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?
As Clare correctly observed in her post, “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.” So, in travelling to find the Green Giant and undergoing the moral test that the Giant puts him through, Gawain transforms from the “weakest” of King Arthur’s knights (Gawain describes himself at the beginning as “‘the weakest of your warriors and feeblest of wit’” (p. 43, line 354)) into a knight honored not only by Bertilak but also by all the members of King Arthur’s court. However, though recognized by others for his “morality” and success at the test of the Giant, Sir Gawain still seems to believe himself weak in addition to greedy and cowardly. When the Giant reveals his test, Gawain laments, “‘My downfall and undoing; let the devil take it./ Dread of the death blow and cowardly doubts/ meant I gave into greed, and in doing so forgot/ the fidelity and kindness which every knight knows./ As I feared, I am found to be flawed and false,/ through treachery and untruth I have totally failed’” (p. 179, lines 2378-2383). Moreover, upon returning to Arthur’s court, he feels disgraced and shamed (p. 187). As a result, there exists a contrast that supplements the one that Clare speaks about in her post. Particularly, this is the contrast between how Sir Gawain views himself and how he is viewed by those around him. He emerges as a kind of tragic character at the end of the work, wrought with shame that he will carry, like the gold-hemmed girdle, for his whole life.
ReplyDeleteI'm quite interested in what Claire has pointed out about the character of Arthur, his knights, and the court at Camelot. There's a particularly interesting set of lines which occurs just after the Green Knight first issues his challenge, when the whole court remains silent. The poet claims that "They censored any words coming out, And because of courtesy, I think - Not because of fear or doubt" (244-7). The line is constructed quite purposefully to draw our attention to these possibilities of interpretation. Arthur's court has constructed and upholds these ideas of "courtesy" which are appropriate to a knight, and which become a part of "chivalry" as it is understood by the world (note that Gawain is accepted by Bertilak's retainers as a knight famed for his courtesy). But that also entails a refusal to engage in acts of violence - first the failure of Arthur's court to accept the challenge of the Knight, second the agreement of Gawain to languish in bed while Bertilak goes hunting. In both instances, the text draws an either/or relationship between courtesy and violence, most emphatically when the action "cuts" textually between the hunt and Gawain's conversations with Lady Bertilak. Ultimately, the text shows Gawain, as Morgan points out, believing that he has shamed himself by showing fear and placing more faith in his courteous relationship with a lady than his knightly, fraternal relationship to the Green Knight/Bertilak. Arthur's court, on the other hand, continues to hold (perhaps fearfully) to its belief that courtesy is worth more than the honor of violent action. This fundamental shift in the identification of knighthood - the question of whether a knight is an agent of violence or an agent of courtesy - is what the Green Knight tests, what the court suffers, what Gawain fears, and what the poet somewhat uneasily comments on.
DeleteClare raises an excellent point by drawing our attention to the emphasis on duty and honor (rather than courtly love) in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I don’t think, however, that we are meant to necessarily condemn the festivities at Arthur’s court or see Arthur himself as childish or immature. The description of the Christmas celebration at Camelot really does not differ markedly from the description of the festivities at Bertilak’s castle. The emphasis instead seems to be on the importance of celebrating Christ’s birth. We are told that at Bertilak’s Christmas celebration, “there was feasting, there was fun, and such feelings of joy / as could not be conveyed by quick description” (1007-8) and “they drank and danced all day and the next / and danced and drank the day after that” (1020-1). This description is not far off from the description of Christmas at Camelot, although admittedly on a smaller scale – King Arthur could no doubt finance a much grander celebration than Bertilak. These feasts, in fact, are a display of hospitality, an important Christian duty. Furthermore, we are told that Bertilak himself frequently
ReplyDelete“would leap to his feat
insisting that mirth and merriment be made:
hauling off his hood he hoisted it on a spear -
a prize, he promised, to the person providing
most comfort and cheer at Christmas time.” (981-5)
I think this competition for the hood is analogous to Arthur’s demands for a story; neither are meant merely to entertain the lord, but rather to entertain the entire gathered party on a joyous occasion. When we compare Bertilak and Arthur, I don’t think we are meant to view either in a particularly unfavorable light. If anything, we could argue that Bertilak displays a similar commitment to hospitality and Christian devotion as Arthur. I think in this case, the more interesting comparison is between Bertilak and what we might have expected from a strange, fearful, “half giant” green knight. Those at Arthur’s Christmas celebration might have been surprised to discover that this strange inhuman being displays Christian and knightly virtues and we should perhaps think more about what this says about the man who issues the Green Knight's challenge.