When does Sin deserve Blame?

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight proves to be quite an elaborate ploy designed to establish the purity and chivalric standard knights are supposed to uphold.  The religious context the story thrives on is crucial to recognize the implications of Sir Gawain’s apparent success and failure on the social and cultural level. 

            We begin with Christmas celebrations with all of Arthur’s court partaking in a great feast.  We must take note that the figure of Christ is at the forefront of everyone’s mind.  When the Green Knight makes his strange entrance in his mystifying verdant appearance, he presents a seemingly fair challenge to any knight who would accept.  As all are dumbfounded by the Green Knight’s appearance, Arthur is the only one with the mental wherewithal to take up the Green Knight’s offer.  So we have Arthur, the fated King, accepting what one of his many noble Knights should have the courage to undertake.  As a result, it is Sir Gawain who claims, “I am the weakest of your warriors and feeblest of wit;… / Such a foolish affair is unfitting for a king, / so, being first to come forward, it should fall to me” (354, 358-9).  Sir Gawain explicitly professes his own weak and untested status as a Knight of the Round Table.  I think this harkens to the weakness, the purity and innocence of a child – a child of God.  Sir Gawain takes it upon himself to play the game of the Green Knight and receive a single strike in one year’s time.  He will in a sense “sacrifice” himself for the sake of the others, namely the king.  Sir Gawain is even described in direct relation to Christ as he was flawless in “his faith [which] was founded in the five wounds / Christ received on the cross” and “the fortitude he found in the five joys / which Mary had conceived in her son, our Savior” (642-3, 646-7).  The character of Sir Gawain firmly echoes the ideals of Christ’s image. 

            Once Sir Gawain sets upon his journey to find the Green Knight’s abode, he comes across a castle where he takes refuge for a time.  It is here where his worthiness as a Knight is tested by the physical and verbal advancements by the Lord’s wife.  Three times she attempts to have Sir Gawain commit adultery but twice he only allows a kiss and on the third time, he accepts the gift of her green girdle in secrecy (1857-1860).  However, he had agreed to trade with the Lord anything he “won” in the castle with anything the Lord eon outside.  As such, Sir Gawain commits this singular act of unfaithfulness and hides the fact he won the girdle.

            Of course, the Lord turns out to be the Green Knight all along with the help of Morgan Le Fay and he recognizes the girdle Sir Gawain adorns.  So he strike at Sir Gawain thrice, twice missing and the third only grazing his neck.  The Green Knight reveals the trickery Sir Gawain had succumbed to, undergoing the trials of sexual advances by his wife in the castle.  Sir Gawain is revealed to have faltered once when he accepted the girdle prompting our hero to recall many biblical figures that had been wrecked and ruined by the lies of women (2416-2428).  So, it is ultimately established that women are indeed the source of all of man’s faults.  We have Morgan Le Fay coordinating the entire scheme with her magic and the Lord’s wife tempting Gawain with adultery and sin. 

            However, once Gawain returns to Arthur’s court, he is not met with chastisement.  Instead, the whole court rejoices in his safe return.  When they see Sir Gawain’s scar and girdle, marking his sin, the court just laughs and opts to wear a similar green belt (2516).  There appears to be a complete reversal of the symbols Gawain wears.  The court recognizes but brushes aside the unfaithfulness Gawain commits.  It is difficult to discern where this lighthearted response arises from.  Gawain failed to live up to his Christly standard of chivalry, so why do they celebrate so profusely?  Do they perhaps recognize the foolishness of solely blaming women for their own misdeeds?  Or perhaps, they all wear the girdle to symbolize they are all guilty of sin?   What does this final act reveal about the chivalric standard to which Knights are supposed to strive?  It is certainly a strange ending to a strange tale.

Bloody Disappointment

Gawain and the Green Knight is the most violent of the stories we have read recently. Yes, the other tales have killed off hundreds of thousands of characters, and we have heard descriptions of countless men having their backs broken, or their heads split, cleaved to the groin, but the Gawain lays paint the most gristly pictures of violence, from the beheading of the Green Knight in the first act, “Brought it down deftly upon the bare neck,/ That the shock of the sharp blow shivered the bones/ And cut the flesh cleanly and clove in twain/ …The head fell to the floor as the ax hewed it off/…The blood gushed from the body” (423-429), to the dressing of the deer, “Then they slit the slot open and searched out the paunch…And bread soaked in blood well blended therewith” (1330-61), to the destruction of the boar, “Sights well the slot, slips in the blade…The two sides, attached to each other all whole/ He suspended from a spar that was springy and tough” (1593-1614), and finally the murder of the fox, “And ripped the rascal’s throat with a wrathful din” (1905). These images of blood and gore foreshadow the fate of Gawain, or they should, we expect him to face some violent end, or to at least escape his gruesome end with more violence, but all that happens is “He hammered down hard, yet harmed him no whit/ Save a scratch on one side, that severed the skin/ The end of the hooked edge entered the flesh/ And a little blood lightly leapt to the earth” (2311-2314). The violence is built up so much, and then the tale ends with a little scratch and a declaration of friendship and everyone goes home happy, and even Gawain who is publicly dishonored seems unscathed, physically and honorably, that we must take the story as a comedy. The tale makes fun of the idea of chivalry and knighthood, this position that glorifies violence and battle, but really is exemplified through Gawain, presented as the epitome of knighthood, as merely lazing about, womanizing, lying and cowardly running away.

Do you agree? If so, awesome. If not, prove it.

So, Who’s Going to Fight the Green Guy? – A Supernatural Test of Chivalry

At the outset of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, it is readily apparent that the challenging Green Knight is not an entirely mortal figure. The poet assesses that “I should genuinely judge him to be half a giant, or a most massive man, mightiest of mortals”  (140-141). By challenging the worthiness of the round table, he provokes an interesting discussion leaving the knights “totally foxed” (301).  It is the most extreme logical test of chivalry. The knight has mentioned all the necessary concepts (courtesy, honor, the fame of the Round table, etc.) to incite a challenge, but do the rules of courtly behavior apply to someone who is clearly not human?  Arthur notes that the proposition is “quite insane” (323). But chivalry applies universally; the knights cannot discriminate based on green eyebrows. He has properly challenged the court, and Arthur is impelled to disregard his better judgment and meet the challenge.

Gawain intercedes, resolving that “this moment must be mine.” He is not, as one would assume, trying to seize the moment and expand his own honor and glory. He knows it is a fool’s errand and that “the loss of my life will be grieved the least” (355).  He is sacrificing himself, willingly thrusting himself into a challenge he knows will lead to folly. Gaiwain’s test in this story is thus not one of physical valor or outward courage, it is instead a test of his internal mettle. Physically, he appears to win the absurd contest easily, but because of the supernatural power of the Green Knight, the challenge was deceptive. Gawain is a hero because he displays the resolution and decision making which make a true knight when the exterior world around him has been perverted, in this case by the dark magic of Morgan le Fay.

The conflict in this story is rather dull because it consists of Gawain’s internal struggle to stave off temptation. The majority of the story seems like a big distraction from the actual conflict with the Green Knight.  The actual drama consists of Gawain staving off advances from his host’s wife while he stalls before his battle with the Knight. The only outward evidence of this internal struggle is his constant prayer. The most pointed example occurs before he goes to meet the green knight (2120-2170). Ultimately, it is his saltwort internal disposition which saves him. Apparently his only sin was stealing the green girdle. When a knight is at the mercy of the powers surrounding him, he will triumph by devoutly giving himself over to God and trusting in Christian values. As it is revealed that Morgan le Fay was behind this plot, the temptation and deception of her magic is allegorically associated with the temptation and deception of women in general. His enemy in the story was truly the “honorable ladies who kidded me so cleverly with their cunning tricks” (2410).  Gawain’s initial decision to do battle with a supernatural foe which he knew would lead to folly can be seen as a parallel for a Knight’s decision to entertain romance. It is a tenuous decision beset by temptation and sin, but devotion to Christian dogma is what sees him through it.

Can you find any other examples in the text where Gawain’s refusal of female temptation seems motivated by a specifically religious perspective?

Don't judge a book by its cover

This semester we've seen reoccurring themes of chivalry and the knightly chivalric code. In most cases, the chivalry deals with love and courtship. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, however, we see a different side of chivalry primarily concerned with honor and duty. One aspect I found quite interesting was the contrast of Arthur's immature ideas of chivalry's meaning and purpose at Camelot to that shown at Bertilak's castle in the woods. I found this contrast to be a commentary on the actual truth of chivalry and honor, and thus criticizing Arthur's court's excessive lavishness of celebration and tournament. In the very beginning of the tale, Arthur's court is described as so:

"It was Christmas at Camelot--king Arthur's court
where the great and the good of the land had gathered
all the righteous lords of the rands of the round table quite properly carousing and reveling in pleasure
..........for the feasting lasted a full fortnight and one day
with more food and drink than a fellow could dream of
Such a coming together of the gracious and the glad:
the most chivalrous and courteous knights known in Christendom" (page 7)

We originally have no reason to dislike this form of "chivalrous celebration" until it is sharply contrasted with Gawain's experiences in the wilderness. There, he becomes much more understanding and aware of the natural world and reality, whereas at Camelot, the knights are much more sheltered and not as worldly as one would expect "the most chivalrous and courteous knights known in Christendom" to be. Arthur's idea of chivalry and truth is thus put into question through Gawain's experiences in the "real world." Throughout the text we see how members of Arthur's court never reveal their true feelings or emotions, and project a sort of facade to appear courteous, beautiful, and chivalrous--without really understanding the true meanings behind those knightly characteristics.

Arthur's appearance is youthful, beardless, and immature, and at the Christmas feast he childishly refuses to eat his meal until he has heard a marvelous story. This characterization of Arthur is meant to represent the lack of reality and truth that surround the knights at Camelot. Bertilak, on the other hand, is introduced as so:

" Gawain gazed at the lord who greeted him so gracefully,
the great one who governed that grand estate,
powerful and large, in the prime of his life,
with a bushy beard as red as a beaver's,
steady in his stance, solid of build,
with a fiery face but with fine conversation;
a man quite capable, it occurred to Gawain,
of keeping such a castle and captaining his knights" (page 43)

It's clear here that Bertilak isn't overly easy on the eyes, but is more than capable of his duties. There is a sharp contrast in mere appearance of Arthur and Bertilak, Arthur appears much more young and immature, where Bertilak is bearded, fierce, and experienced. It is at this moment that Gawain realizes that it's not the appearance of the leader or the lavish parties that he throws, but rather purely his abilities and mental maturity that hold any actual importance. Interestingly enough, we find out by the end of the tale that Bertilak and the Green Knight are actually the same person, thus representing the idea that the purpose of the Green Knight's challenge was possibly for Gawain's own personal development and self realizations. Without the contrast of Bertilak and Arthur, Gawain would not have been able to make these personal discoveries of the meaning of truth as well as recognizing his own human fallacies and shortcomings. Does anyone have any other ideas on Bertilak and Arthur's comparisons and how they shape the true meaning of chivalry and truth?

Enemies and Legitimacy in "Gawain"

When the Green Knight first arrives at Arthur’s court, his challenge to the assembled knights seems a bit... well, insane. In fact, King Arthur’s response in Armitage’s translation includes this seeming accusation: “Your request… is quite insane,/ and folly finds the man who flirts with the fool” (ll. 323-324). Both the king and his court are somewhat confused by the stranger, but this seems to me mostly an effect of the Green Knight’s unusual appearance, not to mention the fact that he keeps talking after his head has been chopped off. The motive behind his journey appears actually quite rational – “because your acclaim is so loudly chorused… I’m intrigued, and attracted to your door at this time” (258, 264; see also 309-315) – and the mode of his challenge, though somewhat ostentatious, is immediately recognized as legitimate by Arthur and then Gawain, in that they quickly engage him on his own terms. All in all, the Green Knight communicates, despite his superficial otherness and unusual emerald accoutrements, entirely in the language and according to the expectations of a chivalric court.

That the Green Knight is not entirely “other” is further indicated by the information he reveals to Gawain after the latter has been the requirements of their mutually acknowledged “game.” It turns out that Morgan le Fay, “Arthur’s half sister”  (2464), was the driving force behind his own challenge: “She guided me in this guise to your great hall/ to put pride on trial, and to test with this trick/ what distinction and trust the Round Table deserves” (2456-2458). Inter-familial power politics have thus played an intimate role in what might have seemed, up to now, an arbitrary confrontation. Morgan le Fay’s primary objective, it seems, was to make “grieving Guinevere go to her grave” (2460), thereby splintering the royal family, decreasing Arthur’s own prestige, and perhaps even clearing the way for her own rise as the most powerful woman in court, though my inference of this final prospect remains speculative.

Gawain’s subsequent refusal to meet with Morgan, his own aunt (2471), is not, as I read it, an indication that either he or the author considers the motives behind both the sorceress and the Green Knight’s actions to be illegitimate or irrational. Rather, this refusal sheds light on a complex political situation, in which it would have been traitorous of Gawain to convene with an enemy of Arthur, despite – or perhaps even because of – the fact that Morgan is related to both the protagonist and his king. The overwhelming sense I get from Gawain and other members of the court is that their enemies are, though perhaps misguided in their expectations of the royal court, nevertheless acting appropriately – e.g. the establishment of a fair challenge “by right” (273-274) – on legitimate (or recognizable) concerns – e.g. that Arthur’s knights might not be as valiant as they have been supposed to be (258-264, 2458).

Do others agree or disagree with me on this characterization of the Green Knight  and Morgan? If so, are there ways in which this acknowledgement of a legitimate enemy with rational motives is different from the portrayal of enemy characters in other narratives we have read?

Gawain The Hero

(Note: I have a different edition of the text so the page numbers will probably not match up)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the premiere text in analyzing the figure of Gawain. His honor and valor as a knight are tested throughout, and the main focus of the story is to exemplify his chivalric, knightly prowess.

In Professor Stanton's class last semester, we spent two class periods dealing with the religious imagery found throughout the text, as it features quite prominently. The seventh section of Part Two is a direct example of the theological imagery the Gawain poet relies on. He writes that Gawain "was always faultless in his five senses, and secondly he never failed in using his five fingers, and his earthly faith was founded upon the five wounds that Christ suffered on the Cross, as the Creed informs us.." (418). This is a direct testament to Gawain's character. There is no better way to describe someone's honor than to compare them to the Son of God. This would've been received favorably in the medieval period, as it demonstrates Gawain's pure nature. That isn't the only allusion to Christ found throughout, though. The reference to the Crown of Thorns at the very end is also interesting. I took this to mean that Gawain, initially embarrassed after what occurs with Sir Bertilak ("This band symbolizes the blame I bear on my neck", becomes redeemed of sorts. It is in direct parallel with the story of Christ: the crown of thorns symbolizes both Christ's humiliating shame of dying on the cross but also his eventual triumph. However, this is not the only instance where Christianity comes into play.

Gawain encounters various tests of his faith throughout his journey. He becomes lost on his journey and prays to the Virgin Mary to guide him along his way. He resists the temptations of Lady Bertilak's wife; a good thing, too, as it proves to Bertilak that Gawain is indeed an honorable knight, and the game they are playing upon him won't have a fatal outcome for the eponymous hero. An interesting point occurs after Lady Bertilak offers Gawain the girdle. Gawain faces grief as he prepares for his meeting with the Green Knight. He doesn't consult the Virgin Mary this time; he places his faith in the girdle, which, it can be argued, leads him to reevaluate his own faith upon meeting the Green Knight. \

Besides the religious imagery is the importance of numbers. There are numbers that appear numerous times in key scenes throughout the tale: three kisses are exchanged between Gawain and Bertilak's wife, Gawain is tempted by her on three separate days, Bertilak goes hunting on three separate occasions, and the Green Knight swings at Gawain THREE times. Does the Gawain poet do this on purpose to symbolize the Trinity? Or is he just attempting to create symmetrical balance throughout the story? The Pentangle is also an interesting facet of the tale. It appears on Gawain's shield, and the poet discusses how the five points of the Pentangle represent Gawain's virtues: he is "faithful five ways and five ways each" (414). The Pentangle also helps illustrate the facets of chivalry Gawain represents.

One final question: What genre does this poem fall under? Many scholars argue that it is a medieval romance. What characteristics of the story attest to this? Does the story align itself completely with the romantic genre? What other genre could Sir Gawain and the Green Knight be?

The Role of Religion

Although perhaps a more subtler theme, the notion of religion and the role of God and morality are prevalent in the tale. The many references to God and the religious "kick" that Launcelot goes on, as well as Guenevere's promise to God bring many interesting questions to surface. Are the characters truly religious people? Guenevere says, "Therefore, Sir Launcelot, wit thou well I am set in such a plight to get my soul-hear; and yet I trust through God's grace that after my death to have a sight of the blessed face of Christ, and at domesday to sit on his right side, for as sinful as I ever was are saints in heaven." I wonder, whether her religious commitments are to be taken seriously or whether she is using this as a facade. Also, if she truly is religious then another question is what components of religion do the members of this society take seriously? It seems pretty hypocritical (to me at least) that the characters chose to suppress their worldly appetites as a sign of their true faith (as Launcelot later does when he embarks upon taking on a life with "no regard of no worldy riches") but yet they defy the first commandment which is not to kill. It is interesting to think about how they view killing while still apparently holding true to being religious. It seems as though Launcelot and the other characters turns to God during hard times ("Sir Launcelot threw his arms abroad, and said: Alas, who may trust this world. And then he kneeled down on his knee, and prayed the Bishop to shrive him and assoil him") but when things are going smoothly, they forget about following the commandments. It also seems as though religion is turned to during the end of one's life such as Guenevere whose final words concern God and her vow to never see Sir Launcelot. This seems to be a general theme in life, with the less religious becoming more devout as death approaches. When we think about violence it is interesting to think about how violence and religion are reconciled. My question is, can one be religious and violent simoltaneously in this society or does one counterract the other. It seems as though the former may be true, since the bishop even says that Launcelot was "the kindest man that ever struck with the sword" and thus we may be inclined to think that his actions are excused. On the other hand, the ending of the story reads: "And these four knights did many battles upon the miscreants or Turks. And there they died upon a Good Friday for God's sake" and this seems almost to be a comical way of saying that their actions are perhaps hypocritical and defy the essence of peace and love which are central to religion.

Lancelot's Ladies

In “The Tale of Sir Lancelot and Queen Guenivere,” Malory presents a complicated vision of love. Queen Guenivere and Lady Elaine of Ascolat represent very different versions of female devotion. On the one hand, Guenivere is Lancelot’s lady; he is consistently devoted to her. Malory likens their love to the month of May and claims that “old love was not so; for men and women could love together seven years and no lecherous lusts were betwixt them, and then was love truth and faithfulness,” which seems oddly forgiving of Lancelot and Guinevere’s adulterous relationship (444). Yet for all of the love and devotion Lancelot bestows upon his queen, she is catty, jealous, and quick to anger. 

When Lancelot attempts to divert attention from them in the face of gossip, Guenivere calls him a “false recreant knight and a common lecher” and exiles him from court (404). Later, Guenivere seems to recognize the danger of gossip and sends Lancelot from her to the tournament at Camelot/Winchester (415). She becomes enraged again, however, when she learns that Lancelot wore Elaine’s token during the tournament and accuses him of betraying her (425). After reconciling yet again, she orders him to wear her own sleeve of gold in all future tournaments (437). Indeed, the tale seems to be punctuated with episodes of Guenivere’s anger and episodes in which she relies upon Lancelot to rescue her.

In contrast, Lady Elaine represents an ideal lady, devoted to her love. Gawain notes that “the Fair Maiden of Ascolat loveth him (Lancelot) marvelously well” (425). During Lancelot’s convalescence, Elaine “watched him day and night, and did such attendance to him that the French book saith there was never woman did never more kindlier for man” (427). She certainly did far more to care for his needs than Guenivere ever did. She would seem to be an obvious choice for Lancelot to take as a wife; Sir Bors notes that Lancelot should do so, since she is “a passing fair damosel, and well beseen and well taught” (429). Lancelot, however, had vowed to take no wife, and dismisses Elaine’s devotion. When she begs to be his wife or his paramour, he offers instead to provide her an income for her heirs. This is an interesting offer, since Elaine has vowed that she must die without his love. Considering that Lancelot operates with a very similar mindset in regards to Guenivere, it is somewhat surprising that he is so unsympathetic to Elaine’s declaration. He tells the queen that she has often “been displeased with me causeless, but, madam, ever I must suffer you. But what sorrow that I endure, ye take no force” (436). Lancelot serves his queen and is prepared to die for her just like Elaine is prepared to suffer for Lancelot. Elaine’s only crime, it seems, is loving Lancelot too much. The same can be said of Lancelot, whose love for Guenivere sparks the ultimate downfall of Camelot.

In light of these relationships, what can we say about love? The love of Guenivere and Lancelot destroys the people who love them – both Arthur and Elaine die as a result of Guenivere and Lancelot’s affair. Lancelot in particular could be said to turn his back on his duty and knightly obligations because of love. And what can we say about women? Guenivere is depicted harshly, with little to recommend her to Lancelot’s undying devotion. Elaine, in contrast, seems the ideal maiden, but Lancelot cannot love her when he already loves Guenivere.

Women as Property

Just as in the episode of Arthur and the Giant when the Giant imprisons, tortures, rapes, and kills women, the characterization of women as objects emerges as a reoccurring theme in both “Sir Lancelot and Queen Guenivere” and “The Death of Arthur” in Malory’s Le Morte Darthur.

            For example, when Sir Lancelot meets the Fair Maiden of Ascolat and wears the red sleeve in battle to disguise himself, he demonstrates the way in which he uses the woman as a tool to protect himself. Specifically, Sir Lancelot says, “‘for all that I did was because I would not be known’” (428), therefore admitting that he acts lovingly towards the woman in order to obtain the red sleeve and protect himself in battle. In essence, she is a tool of defense, and is thus transformed from a woman to an object that can be possessed and used.

            However, the Fair Maiden of Ascolat is in love with Sir Lancelot. When he refuses to wed her, “‘I cast me never to be wedded man’” (432), she is suddenly possessed by no one. Without a man to objectify and use her, the Fair Maiden dies, and she transforms from useable object to unnecessary object, namely a corpse. Furthermore, the Maiden’s demands that she be surrounded by rich clothing and bedding continue to render her important only in the visual, objectified sense; she details, “‘And while my body is hot let this letter be put in my right hand, and my hand bound fast to the letter until that I be cold; and let me be put in a fair bed and all the richest clothes that I have about me, and so let my bed and all my richest clothes be led with me in a chariot unto the next place where the Thames is’” (434). She exists as a mere corpse covered in rich material once Lancelot no longer needs to use her for his own disguise.

            So too is Guenivere rendered an object by Sir Mordred when he usurps King Arthur’s throne. When the narrator explains, “Wherefore Sir Mordred made a parliament and called the lords together, and there he made them to choose him king; and so was he crowned at Cantebury, and held a feast there fifteen days. And afterward he drew him unto Winchester, and there he took Queen Guenivere and said plainly that he would wed her” (505), he demonstrates the way in which Guenivere exists as a possession of the king that passes from Arthur to his usurper, Sir Mordred. Mordred simply “takes” Guenivere as one would take the crown.

            Though not as violent and obvious in their objectification and possession of women as the Giant, both Sir Lancelot and Sir Mordred use women for their own benefit, Sir Lancelot employing the Fair Maiden of Ascolat as one would a suit of armor and Sir Mordred taking Queen Guenivere as his prize for usurping the throne.

This leads us to think about the ways in which certain characters perhaps fight back against this objectification of women. Can you find any instances at which women assert their strength and independence and therefore remove themselves from the position of property?

Prove It

While reading the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere this week, I was struck by a particular line spoken by Sir Bors. After an incident of poisoning disrupts a dinner hosted by Guinevere, she is accused of murdering the knight Sir Patricius, and will be burnt if a champion does not meet the accusation in a trial by combat. After some ado about who will take up the challenge in Lancelot's absence, Sir Bors confides in Arthur his concern: "howsomever the game goth, there was treson amonge us" (594). The line suggests a stunning awareness of the justice system which Arthur's court employs. Bors understands full well that no matter how the trial by combat is decided, it remains the case that a knight was murdered, and the duel cannot remedy this fact. In such instances, the judicial ordeal serves not as a salve but as a symptom of the breakdown of society, an indicator that the very character of that society is dishonest.

The notion of the judicial ordeal was that, regardless of the actual combative strength and skill of the participants, God would favor the combatant who was in the right. In actuality, of course, the duels play out much differently. When Meleagaunt discovers the bloody bedsheets in Guinevere's room - evidence of her having lain with a wounded knight - Launcelot says he will prove with his hands "that thys nyght there lay none of thes ten knyghtes wounded [who were lodged with the queen] with my lady" (634). Lancelot thus turns the ordeal to one of a non-issue by tricky words - does God favor this half-truth by giving Lancelot the victory in battle? The ordeal once again becomes an indicator of social disorder rather than a re-institution of order: in addition to discounting Lancelot from the sexual indiscretion (despite his freshly-wounded hands) the duel does not explain the blood on the bedsheets. The physical evidence of misdoing is forgotten once the accuser is dead.

This brings up the ultimate failing of the trial by ordeal - the value of having an invincible champion. Lancelot knows that he can get away with any lie by insisting on a trial by combat and winning it. Indeed, when Mordred and Aggravain go to Arthur to disclose the absolute truth of the affair between Lancelot and Guinevere, Arthur counsels that they catch him in the act - "for Sir Launcelot ys an hardy knyght, and all ye know that he ys the best knyght amonge us all; and but if he be takyn with the dede he woll fyght with him that bringeth up the noyse, and I know no knyght that ys able to macch him" (646). Even though Aggravain implicates Gawain in knowing of the affair - an implication Gawain does not deny - and Arthur has some deeming of it, the king himself cannot move against his own vassal for knowing that the trial by ordeal will offer him a loophole to justice. Although there is certainly a religious tick which motivates the judicial ordeal system, does it seem that there is also a kind of primitive impulse as well, to admit the right to whoever is strongest by force? Mallory seems to draw our attention the failings of this system. Despite his descriptions of valorous battlefield conduct, is he indicting a social system which privileges violence?

Medieval or Biblical?

Within a tale depicting a hero(protagonist) it's often safe to assume that he will succeed by means of divine intervention. In the case of Arthur, Merlin sees to it that he goes about life without worry as Merlin is both his counsel and protector. However, Merlin's role in the text goes beyond that of a mere counsel as his wishes are not only woven into the text but set off the chain of events which guide just about everyone he comes into contact with.

Merlin's role is similar to that of a man playing a game of chess, where other players are mere pawns; however his objective is ultimately unclear.  This is fascinating because of the references to biblical history embedded within the text. "Then King Arthus let us send for all the children that were born on May-day, begotten of lords and born of ladies; for Merlin told the King Arthur that he should destroy him and all the land should be born on May-day. Wherefore he sent for them all, on pain of death; so there were found many lords' sons and many knights' sons, and all were sent unto the King."(31) This is painstakingly similar to the story of Moses and the mass murder of first born sons in Egypt. Merlin's influence upon life and death is almost immediate upon his introduction as he is sought out to heal the heart of King Uther. In the rare instance that Merlin claims there is nothing he can do he provides solace through his gentle words "There is no other remedy, but God will have his will. But look ye all, barons, be before King Uther tomorrow, and God and I shall make him to speak."(7) as if to equate himself God who gives life and takes it away.

"Miracles" such as the sudden appearance of the sword in the stone, Arthur being the only one to be able to remove it from the stone, retrieval of excalibur, and more are all testaments to this divine aura about Merlin as he is clearly more than a mere magician. My question is, does this challenge the interpretation we have concerning the text as an alternate interpretation of Merlin's role is presented? Is the text less medievil and more religious? 

Family Matters in Le Morte Darthur

[on behalf of Adam....]

There is a large amount of juxtaposition in the familial nature of the order of knights in the "Morte Darthur," and seemingly more "conventional" family ties. King Arthur's establishment of the Knights of the Round Table (page 57) at the same time as his wedding to Guinevere shows a creation of a kind of "surrogate family" for Arthur, that he had not really had before that. Raised as a foster child without knowledge of his parents and royal lineage, this new "fraternal order" of knights that coincides with his marriage is Arthur's attempt to gain the family he never really had. Throughout the early parts of the story, we are given, however, glimpses into the family lives of several other characters, most notably, the knights Balin and Balan.

Upon claiming the sword from the damosel in the episode of "Balin and Balan," Balin embarks on his own adventure, apart from King Arthur and his knights. Before this, however, the damosel prophesizes that "ye are not wise to keep the sword from me, for ye shall slay with that sword the best friend that ye have, and the man that ye love most in the world." (page 35) Fast-forward to the end of this episode, and Balin (the Knight of the Two Swords) has unknowingly slain his brother Balan in battle. This incredibly graphic and violent duel between two distinguished knights serves two purposes. First, to emphasize the importance of prophecies in the Morte Darthur, and second, to elaborate on the chivalric, respectful, and fraternal nature of the order of knights/knighthood. Neither knight knows who the other is when going into battle, but still treat each other with a large amount of respect: "Then said Balin le Savage, 'What knight art thou? For or now I found never no knight that matched me." (page 47) The revealing of the Red Knight as Balin's brother Balan only serves to elaborate on the fact that the concept of "family" in the Morte Darthur is fundamentally flawed, as random and unwilling acts of betrayal are incredibly common in the story.

What seems to be the main source of family ties is the bonds of chivalry that hold all knights together in this story. Throughout the tale, although they may be on opposite sides, each knight treats those he fights with incredible amounts of respect. This is not so with Arthur and Morgan le Fay, his half-sister. Whether Morgan le Fay is painted as a "devil" figure, or some kind of "anti-Christ" in the story is unclear. What is very clear is that she is hell-bent on destroying Arthur every chance she gets, seen by her thievery of Excalibur's scabbard (and later, Excalibur itself), and the attempt to murder Arthur with an enchanted cloak, to name but a few. My question is this: Why is it that Arthur, the King with no family background, who doesn't really know what it is like to have a family, finds himself in the middle of such an incredible amount of hostility and violence on account of his sister's thirst for vengeance? While attempting to create his own version of a family, he finds himself haunted by a past he cannot control. This also brings into question who really is in control in this story? Arthur, as a character, is, for the most part, very passive, being acted upon while others go on adventures, advise him, and plot against him. Is this passivity leading to his downfall?

Strange Women Lying in Ponds Distributing Swords

Usually it’s understood that the knight should be the one wielding the sword and the lady should be at a safe distance away from any action, but three women who each upset the normal balance of chivalry during distinctly different episodes in the Morte Darthur have possessed swords. In the opening book, the Lady of the Lake gives Excalibur to Arthur, saying, “That sword is mine. And if ye will give me a gift when I ask it you, ye shall have it” (29). The Lady from Avignon visits Camelot and challenges worthy knights to unsheathe a sword (33-35) and when Sir Balin takes it form her, she curses him, “Ye are not wise to keep the sword from me, for ye shall slay with that sword the best friend that ye have, and the man that ye most love in the world, and that sword shall be your destruction” (35). Most threatening of all, Morgan le Fay begins to openly challenge the order of King Arthur and his court by stealing the symbol of his power, Excalibur (71-72). How do the women who practice magic affect the balance of power in Arthur’s early stages of leadership as he tries to establish himself and unite England? What does this say about the strengths and weaknesses of the chivalric code, especially at this point in the story? How do their methods juxtapose Merlin's?

Each one of these ladies possesses supernatural powers and breach the social codes that define a “lady.” Looking to non-magical women for evidence, the distinctions between the different types of women become clearer. Arthur’s mother, Igraine, exclaims when Arthur and many knights challenge her story of Arthur’s legitimacy and claim to the crown, “I am a woman and I many not fight; but rather than I should be dishonoured, there would some good man take my quarrel!” (24). A noblewoman in this case places great importance on honor but has no real means of protecting it except through a husband or knight. This scene reflects that conundrum, as does the collaboration between Uther and Merlin.

Gawain and Lady Ettard also serve to illustrate the do’s and don’ts of chivalry, until the Damosel of the Lake interferes and enchants both Ettard and Sir Pelleas. She also interferes when Arthur battles Sir Accolon. The narrator describes Arthur, “But always Sir Arthur had lost so much blood that it was a marvel that he stood on his feet, but he was so full of knighthood that he endured the pain” (66). Here, Arthur breaks the trend of depending on magical aid or advice, and his own spirit drives him onward. How does this one moment where Arthur’s own knightliness gets the spotlight, rather than Merlin or a magical sword, compare to all of the other times where magic has helped or hindered him? Does it offer false hope that someone who embodies all that is noble about chivalry could put up a worthy fight against someone as conniving as Morgan le Fey?