Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The Lay of the Were Wolf

Hanu had to analyse this story, and argue who is the monster; Bisclavaret or his wife?
http://www.gradesaver.com/the-lais-of-marie-de-france/e-text/section9/

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.