Different Interpretations from other Scholarly Sources

Article 1: “Animals as Performers and Communicators in Marie de France’s Guigemar, Bisclavret, and Eliduc.” By Logan E. Whalen

Whalen writes, “Bisclavret is unable to speak while in animal form, but still manages to “tell” his story through extraordinary gestures that display human emotions. Additionally, his performance as an animal throughout the Lai exhibits the same loyalty to his king as he demonstrates when he is in human form” and quotes, “Miranda Griffin notes, ‘the violence the werewolf commits is not a product of his lupine ferocity, but of his wounded human pride.’”[1]

This scholarly source is in support of the exhibition’s argument that Bisclavret displays human qualities and is not a monster even though his physical attributes are that of a monster. Additionally, the text associates Bisclavret’s violent act towards his wife within the poem as a human, emotionally driven action rather than a beastly, violent action. Lastly, Bisclavret’s loyalty to the king is emphasized and thus supports the idea of Bisclavret’s canine form having the same loyalty as a guard dog towards the king.

Article 2: “From Beowulf to Bisclavret: Teaching Medieval History through Literature.” By Robin Hermann

Hermann writes, “Bisclavret’s acts are acts are ameliorated within the text by the interplay between the king’s justice and the idealized aristocratic relationships of the Lai” and quotes, “As Leslie Sconduto has argued, the king recognizes Bisclavret as a sympathetic werewolf, and to a degree tolerates violence, because Bisclavret, even in wolf form, displays courtly behavior and performs the act of homage when they first meet.” [2]

This scholarly source serves as another source that justifies Bisclavret’s violent act towards his wife. Also, it highlights Bisclavret's obedience towards the king, again like a guard dog, and could be argued if Bisclavret is truly a monster, he would not rationally pick between his wife or the king and would violently attack anyone within his sights.

Article 3: “The Knight of the Werewolf: Bisclavret and the Shape-Shifting Metaphor.” By David Leshock

Leshock writes, “The metaphor of knight as werewolf in Bisclavret is an indictment of the use of physical force which the knight is allowed by society. The knight in armor passes outside the boundary of humanity as he kills others, paralleling Bisclavret’s retrogression as he crosses the human/animal border into werewolf form. If clothes make the man, armor can make the beast.”[3]

This scholarly source serves as a counterargument to my thesis that could serve as an invitation for different interpretations and opinions to the exhibition. Primarily, Leshock argues that Bisclavret’s violent actions are comparable to a knight’s action in which regardless of Bisclavret’s physical form, he would still be a monster since Bisclavret is a knight in his human form.

In support of my thesis, a counter to this counterargument would be the many instances of the positive descriptions of Bisclavret within the poem, such as the lines, specifically from 169 to 184, discussed in the previous section of this exhibition. Additionally, the poem does not mention Bisclavret’s knightly activities and since the counterargument claims that violent knightly activities make one a monster, Bisclavret as a human is not a monster.

[1] Logan Whalen, “Animals as Performers and Communicators in Marie de France’s Guigemar, Bisclavret, and Eliduc.” Le Cygne 2 (2015), pp. 48.

[2] Robin Hermann, “From Beowulf to Bisclavret: Teaching Medieval History through Literature.” Le Cygne 7 (2020), pp. 45.

[3] David Leshock, “The Knight of the Werewolf: Bisclavret and the Shape-Shifting Metaphor.” Romance Quarterly 46, no. 3 (1999), pp. 160.