Analysis
Main Artefact
The similarities between Bisclavret and the main artefact would be the friendly interaction between the wolf and the priest is similar to the friendly interaction between Bisclavret and the king. Additionally, the connections to the overall argument would be that the illustration shows a non-violent, or friendly, relationship or interaction between wolf and human. In other words, the friendly interaction supports the argument by offering an example of non-violence from a wolf which can be interpreted as Bisclavret.
Secondary Artefact 1
The first secondary artefact shows the differences between the wolf in this illustration and Bisclavret as a werewolf in the poem. The wolf is shown to be feared by other characters within the drawing, but Bisclavret is loved by the king and others within the kingdom. In connections to the overall argument, this drawing works as a counterargument to my thesis, alongside the article by Leshock on the violence of knights represented as traits of a werewolf within Bisclavret.
However, to counter the counterargument, Bisclavret, in the chosen passages, does not show these acts of violence and that just because he is in the form of a werewolf does not mean he is a monster. In particular, we can draw connections between the shepherd and the king in which the shepherd (a human) is not safe from the wolf when sleeping while the king (a human) is safe from Bisclavret in his werewolf form when sleeping.[1] Furthermore, one could even speculate that Bisclavret is the dog in the illustration rather than the wolf due to his loyalty towards the king and figure as a guard dog.[2]
Secondary Artefact 2
The second secondary artefact shows the similarities between the dogs and Bisclavret in which both are canines and are obedient towards a person of higher power. In connections to the overall argument, this drawing reinforces the audience to view Bisclavret as more of an obedient dog rather than a ferocious werewolf since he is loved by the king and the people around him in the kingdom and has the loyalty to the kingdom as knight.[3] Thus, Bisclavret is comparable to a loyal guard dog for the king than a violent werewolf monster.
Conclusion
To sum up, this exhibition aims to argue that Bisclavret should not be considered a monster, even though he is a werewolf, due to his descriptions and actions, such as his loyalty and friendliness to the king and the people surrounding him in the kingdom, within the poem and how other characters in the poem perceive of him. In particular, Bisclavret’s loyalty to the king and his behavior described within the poem makes Bisclavret more of a guard dog (or knight in his human form) rather than a monster. Additionally, the three chosen artefacts within the exhibition will work to support this argument and other scholarly sources will offer different interpretations and invite further discussions.
Further discussions that could derive from this exhibition include exploring Bisclavret’s knightly activities and take the side of the counterargument, exploring the question of outcome between “Bisclavret being accepted vs. Bisclavret not being accepted” by the king, and exploring larger social themes on how people are treated by society matters in determining one’s actions towards society.