Love is Caustic: A Look into the Similarities and Differences of Laustic and Bisclavret
Throughout Marie de France’s many lais, she focuses on the many facets of human nature, such as who can be trusted, who will act accordingly to their rank and status in the court, who will be honorable and treat others with respect, and most importantly, who is most deserving of the love of another. By the very definition of the lais, being a love ballad of sorts, this is nothing surprising. What is far more shocking about the works of Marie de France is that she holds nothing back when it comes to the repercussions that her characters experience for their actions. The idea that love can nurture and help one grow is noted by Marie, but the opposite being that love (or lack thereof) can be an extremely destructive influence as well is also obvious throughout her works. But my biggest question in regards to the source material of Laustic and Bisclavret is this: why is one female character seemingly supported for her affair, whereas the other is vilified? One aspect of this that needs to be addressed of course is the type of love the character seems to be experiencing. In Bisclavret, the noble’s wife is initially shown to be in love with him with the line “He loved her and she him” (24), which sets up an emotional connection between her and her husband. By indicating that she loved him at one point in her life, the narrator makes the betrayal of her husband seem even more sinister, in contrast to if there weren’t any mention of love. By line 103, she no longer wishes to be with her husband, and has been plotting a way to be rid of him, as well as trying to find a replacement for him. What makes this seem even more reprehensible, is that she exhibits no love for the knight whom she replaces her husband with as shown in the text “she had never loved him / or promised him her love” (108-109). In Laustic, however, we don’t see anything showing any sense of a relationship between the husband and wife, instead having the focus being on the emotional relationship of the wife and her would be lover. The audience doesn’t have any expectations for how she should act towards the man she is already married to, and as such doesn’t feel as strongly against her desire for the other knight. To push this further, in Laustic, the wife is never said to have loved her husband throughout the entire text, with the narrator mentioning her loving the younger knight “above all things” (25). In Laustic, the way the story is told makes it seem that the wife having an affair is something that is completely natural for a woman in her situation. In this scenario, the affair seems almost trivial in terms of how awful it is compared to the wife in Bisclavret who comes …show more content…
At first, this probably doesn’t seem like something that would have a drastic effect on how the reader feels towards specific characters, except that the details whether abundant or sparse, completely change how you read a passage. As state by Judith Rothschilde, “At the beginning of the poem, for example, the readers does not know where the husband and wife are conversing. In addition to the lack of visualizable details, there is a relative scarcity of personal emotions and reactions reported in the lay” (Rothschilde 4). By putting such a focus on the details themselves, as well as the results that follow, the reader cannot help but home in on the fact that the wife has done something dastardly in Bisclavret. In contrast, Laustic is very descriptive throughout the story, detailing the location, how it looks, what the people are like, why they are interested in each other, etc. Though the reader is not overloaded with information, it helps to dull the blow that what the wife is doing is still something morally reprehensible, and instead pulls the focus to the details which help to make her and the lover more likeable and relatable. This also helps to tie in to the consequences of each person’s actions in both lais, and how the reader is expected to respond to
Throughout Marie de France’s many lais, she focuses on the many facets of human nature, such as who can be trusted, who will act accordingly to their rank and status in the court, who will be honorable and treat others with respect, and most importantly, who is most deserving of the love of another. By the very definition of the lais, being a love ballad of sorts, this is nothing surprising. What is far more shocking about the works of Marie de France is that she holds nothing back when it comes to the repercussions that her characters experience for their actions. The idea that love can nurture and help one grow is noted by Marie, but the opposite being that love (or lack thereof) can be an extremely destructive influence as well is also obvious throughout her works. But my biggest question in regards to the source material of Laustic and Bisclavret is this: why is one female character seemingly supported for her affair, whereas the other is vilified? One aspect of this that needs to be addressed of course is the type of love the character seems to be experiencing. In Bisclavret, the noble’s wife is initially shown to be in love with him with the line “He loved her and she him” (24), which sets up an emotional connection between her and her husband. By indicating that she loved him at one point in her life, the narrator makes the betrayal of her husband seem even more sinister, in contrast to if there weren’t any mention of love. By line 103, she no longer wishes to be with her husband, and has been plotting a way to be rid of him, as well as trying to find a replacement for him. What makes this seem even more reprehensible, is that she exhibits no love for the knight whom she replaces her husband with as shown in the text “she had never loved him / or promised him her love” (108-109). In Laustic, however, we don’t see anything showing any sense of a relationship between the husband and wife, instead having the focus being on the emotional relationship of the wife and her would be lover. The audience doesn’t have any expectations for how she should act towards the man she is already married to, and as such doesn’t feel as strongly against her desire for the other knight. To push this further, in Laustic, the wife is never said to have loved her husband throughout the entire text, with the narrator mentioning her loving the younger knight “above all things” (25). In Laustic, the way the story is told makes it seem that the wife having an affair is something that is completely natural for a woman in her situation. In this scenario, the affair seems almost trivial in terms of how awful it is compared to the wife in Bisclavret who comes …show more content…
At first, this probably doesn’t seem like something that would have a drastic effect on how the reader feels towards specific characters, except that the details whether abundant or sparse, completely change how you read a passage. As state by Judith Rothschilde, “At the beginning of the poem, for example, the readers does not know where the husband and wife are conversing. In addition to the lack of visualizable details, there is a relative scarcity of personal emotions and reactions reported in the lay” (Rothschilde 4). By putting such a focus on the details themselves, as well as the results that follow, the reader cannot help but home in on the fact that the wife has done something dastardly in Bisclavret. In contrast, Laustic is very descriptive throughout the story, detailing the location, how it looks, what the people are like, why they are interested in each other, etc. Though the reader is not overloaded with information, it helps to dull the blow that what the wife is doing is still something morally reprehensible, and instead pulls the focus to the details which help to make her and the lover more likeable and relatable. This also helps to tie in to the consequences of each person’s actions in both lais, and how the reader is expected to respond to