Here is his essay:
In defense of Bisclavaret:
Logos
Bisclavaret hid his secret from his wife to protect her, and
to protect himself. When she demanded the truth, he told her. She loved him
before she knew his condition, so why should she not love him afterward?
Logically, she should have seen that he had always been a werewolf, and yet she
loved him. So his being a werewolf did not make him a monster.
Pathos
When the wolf who was Bisclavaret saw his former wife and
her new husband, he was overcome with fury. Any man who had been betrayed in
such a terrible way would have behaved the same way. If fact, an animal might
not care if his mate left him for another mate. His pain at his love’s betrayal
shows that he is human, not a monster.
Ethos
After finding out about her husband’s condition, the wife
conspired behind her Lord’s back with another man, stole from him, and caused
him to live as an animal while she and her new lover usurped his kingdom and
properties and left him to die in the wilderness. Bisclavaret, on the other
hand, remained faithful and loyal to the king despite the terrible
circumstances he was put in. Bisclavaret was loyal and his wife was not. So she
is the monster.
Closing
Argument:
A
logical person must see that Bisclavaret is not a monster. He rightly expected
that if he told the truth, his wife may fear him. So, rather than ruin his
marriage over a thing he had no control over, he hid the reason for his
disappearances from his wife who he loved dearly. When pressed, he revealed the
truth to her. She loved him before she knew his condition, so why should
she not love him afterward? Logically, she should have seen that he had always
been a werewolf, and yet she loved him. So his being a werewolf did not make
him a monster. Instead she betrayed him. But
even after he was betrayed, he remained in the forest to avoid harming anyone.
As a wolf, he could have done great harm to his former wife. But rather than
recklessly act as a monster would, he just lived in the woods before becoming the
trusted confidante of the king. The fact that even as an animal he was only aggressive towards his former wife
and her usurping suitor, shows how just and rational he had always been, as a
beast or a man.
Bisclavaret
was deeply pained by his wife’s actions and the pitiful situation into which he
was tricked. Still, rather than becoming violent and acting terribly, he
instead acted peacefully and surrendered to his conditions. He lived a life of
peace in the forest before becoming the king’s dog. He not only was just as
trustworthy and kind as a wolf as he had been as a man, but he acted like a gentleman
through all his troubles. When the wolf who was Bisclavaret saw his
former wife and her new husband, he was overcome with fury. Any person who had
been betrayed in such a terrible way would have behaved the same way. If fact,
an animal might not care if his mate left him for another mate. His pain at his
love’s betrayal shows that he is human, not a monster.
An
ethical person has loyalty to those they love, but a monster has no love or
loyalty. The wife claimed to love Bisclavaret, but she did not truly love him
or she would have accepted him for who he was. He tried to live as honestly and
happily as could, given his unfortunate predicament. But after his wife
found out about her husband’s condition, she conspired behind her Lord’s back
with another man, stole from him, and caused him to live forever as an animal in
the wilderness while she and her new lover usurped his kingdom and properties.
Bisclavaret, on the other hand, remained faithful and loyal to the king despite
the terrible circumstances he was put in. Bisclavaret was loyal and his wife
was not. So the wife is clearly the real monster.
