What interested me during this week’s reading, was that despite the unfortunate separation between Raymondin and Melusine, there was an underlying discussion of nature versus nurture. Melusine entered into a marriage, knowing that Raymondin had murdered his uncle. She assisted him through marriage in rising through the ranks, and becoming a wealthy noble. She acknowledges the crimes of her soon to be husband, and later of her son, but does not judge them harshly and instead focuses on what good can come from our sins. Her attempt to reason with her husband, is that their son only acted through his pride and sense of honour, instilled by his father: “He has only sinned through too much zeal, for the service and glory of your line, by too much obedience to his nature, which comes from you. He has too much spirit, and a very fine spirit. As for you, you cannot blame him.(138)”
However, Raymondin can not look beyond his wife, and child’s monstrous nature, and blames Melusine for the disfigurement, and murderous behavior, of their children: “False serpent,’ he whispered, avowing and breaking out with all that she could even pretend, from now on, not to know, or to doubt. ‘You are only a phantom, and so is your fruit! None of those who have come from your cursed womb know how to come to a good end, because of the sign of reprobation with which you have marked them by your sins(139).” However, only a few pages before he discovers her secret, he is plagued by memories of his own murderous sins. At the point of his discovery, the only sin he is knowledgeable about Melusine committing, is the secret he agreed to keep, her serpentine nature, of which she had no control over.
The narrative acknowledges Raymondin’s error in not controlling his “cursed curiosity(142)” and breaking the pact of trust with his wife. In this tale, Raymondin’s humanity is regarded as fallible, despite not being cursed with hybridity. His jealousy and rage is passed on to his son, and carried on through his lineage, outlined by Melusine’s departing words: “After you, my Raymondin, no man will be able to hold this country in peace as we have seen and as it is held at present.” By betraying her trust, his lineage is cursed by his actions, rather than her inherent nature and “cursed womb.”
This is a great blog post, which could serve as the foundation for a midterm, close reading essay. You have explication and have nearly pushed to a thesis. You seem to want to claim that the story is showing that there is inherent nature, in humans and in the environment, which means that humans should not be blamed for their actions against either. Is this correct? I would love to see you, should you decide to write a midterm essay on this, develop a thesis that lays claim to strong argument about what the story is saying. I think you’re nearly there!