Bisclavret analysis
Text Passage:
When they were put in front of him
he didn’t seem to notice them.
The king’s wise man spoke up once more
-the one who’d counselled him before-
“Fair sire, this will not do at all!
We can’t expect this animal,
in front of you, sire, to get dressed
and change his semblance of a beast.
You don’t grasp what this means, my king!
-or see his shame and suffering.
Into your room have led this beast:
with him, his clothes. Let him get dressed:
For quite some time, leave him alone.
If he’s a man, that is soon known!”
The king himself led the bisclavret;
and on him all the doors were shut.
They waited. And then finally
two barons, with the king, all three,
entered. What a discovery!
There on the king’s bed, they could see
asleep, the knight. How the king ran
up to the bed, to embrace his man,
kiss him, a hundred times and more![1]
The passage above from Bisclavret is taken from the final lines of the lay. After being given his clothes by the king, Bisclavret refuses to change into them in front of him out of modesty, only doing so and completing his transformation away from prying eyes. Marie de France emphasizes Bisclavret’s modesty in the passage to portray him as more human than animal. Although animals (including himself as he confesses to his wife in the beginning of the story) run around naked without shame, Bisclavret feels ashamed of being seen naked when he transforms into a human. The king does not notice this out of his excitement to see Bisclavret transform and must be reminded by a wise courtier to give Bisclavret privacy.
Bisclavret’s modesty is so great in this moment that he delays his transformation, choosing instead to be trapped as a wolf for as long as it takes the king to give him space. Furthermore, he displays humility in front of the king by simply ignoring the clothes at first as to give a subtle hint for the king to understand the message on his own instead of making a scene or rudely barking at him, further emphasising his good manners.
Despite being the most important, this instance is not the first time Marie emphasises Bisclavret’s humanity in the story; Marie does this numerous times, creating a recurring motif that spans the narrative. It is interesting to note that in each instance, Bisclavret is juxtaposed with other characters to show that he acts more human than they do despite being what is traditionally considered a monster.
A notable example of this is Bisclavret hesitating to tell his wife about his condition in the start of the story. When refusing to explain his disappearances to his wife, Bisclavret pleads with her saying “I’ll have much harm in telling you. I’d lose your love, if I should tell and be lost to myself, as well”[2]. Here Bisclavret shows his love for his wife, begging her to not have him divulge his secret, knowing that he will lose her if she knows the truth about him being a werewolf. His love and trust are soon after met with betrayal as his wife steals his clothes condemning him to remain a beast.
This contrast between Bisclavret and his wife is central to the message of the lay. In the beginning of the story, Bisclavret’s outward appearance is monstrous but his behaviour is human, while his wife’s outward appearance is human, but her behaviour is monstrous. After Bisclavret’s transformation and his wife’s nose being torn off, the difference between inwards and outwards finally disappears; Bisclavret is human again and his wife only gives birth to noseless children that look distinct from other humans.
It is notable that the process in which Bisclavret and his wife complete their final transformations is through virtuous and evil actions respectively. Bisclavret gets his clothes back by only attacking his wife and her new husband, employing reason (a virtuous trait only humans possess) to get the king to investigate his case. Bisclavret’s wife on the other hand loses her nose because of her earlier betrayal. The message inferred from this is that people are elevated or denigrated by their actions. A monster like Bisclavret can become human by being virtuous, while a human like his wife can become a monster through evil actions like betrayal.
Marie makes no distinction here between humanity and virtue or evil and monstrousness. Every human trait Bisclavret displays to distinguish him from others (modesty, reason, love etc.) is also a virtue. This equivalence between virtue and humanity is not unique to the lay however and may be integral to the premodern understanding of monsters. In Beowulf, the distinction between Grendel and Beowulf is based on the same premise; both can kill thirty men at once and display strength far surpassing normal humans but only Grendel is called a monster. This is because Beowulf employs his strength to noble ends while Grendel kills indiscriminately out of envy. The equivalence between humanity and virtue in both stories is further solidified by the fact that Grendel’s very existence mirrors Bisclavret’s wife having noseless children; in both instances, the children of sinners become cursed to become monsters, Grendel being descended from Cain and Bisclavret’s wife being a betrayer.
We can surmise from this comparison and from the lay itself that monsters in premodern literature may have been used primarily to convey moral messages rather than to solely evoke wonder. It is rare to find a story in which monsters exist in isolation, instead they are typically compared to humans in some way as a narrative shorthand to easily distinguish between good and evil. This is true even in a story that blurs the lines between human and monster like Bisclavret because by the end of the lay, Bisclavret becomes human, and his wife becomes a monster to reflect their morality or lack thereof.
[1] Puchner, Martin, Suzanne Conklin Akbari, Wiebke Denecke, Barbara Fuchs, Caroline Levine, Pericles Lewis, and Emily R. Wilson. “Bisclavret.” Poem. In The Norton Anthology of World Literature B, W.W. Norton & Company, 2018, pp 305.
[2] Ibid