The legends of the werewolf portrayed in Bisclavret, Melion, and Biclarel do not focus on the monstrosity of the half-man, half-wolf creature: his few violent actions are forgiven and understood. In these tales, the antagonist of the tale is always the disloyal wife, who betrays her bond with her husband upon learning of his ‘affliction.’ She fears what he could be, how he could act, fears that are not based in reality. It is the fear of the unknown that motivates the wife to first beg her husband for the truth: “My lord, on the days when you go away from me I’m in such a state…so afraid I’ll lose you…Please tell me where you go, where you have been staying. I think you must have a lover.” (lines 43-51, Bisclavret). The wife cannot handle this fear of not knowing; this fear then motivates her to betray her husband. In Melion, the wife’s motivations are made less clear: she appears, Melion falls in love, he shares his secret, and she runs away with the ring that can bring him back to his human form. Biclarel also features the betrayal of a fickle woman; in fact, it is a main theme of the poem with the author beginning with the lines, “He is very foolish who marries a fickle wench: It is just not worth it for him to suffer and to expose himself to all that shame with great risk to soul and body.” (lines 1-5, Biclarel)
The monster of these poems is not the creature so prominently featured in the horror and supernatural films of modern day: it is the wife who betrays her role both as a woman within marriage and a woman within the chivalric canon. It is the woman who inverts the social order in these tales rather than the monster, and it is that inversion, as discussed in ‘Monster Theory’ by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, that creates fear, that creates a monster. Even within his werewolf form, Bisclavret/Melion/Biclarel retain their rational human minds. Though his body may be trapped in this liminal form, his mind soars beyond his form, remembering his betrayal but also remembering the importance of loyalty to his king. By appealing to King Arthur in the only way he can, the werewolf/man is able to re-establish a bond of loyalty that helps bring him out of his animal state and make him a full man again. It is when that bond of trust and loyalty is lost with his wife that the man becomes a monster; bonds with others help to elevate a man above his bestial side. This loss of trust makes the man look like an animal, but it is the woman’s loss of her humanity in her betrayal of her husband that makes the true monster of the story.
Like Sarah, I noticed the emphasis that "Bisclavret" puts on the disloyalty and evil actions of the wife of Bisclavret. Particularly, this negative portrayal of the disloyal wife is heightened by the verb use in the poem. For example, the line, "She harassed and bedeviled him so,/ that he had no choice but to tell her" (87-88), makes use of the verbs "harassed" and "bedeviled" to convey the bullying, devilish nature of the wife's actions toward her husband when she tries to persuade him to reveal his hiding place for his clothes. Furthermore, the line, "Over and over she considered/ how she might get rid of him" (100-101), reveals the wife's sudden harsh desire to "get rid of," dispose of, scare away, her loyal husband. Finally, the line, "So Bisclavret was betrayed,/ ruined by his own wife" (125-126), declares the fact that the wife betrays and ruins Bisclavret. More than just conveying the disloyal wife's monstrosity, though, these verbs convey action. The woman in "Bisclavret" is not passive, submissive, or subjected to the power of her husband, at least until the end of the poem when he tears the nose off of her face. I see a resemblance between the disloyal wife of Bisclavret and the sneaky, manipulative, yet strong Morgan Le Fay of Le Morte Darthur and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
ReplyDeleteI think Sarah raises an important point here. In these stories, the werewolf is not ostracized for his nature. We might expect that a supernatural creature like a werewolf would be condemned or persecuted (or killed) as an “evil” creature. The beginning lines of Bisclavret make this clear: “A werewolf is a savage beast; / while his fury is on him / he eats men, does much harm” (9-11). The werewolf in Bisclavret, however, is an honorable knight. As a human, he “behaved nobly” and was “loved by all his neighbors” (18, 20). This particular werewolf seems to retain these features as a wolf. He admits to his wife that he lives as a wolf and hunts prey, but he does not attack other humans, except for his wife and her new husband. Because the man retains his rational mind (as Sarah points out), the knight can still be considered on human terms, even while trapped as a wolf.
ReplyDeleteThis is reflected in the king’s treatment of the werewolf. When he regains his human form, the “king ran to embrace him. / He hugged and kissed him again and again,” (300-1). The king was overjoyed to regain his lost knight “whom [he] used to like so much” (252). Instead of turning on him as his wife had done, the king remains loyal to his knight. Whereas the knight’s wife conspired to trap him as a wolf out of fear and horror, the king saw past the man’s wolf shape to his underlying goodness. I think there is a suggestion here that it is fear rather than any intrinsic quality the werewolf possesses that creates a monster. After all, it is the wife’s fear that prompts her to press her husband about where he goes and it is fear that causes her to betray him.
Like Sarah, I too found the image of the werewolf in all three tales to be completely different than what I am familiar with. The idea of the "monster" in these texts is quite interesting--the wolf itself isn't even really portrayed as "monstrous," but rather quite chivalrous despite his outward appearance. It is because of betrayal and disloyalty of their wives that they become the physical "monster" and only act wildly when they come in contact with thos who have betrayed them. To spin off of what Sarah says about loyalty and betrayal, I think it's also very important to talk about vulnerability in the tales. One common thread I found throughout all three was the repetition and importance of the man's clothing and how his clothing is dependent upon his humanity. "She touched him with the ring when she saw him naked and undressed. Then he became a huge and strong wolf: he had got himself into deep trouble." (Melion 177-182) In four lines, the mention of "nakedness" and being "undressed" is mentioned twice, which is quite excessive. It puts the man as the vulnerable victim--unclothed and unprotected by his humanity, and susceptible to his wife's magic and trickery. We've seen so many of these common themes throughout all of our readings in regards to the portrayal of women and their misuse and abuse of magic. It pits women as the backstabbing aggressors and the men as the victims to their games. I have to wonder what the moral purpose of these tales are. I almost feel like it's an explanation or warning against the power that women can hold against men, and acts as a justification for subduing their power.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that in each story, the female companion emerges as subject of blame for the altered, supernatural state of the knight. The final lines of Melion provide clear evidence of that observation: "He never wished to take her back, He would like to have let her burn or be dismembered." (485-486). These lines mark the Lady, who is never given a proper name throughout the tale, as the blameable party for his previous condition as a monster. Meanwhile, even though his physical condition has been subverted and made wrong, Melion retains the personal dignity of his knighthood by distinguishing himself as a "well-mannered wolf" (432). He is compelled to take the form of the wolf in order to satisfy his wife's fancy, and by the time he returns with the meat, she has already disappeared. He is cursed to remain in his depraved form because she has abandoned him (she could have at least been considerate enough to give the other half of the stone to someone). The narrative frames the supernatural downfall of Melion as a consequence he suffered as a result of his wife's fickle nature. This reading focuses added attention to Melion's original precondition for picking a wife - that she not love, or even have spoken of another man. The Lady's immediate and unconditional commitment to Melion and only Melion is similar to the way in which she originally impels him to become a wolf, "if I do not have some of that stag, I shall never eat again" (148-149). It is the same immediate strike of fancy that drives both actions. Melion is ultimately responsible for having followed a naive and unrealistic view of companionship and choosing his wife so unwisely.
ReplyDelete