While writing my paper analyzing Bisclavret, among other texts, I found an article that brought up some interesting thoughts about the symbolism of the removal of his clothing by his wife:
Premodern English society was based on a courtly system where the King reigned, Queen on arm, followed and supported by a tightly-knit group of knights who were completely devoted to him. These knights bore his insignia and fought his battles in return for land, money, and other bounty that was given in a gift-economy as a reward for their loyalty. In Bisclavret,the removal of this clothes does not only force him into his animal form, it removes his human form and this his insignia, identity, and ability to bear arms in honor of his King. Because he is unable to perform his knightly duties, his animal existence then becomes shameful because he is forced to be absent from the court for an entire year.
However, he is able to gain some of his pride back as he is able to show the king by licking his boots that he is in servitude to him and therefore has a rational mind. He then becomes the King’s loyal companion, accompanying him everywhere, able to protect him as he would in his human form.
When the wiseman realizes that Bisclavret must have attacked his wife for a reason and her torture leads to her admittance that she took Bisclavret’s clothes and the wolf before them is in fact him, he is given back his clothes. This return of the clothing allows him to return to his human form but he will not put them on. The wiseman, ever wise, suggests that he to do so in front of the king would be shameful. There are two possible reasons that he will not put on the clothes in front of the King and the court. The first is that by doing so he proves that he is in fact a hybrid and the removal of his clothes will turn him back into an animal, thus making him vulnerable again in the same way that he foolishly did to his wife by telling her his secret. The second, is that because he has been so shamed in the year that he was unable to fulfill his role as a knight that he fears returning to his human form where he can be blamed for his absence.
This idea ties the clothes together with humanity and the insignia that ties the knight to the king, all of which would function well in an object oriented approach.
I’m glad you drew this reading to our attention (beyond mine, as I read your paper), since it’s an issue we’d discussed from other angles. Could you provide details on the source for this, for anyone who would like to read it directly? And, would you also clarify if this is all summary of the source’s argument, or if this is your building on some observations made in the source?
Of course! I found this information in a book by Wendy Clien called Concepts of Chivalry in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Here is the bibliographic information if anyone wants to look at it for themselves:
Clien, Wendy. “Chapter 2: Chivalry in the Fourteenth Century” Concepts of Chivalry in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Norman: Pilgrim Books, 1987. 15-36. Print.
Clien mentioned in her text that the removal of Bisclavret’s clothing also represented the removal of his insignia, and therefore right to bear arms. I took it farther in my paper and in this post and concluded that because he was unable to bear arms in defense of the King, he was unable to fulfill his courtly duties, thus bringing shame upon his name. Because of this, I considered how this shame that he would feel in his animal existence might be at the root of why the wiseman says he is too ashamed to don his clothes in front of the King.