Courtney’s Blog

Creamer, Paul. “Woman-hating in Marie de France’s Bisclavret.”  The Romanic Review 93.3 (2002): 259-275.  Expanded Academic ASAP. 26 September 2006 http://find.galegroup.com 

“Woman-hating in Marie de France’s Bisclavret” by Paul Creamer is about what the title suggests.  Creamer argues that the lais by Marie de France creates a distinctly misogynistic world.  I agree with Creamer that “Bisclavret” does not contain a flattering portrayal of women, but the vehemence of his statements do not adequately place “Biscalvret” in the context of Marie’s other lais or history.  Creamer makes some very strong but unwarranted judgments about Marie de France in his examination of “Bisclavret.”There is only one female character in “Bisclavret” and she is the villain.  This is the impetus behind Creamer’s argument that Marie de France creates an “insidious woman hating universe” in the lais (Creamer).  Creamer explores how the narrative does not allow any excuse for the woman’s actions.  The woman discovers she is married to a werewolf, a situation that could potentially create sympathy for her.  However, Marie never depicts the werewolf as an out of control threat (Creamer).   In the baron’s confession, he makes it clear he never harms any humans, and in fact harms no one until he is reunited with his betraying wife (Creamer).  Since the werewolf is not a threat, Creamer argues, the woman’s behavior then becomes malicious.  In contrast to the wife’s behavior, the king and his all male court are able to welcome the werewolf baron (Creamer).  Since the narrative establishes the non-threat status of the werewolf and its welcome by the good men, the wife’s betrayal is without cause.Creamer makes much of the text’s narrator and its condemnation of the wife.  When the werewolf bites the nose off the woman, the narrator praises this as proper vengeance for her crime (Creamer).  The narrator joins with the wise man and king for condemning the woman for this violence (Creamer).  The narrator continues this focus on the wife’s villainy at the end of the lais.  The final verses of “Bisclavret” do not dwell on the baron’s fate, but instead concentrate on the woman’s fate.  She is banished, and her female descendents inherit the nose-less face of the werewolf’s bite (Creamer).  Since the narrator focuses so much on the wife’s punishment, Creamer argues that the narrator wishes the message of the lais to be the treachery of women.The narrator of a tale is a creation of the author, so Creamer ends his essay with a critique of Marie de France.  Creamer argues that “Bisclavret” represents the most misogynistic of her lais.  Creamer refers to those other lais, and does not see them as being as gender biased in the same way as he perceives “Bisclavret.”  Since “Bisclavret” is unbalanced, in favor of men and against woman, it represents “a misogynistic exercise in storytelling” (Creamer).  As Marie is the source for this text, Creamer reasons she is to blame for its woman hating content.  Creamer ends the essay with a strong censure of “Bisclavret” and Marie for influencing the audience about the weaknesses of woman. The strongest point of Creamer’s analysis is that the lais contains a single female, the villain, who is against the morally superior male cast.  Character depictions in a story relate to how people in the real world perceive those types.  That the wife is a villain certainly reveals something about gender relations.  Creamer takes it to mean that the lais enforces a vision of woman as evil.  I can accept that the lais reflects a woman as betrayer ideology; however, I have issues with Creamer’s overwhelming condemnation of “Bisclavret” because of this.Creamer’s argument is quite simple.  There is only one female, the villain, so the lais is woman hating, and therefore it is an undesirable story.  For such a strong criticism of the lais, I expect an examination of why Marie de France has taken such an angle.  But Creamer seems content to declare the lais misogynistic, with only brief references to its potential message, that of obedience in marriage (Creamer).  But Creamer does not develop how the lais could support a lesson about obedience in marriage, or any other meaning for the narrative.  He is content to highlight how Marie creates the woman as the villain, and that the text is woman hating.  As Creamer moves beyond analysis and interpretation to moral judgments about the lais and its author, I believe he should consider the reasons behind the lais’ content.  His attitude is so extreme it requires more support than a less judgmental analysis would.  The more an argument goes against conventional thought the stronger its support needs to be.Another weak aspect of Creamer’s analysis relates to his use of Marie’s other tales.  He refers to the other lais of Marie de France, but only notes they are different from “Bisclavret.”  There is no real effort to put “Bisclavret” in the greater context of Marie’s body of work.  One work by an author represents only one aspect of their vision, so to condemn Marie de France on “Bisclavret” alone is unwarranted.  He opens the door for comparison to the other lais in the essay, and does not proceed to do so effectively.  The female villain of “Bisclavret” contrasts against more sympathetic women in Marie’s other lais, such as unhappy marriages in “Yonec” and “Guigemar” or unwanted pregnancy in “Milun.”  These sympathetic women differ from the woman of “Bisclavret” and Creamer dismisses them, without considering how and why an author creates different character types.Creamer’s article “Woman hating in Marie de France’s Bisclavret” has a narrow focus on the judgments it applies to the text.  The examination of the single female character is not without value, but the article would be stronger with the addition of how the female villain works in a larger context, instead of settling for the simple judgment of misogyny.