I agree with and am also troubled by Leslie Sconduto's interesting reading that the Bisclavret's violence in the end are pardoned because they are signs of knighthood. I agree with Sconduto that Bisclavret is a tale of fidelity. Feudal bonds seem to exceed romantic bonds. In the end the story could be read as righteous revenge of a heroic knight. However, this reading is troubling because the narrative does not give much insight to the perspective of the wife. That is, the story would sound entirely different if told from the wife's perspective. If explained, her actions could seem understandable, reasonable, even sympathetic, because they could be read as a Medieval way of divorcing her husband. I don't know if I completely agree with Sconduto that Marie de France seems to side with Bisclavret by the end of the story. The act of biting off the wife's nose is violent, and the punishment of inherited noselessness is extreme. Even if it's true that Bisclavret is acting according to his knightly honor, when I read the story, the ending made me question Bisclavret's "rightness."
All that leads to: if we pit Bisclavret and his wife against each other (and indeed, they are antagonists within the story), they both monsterize the other. That is, Bisclavret is a werewolf, but not a monster in the eyes of the King's court. He is, in fact, honorable and loved. The wife sees him as monstrous, and thus the story acures. The same with the wife: Bisclavret bites off her nose, and monstrizes her in the views of the public (which is arguably the King's court, since it holds popular sway). The noseless features might or might not seem monstrous to the wife and her family, since it is so common within the family that it could be seen as common. Also, the narrative sides with Bisclavret (disregarding the ambiguity in the end as I've mentioned), and therefore antagonizes the wife and monsterizes her.
Both Bisclavret and the wife experience physical alterations. Both are cruel to each other. They're both monsters, whether the readers recognize their particular monstrosity depends on the tale is told. (This thesis seems sweeping, but I will end here for now.)
I was also shocked by the treatment that Bisclavret’s wife receives at the end of the lais and would agree that Marie de France’s sympathies are not as clear as Sconduto would have us think. As Sconduto notes, it is possible that Marie meant for the ripping off of the wife’s nose to adhere to common medieval punishments regarding adultery, and not merely for shock purposes, but the torture ordered by the king was completely unnecessary. Moreover, it’s hard not to feel a sense of outrage that the wife’s deformity is passed to her descendents. So, she has her nose ripped off, she’s tortured, and her poor children are born without noses. It’s a bit excessive and it’s no wonder that you finish the lais with some questions about whether or not we are meant to side with Bisclavret.
ReplyDeleteI think you present an interesting point of view and I agree the wife becomes a monstrous figure.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me slightly different interpretation might be that Bisclavret revealed his wife as monstrous. Sconduto questions the loving relationship between Bisclavret and his wife by writing, “Or perhaps things never were what they seemed to be all along.” Maybe this too is telling of the wife’s character. Although she does not originally appear monstrous, her betrayal could be considered a display of inner monstrosity, which Bisclavret elevates or reveals on the physical level.
While it is difficult to write off Bisclavret’s violent response to his wife’s betrayal, I would have trouble calling their “otherness” equal (not that you made that claim!). Bisclavret’s monstrous physical appearance and gentle werewolf nature gained him acceptance from the king and community. The wife, on the other hand, does not appear to enjoy such acceptance.