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.
Provocative post, Donald! I agree that one of the strangest features of SGGK is the asymmetry of its violence, or how the ending fails to realize the violent promise of its preceding sections. It *is* one of the most violent poems we've read, especially in its foregrounding of the violence of the three hunts. By interlacing these scenes with those of the lady's "cat & mouse" games in the bedroom, the poem makes its readers acutely aware of the proximity of domesticity and bloodshed, comfort and destruction. The "animal body" of Gawain, after all, is what he ends up being tempted to protect with the girdle. I am reminded again of the quote from Simone Weil that we looked at earlier this semester: "To define force – it is that x that turns anybody who is subjected to it into a thing. Exercised to the limit, it turns man into a thing in the most literal sense: it makes a corpse out of him. Somebody is here, and the next minute there is nobody here at all." The Green Knight, of course, doesn't play by the rules. As you point out, we're treated to a graphic account of his beheading, which emphasizes the grisly *stuff* of his body, but he does not then become a "thing," a corpse. Instead, he continues talking with great aplomb! Your post raises two important questions for me: how might we give an account of Gawain as being BETWEEN the Green Knight's seemingly indestructible person and the vulnerable bodies of the hunted animals? And, what are the effects of the asymmetrical portrayal of violence? How does the violence of the first parts of the poem continue to echo and resonate, even when the conclusion fails to realize its portentous menace?
ReplyDeleteI was pretty much going to cite that entire scene of the hunt that took place at Hautdesert in order to further Donald's point. But I wanted to approach it from viewing the preceding scene, where Gawain somewhat succumbs to Lady Bertilak's advances, though it's only a kiss (scandalous, in those times, I'm sure). He takes a very passive-aggressive approach with dealing with the praise lavished upon him: "'In good faith,' said Gawain, 'such gracious flattery, though in truth I'm not nearly such a noble knight...But by God, I'd be glad, if you give me the right, to serve your desires, and with action or speech bring you perfect pleasure." (1241-1247) The ensuing back-and-forth of praise and refusal of praise, only winding up in Gawain essentially "giving in" perfectly highlights the juxtaposition between his passivity and the epically graphic description of the killing that occurs from lines 1319-1361. This whole sequence of scenes just serves to affirm Gawain as an incredibly passive character who the author seems to think epitomizes that "perfect knighthood."
DeleteIt's interesting to me to see how the behavior of Gawain starts to look less like chivalry and wreak more of cowardice. The tale does make fun of the idea of chivalry and knighthood to the point where these chivalrous ideals loose their significance while Gawain is simultaneously portrayed as a coward. This cowardice appears to be the foundation for the story because as the time comes for Gawain to venture out and search for the Green Chapel, the youthful vigor which was present when he stood in for Arthur had long since been extinguished.
ReplyDeleteAs per the terms of his "pact"(1105) with the master, Gawain was told to give all he'd earned during the day to his host who would in turn bestow upon him whatever he'd caught while hunting. Gawain said "I agree to the terms"(1110) as we find out, he's not so much a man of his word as one would expect from one of Arthur's knights. Day after day, the lord's wife would enter Gawain's room bringing with her sexual tension so thick I'm surprised Gawain held onto his chivalrous honor for as long as he did. Here the entire year long test is all but a game in which Gawain is the only player who is oblivious to the true nature of the situation he finds himself in. Again the honor of a knight is mocked. In the end he doesn't even "get the girl", because she already married to the lord who he soon finds out is the Green Knight. As part of Gawain's code of chivalry, he must be strong willed and have courage.
As Gawain moves forward we watch as he doesn't mention where the kisses came from, he wears the green belt he received from his hosts wife, his loyalty waivered and ultimately did not hold in the face of danger.
What was most interesting was how Gawain's view of himself as a traditional man of honor was worn away throughout the text while also taking into account how those around him him judged him through his actions. As a knight of the round table, his duty was to uphold the code of chivalry, but just how chivalrous will a knight be when he is viewed/views himself as a mere man?