Analysis

Norse mythology holds a plethora of compelling symbols, stories, and characters. However, one of the most significant aspects of this culture was animals, especially wolves. Because of this, I would like to compare and contrast the Viking imagery of a wolf to the depiction of Bisclavret in The Lais of Marie de France. The consensus is that the Viking age ended around 1066, William the Conquerer’s conquest of England. However, the Vikings’ influence lived on in Europe due to their many descendants who had settled there. The Lais of Marie de France was written a century later, and she dedicated her lais to the Anglo-Norman courts in the mid-twelfth century. According to Blécourt, the story of Bisclavret was a way to depict how the descendants of the Vikings have adapted and integrated into European society that valued the beliefs of Christianity; just like Bisclavret, who is a “romantic” werewolf, these people have gone from monsters to something that is somewhat respectable – however, they will always be wolves due to their past (Blécourt, p.82). Wolves have always been a prominent symbol of Nordic values in their culture, which might be why Marie de France was inspired to write about a werewolf, an exaggerated wolf form.

The primary artefact I chose, the Viking wolf-head post, shows a wolf baring its sharp teeth, and this intimidating and fierce appearance highlights the Nordic belief that wolves symbolize characteristics such as chaos, loyalty, and protection, to name a few. Although wolves are commonly perceived as wild animals, Norse mythology used the better characteristics of wolves for guidance, as they are pack animals that protect each other. However, at the same time, wolves would also symbolize death and destruction due to their wild and aggressive nature. To the Vikings, wolves represented both the good and the bad in the world, mirroring the human condition. This can be tied into the discussion of Bisclavret, the werewolf and how he may be a beast to some but not to others. Although it is up for interpretation, many scholars believe that the Viking wolf-head post from the Oseberg grave represents Odin and his companion wolves, Geri and Freki – and this is an insight into the Viking perception of wolves and creatures alike. Just like Bisclavret, Odin is a complex character, and he is not defined as a “good” or “bad” god. It is interesting to note that although Odin is a god, his complexities are similar to those of the human psyche, both flawed. In my opinion, the complexities of the imagery of a wolf in Norse mythology go hand-in-hand with Odin’s flawed nature, as these present the argument that all creatures are complex rather than monstrous. The headpost’s appearance may be frightening, but there is more than what meets the eye, just like Bisclavret. 

My secondary artefact, a woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder from the 16th century, depicts a more traditional understanding of a werewolf. This violent image was most likely a product of the ongoing witch trials of the 16th century, when there was a strong belief that witches, werewolves, and creatures alike had made a pact with the devil, leading to those suspected to persecution. This perception of werewolves is similar to the one Marie de France mentioned in the beginning of her lai, as she had mentioned that “Quite a few men became garwolves, And set up housekeeping in the woods. A garwolf is a savage beast, While the fury's on it, at least: Eats men, wreaks evil, does no good, Living and roaming in the deep wood,” and this was the social norm at the time. Werewolves were seen as frightening beasts that deserve no sympathy due to their aggression and crimes. However, Marie de France challenged this viewpoint in an attempt to create a complex psychological landscape for Bisclavret, highlighting his humanity rather than his monstrosity. And perhaps, her decision to create a sympathetic werewolf was because of the Middle Ages’ ideals of courtly values and chivalry. To further resonate with her courtly audience, she had emphasized Bisclavret’s honor and suffering – which further examines his flawed, but good nature. 

My final artefact is the original manuscript of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, published in the 19th century, also known as the Romantic era. During this period, there was a renewed interest in the traditions and values of the Middle Ages. This applies to Frankenstein in several ways. Romanticism often idealized the Medieval period due to its simplicity and connection to nature due to the state of the world during the Industrial Revolution, and the novel epitomizes the fear of uncontrollable change and scientific progress. In regards to similarities within the themes and motifs between Frankenstein and Bisclavret, Mary Shelley continued the medieval tradition of writing tales about mythical creatures and monsters to send a message and challenge the reader’s views.  Although this story is centred around a monster, Frankenstein’s creature, its themes lie in the human condition and what it means to have a soul. This is perhaps the most famous story of a misunderstood creature, similar to Bisclavret. Frankenstein’s monster initially had good intentions but was rejected by the world due to his frightening appearance, just like Bisclavret. This led him to go on a murderous rampage to somehow let out his misery. This can be considered as a parallel to Bisclavret, as he was betrayed by his former wife, just like how Frankenstein’s monster was by his creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein. Both wished to lead normal lives, but were cursed to be “monstrous” by powers they couldn’t control. In the end, their anger and resentment led them to do violent acts (in Bisclavret’s case, attacking the knight who stole his clothes and his former wife who had betrayed his trust). However, as readers, it is difficult to declare these two as “monsters,” even though they had committed serious crimes, for they had both been utterly wronged by the world. It is quite interesting to note that in the original manuscript of Frankenstein, Shelley had softened the portrayal of the monster. She wrote descriptions such as “creature” but scratched it out and replaced it with “being.” This further enhances the idea that all living things are too complex to give a simple definition of “good,” “bad,” or “monster.” 

In Jean-Jacques Lecercle’s Journal Article What’s In A Monster, he makes an interesting point about the classifications of a true monster: “The monster is monstrous because he is named a monster" (Lecercle p. 19). I think a creature should possess no specific outline of qualities to be deemed a “monster,” as we are all complex creatures, just like Bisclavret, Odin, and Frankenstein’s monster. Bisclavret became a “monster” when his wife declared him as such, but if we read between the lines, we may realize he is nothing of the sort. Marie de France’s humanization of Bisclavret the werewolf was a way to turn a simple tale about a monster into an exploration of deeper themes in concepts such as societal expectation, human morality, and a monstrous identity.