fact so peaceable that its attack on the unfaithful wife is considered proof of foul play - the king's men always remark, "The wolf would not attack this woman without good reason," and this leads them to uncovering the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn a larger sense, this has implications for kings, knights, and others whose social role entails the application of violence. The lay essentially places strictures on violence even while legitimizing it. The argument is that, by controlling one's natural violent impulses, one demonstrates the ability to reason; and if one is reasonable, one can appropriately use violence, in a measured fashion, to effect justice and maintain the proper social order. Violence is thus a signifier of BOTH bestial and rational tendencies, depending on who uses it, when, and how.
Also, awesome title, although I was more of an Angry Beavers man myself.
I could have chosen any instances from any of the texts, since, thematically and in terms of actual content, they were all basically identical, aside from the specific descriptions of violence (I think Bisclavret is the only one where the wolf tears off a nose). I was having some trouble separating the rationality and the bestiality of both revenge and lust, since while I'm sure animals have the capacity to be lusty and whatnot, it seems like something that is more commonly attributed to humans. Ideally, I would've liked to characterize the women in the texts as being more bestial than the actual werewolves.
DeleteI got the reference. It was quite nice.
DeleteOne of the things I grappled with was who was the real "monster" in the story. De France makes it clear that the "garwolf is a savage beast/while the fury's on it at least." But despite his wolf-like status, the main character never truly loses any human-like dignity despite his appearance. He never loses his devotion to the king ("Regardless of where the king might go, Bisclavret never wanted to be separated from him" (97)." He seems more like a reluctant beast, not one to truly act on his own carnal instincts.
Also the narrator is interesting to note. The narrator comes off as extremely misogynistic, since the wife is the betrayer which leads to Bisclavret's downfall. Is she the real monster in the story? You definitely can take that angle.
The wife in Bisclavret doesn’t act out of lust; in fact the writer explicitly says “She’d never loved him at all” (107). It isn’t lust, but fear. She acts out of fear at her lord’s lycanthropy, which however way you take it, is a pretty logical reaction, be it actual werewolfish or a metaphor for uncontrolled bestiality (hee hee); yes, fear could be considered a another form of losing one’s control, but she keeps on acting logically. She turns to this other night in order to replace her husband, in order to carry out her orders. A woman could not survive without a man at this time, sexist as it is, but true. She does not act nobly, she betrays her husband but it was out of a sense of self preservation, just as Bisclavret’s behavior as a dog, kissing his lord’s feet, begging for mercy, biting a woman’s face off, is unchivalric but self preserving. So who was more human, more rational? I would say that the wife is more rational, definitely more human. He is a werewolf, but she only loses her mind in fear of her husband’s animal nature.
ReplyDelete