Literary Monster - Bisclavret

Bisclavret, challenges conventional perceptions of monsters and provides a nuanced exploration of humanity, loyalty, and compassion. Unlike traditional monsters characterized by uncontrollable rage, Bisclavret’s acts of violence are purposeful, justified, and are characterized as a “grudge” (line 249). His transformation into a werewolf is a consequence of his wife’s betrayal, resulting in a loss of humanity and entrapment in a monstrous form. Consequently, the text depicts him as a victim of deceit, and as being driven by revenge and desperation rather than uncontrollable violence.

While his monstrous form inspires fear in many, the King, in particular, treats Bisclavret with empathy and understanding, valuing him as a unique creature and ensuring his well-being. This is exemplified in lines 169-174 which states “he tells his people it's his pleasure for them to take the best of care of it; let no-one harm it, or dare to strike it, for love of the King. It must be fed well and given drink”. This compassion disrupts the typical narrative of fear and revulsion associated with monsters. Rather than reacting violently or with disgust, the King shows kindness, hinting at the complex, multifaceted nature of monsters that both threatens and elicits sympathy. Additionally, the advisors’ insight into Bisclavret’s emotions reveal more human-like attributes. Before giving Bisclavret his clothes back, the king’s advisors question this decision, stating “something he's far too ashamed to show. Have him taken to your own room, and his lost clothes brought with him; A good long time, leave him alone; Then we'll see if he becomes a man’” (lines 281-290). Here we see that Bisclavret exhibits one of the most basic emotions, shame, and embarrassment, emphasizing the human aspects of his monstrous existence, which challenges simplistic depictions of monsters as inhuman 'others' 

Scholars have interpreted Bisclavret’s role in various ways. Some emphasize his transformation as a metaphor for personal identity, exploring the dual nature of humanity and the tension between societal expectations and individual authenticity. This is clear in Whalen’s analysis where he argue that “in the Lais animal bodies usually belong to beings that demonstrate the qualities of the human. The hawk and the wolf that transform into men in Yonec and Bisclavret are distinguished by their nobility and courtliness even in their animal forms” (2012, pp. 143-172). I agree with scholars who perceive Bisclavret as a multifaceted character, embodying themes of betrayal and societal acceptance. Bisclavret subverts expectations of monstrosity by eliciting empathy through his very human experiences of love, loss, and grief. Rather than a mindless beast, he exhibits complex inner emotions that complicates rigid divisions between humanity and animalism. The poem promotes a more nuanced understanding of monstrous identities that acknowledges the intermingling of human and animal natures.

Bisclavret, and Grendel in Beowulf present evident contrasts. Grendel, the embodiment of terror and carnage, serves as a menace fought by Beowulf, showcasing the importance of physical prowess. Contrastingly, Bisclavret’s monstrosity is deeply internal, centered around themes of emotional struggles. Both monsters are feared for their strength, and are seen as threats to order, which explains why the King constantly refers to Bisclavret as a “beast” (line 151). While Grendel represents an external force of evil to be conquered, Bisclavret embodies the complex intermingling of humanity and animalism from within. His monstrosity arises not from innate wickedness, but human betrayal and the psychological impacts of shapeshifting. Bisclavret’s introspective monstrousness offers an alternative lens into the medieval world compared to the traditional monsters like Grendel.