Creamer, Paul. “Women-hating in Marie de France’s Bisclavret.” The Romantic

                       Review. 93, 2002. 259-275.

            Marie de France’s lay, Bisclavret, is difficult to understand due to the fact that its rather vicious portrayal of Lady Bisclavret does not seem to coincide with the sympathetic treatment of women found in Marie’s other lays. In his essay, “Women-hating in Marie de France’s Bisclavret Paul Creamer argues that this lay reveals a deep misogyny that is particularly disturbing due to the fact that Marie is a female author.

            Creamer states that Bisclavret centers around three different creatures; man, woman, and werewolf. He goes on to assert that the female “being” is judged by one lonely representative; Lady Bisclavret. Therefore, all of woman-kind is condemned by the malicious behavior of a single character.

            Creamer asserts that the relationships between these three different types of “beings” are defined by the categories of “woman vs. man,” ‘woman vs. men,” and “woman vs. beast.” Therefore in all three categories of relationship, woman is the “other,” or the evil opponent.

            Creamer devotes a great deal of time to proving that Bisclavret in his animal form does not pose a violent threat to his wife. Instead, he argues that the true villain of the lay is the baroness. It is woman vs. man, in this case wife vs. husband.  When she plots to steal her husband’s clothes and condemn him to an eternity in his animal state, the baroness is engaging in the malicious and unjustifiable sin of plotting harm against an innocent man.   

            Creamer then goes on to explain the lay’s portrayal of “woman vs. men.” He argues that the king’s kind, accepting treatment of Bisclavret in his animal form reveals Marie’s preference of brotherly love over married love.

            The “woman vs. animal” aspect of Creamer’s argument is fulfilled when the animal Bisclavret attacks his wife, ripping off her nose. Therefore, in all three categories of interaction and dispute within the lay, the woman is the loser.

            Creamer ends his examination of woman-hating in Bisclavret by making the vehement assertion that Marie de France was a woman-hater.

            Creamer’s exploration of woman-hating in Marie de France is problematic. Though he finds adequate, well supported evidence for an exploration of woman-hating in Bisclavret, his argument can not extend beyond the parameters of that particular text. The notion of women hating finds no support in the context of Marie’s other lays, which are generally sympathetic to the everyday plights and trials of women. Perhaps Creamer’s argument would gain greater credence if he were able to offer a feasible explanation as to why Marie’s attitude towards women in Bisclavret is so drastically different from that of her other lays. In addition, as Creamer states in his essay, there is only one female character in Bisclavret. It is impossible to judge Marie’s attitudes towards women based on such a small sampling. In order to correct this deficiency, we must turn to Marie’s other lays in order to gain a proper appreciation of her portrayals of women. By doing so we discover that Marie is not a self-hating woman, but a writer whose works celebrate women in a revolutionary, foreword thinking way.

            Personally, I believe that a more adequate answer to the problem of treatment of women in Bisclavret can be found by reading it through the lens provided by Sharon Kinoshita in her essay, “Royal Pursuits: Adultery and Kingship in Marie de France’s Equitan.”

            Kinoshita argues that, on a simple level, Marie de France is unsympathetic to the lovers in Equitan because they plot harm to others. Therefore, on a straightforward and moralizing level, perhaps Marie de France is unsympathetic to the baroness in Bisclavret because of her harmful behavior towards her husband.

            Creamer’s argument mirrors the reader’s initial reaction upon first reading Bisclavret. He provides a thorough catalogue of instances of woman-hating in Bisclavret. However, he never answers the essential question of why Marie de France’s lay seems so negative towards women.