Introduction
Although the presence of female characters is kept to a minimum and perhaps one could even say that the female characters are marginalized in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, they play an undeniably critical and indispensable role in moving the narrative forward (Twomey citing Maureen Fries 103). Their spiritual presence more than their verbal contribution to the text is what drives the plot ahead in this canonical piece of late Middle English literature. Despite her brief appearance in the story, it is Morgan le Fay’s evil desire to humiliate and destroy King Arthur, her half-brother and arch enemy, and his queen, Guenevere, that sets the romance in motion and propels the action to the end. Morgan le Fay’s malice toward her brother and sister-in-law gives rise to the Green Knight’s strategy to shock Guenevere to death and to test Arthur’s finest knight, Sir Gawain, through trickery and devilish magic. Queen Guenevere’s appearance can also be considered a cameo; however, unlike Morgan le Fay or Lady Bertilak, Guenevere’s characterization as a paragon of virtue evades disparagement throughout the story. Lady Bertilak, the most well-rounded of the women in the poem, plays the most active female role in the plot by carrying out her husband’s wish to trick Sir Gawain into acting less than chivalrous in the bedroom scenes. Although she is not a character in the plot, the Virgin Mary is a significant ephemeral female figure that Sir Gawain relies on spiritually in the first half of the poem to keep him safe from danger and evil. Sir Gawain interacts to varying degrees with all three female characters, displaying characteristically chivalric behaviour (for which Sir Gawain is reputed as the paragon of chivalry (Putter and Stokes 252)) towards each of the ladies. Only when the malicious plot to deceive Sir Gawain is revealed to him does the chivalric knight let forth an uncharacteristic and ostensibly misogynistic verbal assault on women in general regarding their purportedly mischievous nature throughout history. At this point in the narrative, Sir Gawain is only made aware of Lady and Lord Bertilak’s roles in the deception; only after the statement in question
does Sir Gawain learn of Morgan le Fay’s role as mastermind of the plot against King Arthur and his court. Sir Gawain declares in the last Fitt:
Bot hit is no ferly thagh a fole madde,
And thurgh wyles of wymmen be wonen to sowre, For so watz Adam in erde with one bygyled,
And Salamon with fele sere, and Samson eftsonez – Dalyda dalt hym hys wyrde – and Davyth therafter Watz blended with Barsabe, that much bale tholed.
Now these were wrathed wyth her wyles, hit were a wynne huge To luf hom wel and leve hem not, a leude that couthe.
For thes wer forne the freest, that folwed alle the sele Exellently of alle thyse other, under hevenryche that mused;
And alle thay were biwyled With wymmen that thay used. Thagh I be now bigyled
Me think me burde be excused (ll.2414-28).
Based on the deception of one woman (and a man), Sir Gawain extrapolates his findings of female trickery to all women by referring in this passage to “wymmen” and not to a typology of women, such as, “deceptive women”, “French women” or “noble women”. More egregiously, Sir Gawain places no blame on his host nor on men in general for the predicament that he finds himself in at the end of the poem, despite Sir Bertilak’s critical role in carrying out Morgan le Fay’s plot to kill Guenevere and shame Arthur’s Court. Moreover, Sir Gawain overlooks Lord Bertilak’s culpability in the face of evidence that this man performed a primary role in orchestrating the bedroom scene where Sir Gawain is essentially
coerced into displaying his “cowardice and covetyse” (l.2508). This verbal disparagement of women not only exposes Sir Gawain to accusations of enforcing a double standard, but it also seems to break the consistency of Sir Gawain’s attitude and behaviour towards women as is expected of an eminently chivalrous knight (Haruta 207). From previous Arthurian tales involving Sir Gawain, his reputation precedes him in SGGK as one capable of “pre-eminence in both courage and, above all, in courtesy” (Putter and Stokes 252). In releasing an uncharacteristic diatribe against women, Sir Gawain disappoints our expectation of a courteous knight. Moreover, the Gawain-Poet provides us with no clear guidance in interpreting this statement, since it stands in isolation in the text in the sense that no character or narrator responds to the “ranting” (Batt 117); as such, it remains awkwardly suspended in the narrative with only the reader’s interpretation to decipher its meaning and its relevance to the story as a whole. One of the qualities for which this poem is held in such high esteem among literary critics, such as Albert Friedman, Richard Osberg, Setsuko Haruta and Carolyn Dinshaw, is its structure (Friedman and Osberg 301; Haruta 206; Dinshaw 205) and yet this spontaneous burst of apparent misogynistic sentiment threatens to disrupt this structure. The issue then that I explore in this thesis is the extent to which various literary critical theories have endeavoured to resolve this structural problem of the poem. Furthermore, I examine which remaining literary critical theories or approaches can assist in further resolving the displaced nature of the “anti-feminist outburst” (Morgan 265) with the aim of harmonizing it to the rest of the poem in such a manner that leaves the structure of this iconic poem intact. Chapter I opens with the research that has been committed to this work and the various conclusions reached regarding this so-called “anti-feminist diatribe” (Sharma 176). Of particular importance is Setsuko Haruta’s feminist and structuralist approach to analysing the poem and shedding new light on a poem considered to concern two men, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Chapter II is devoted to the application of Dominique Battles’s
ground-breaking analysis that has been elaborated on in her book Cultural Difference and Material
Culture in Middle English Romance. In this book, Battles examines the underlying political
viewpoints expressed by the Gawain-Poet in the case of SGGK by dividing the poem into Anglo-Saxon identities representative of pre-Conquest England and Norman-French identities indicative of post-Conquest England. By dissecting the poem into its Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman parts, Battles demonstrates the subtle expression of longing that this poet harboured for the “lost past” of pre-1066 England (Battle 146). By applying Battles’s approach in the context of the female figures and specifically the anti-feminist ranting, I am opening up the literary critical debate to new perspectives that will challenge both what has been concluded prior to this thesis while engendering new approaches to this poem as a more ingeniously crafted poem than previously thought. In Chapter III, after mentioning existing research and applying new theories to this particular subject in a novel way, I employ my own approach to analyzing the anti-feminist diatribe. By examining the language used by Sir Gawain throughout the poem in contrast to the language he expresses in this particular passage, I demonstrate that this epitome of courteous knighthood commits a chivalric faux pas by ostensibly disparaging women en masse. By differentiating this speech from the other speech acts that Sir Gawain utilizes throughout the poem, the structural integrity and harmonious completeness can be returned to this canonical work with the result that it will once again enjoy its status as a well-structured poetic icon.
Chapter I The Research to Date on the Anti-feminist Rant
Prior to the advent of feminist theory, there is a dearth of literary criticism prior to the 1960s civil rights’ movement regarding Sir Gawain’s verbal outburst disparaging the entire female gender from its inception onwards. This anti-feminist rant ostensibly presented no polemical issues even under the influence of great feminist thinkers as Mary Wollstonecraft in the eighteenth century and Virginia Woolf in the 19th and 20th centuries, until modern perceptions of women changed as the result of feminist activists’ efforts in the 1960s and 1970s. The theme of female deception as evidenced in the anti-feminist diatribe is “consistent and continuous…in history” (Sharma 177). The fact that few if not any literary critics prior to the 1970s have taken issue with this anti-feminist ranting suggests that these critics and their readership merely accepted Sir Gawain’s opinion that women are deceivers as beyond reproach and thus accepted the “common wisdom” of the false and cunning female (Batt 137). Before embarking on the task of incorporating the so-called anti-feminist statement into the fabric of a medieval romance, one which is conventionally the medium for displaying among other things the genteel treatment of ladies by their knights (Putter and Stokes 245), I explore the known arguments qualifying the anti-feminist outburst as an example of medieval misogyny.
Had Sir Gawain not ranted against all women once Morgan le Fay’s plot was revealed to him and simply accepted full responsibility for failing the test of virtue and courage, it is likely that the Gawain-Poet would not have been accused of blatant anti-feminist sentiment by a post-nineteenth-century readership. Catherine Batt argues that Sir Gawain employs a known topos of feminine betrayal of men to abnegate personal responsibility for having morally failed Sir Bertilak’s test (Batt 137). Batt is not alone in interpreting the anti-feminist diatribe as such (Putter and Stokes 758 citing Waldef, Gower, Proverbia no. 519 and Dives
amalgamation with the rest of the plot if in fact we believe that Sir Gawain is evading self-recrimination; however, as he states in a few lines beyond the anti-feminist outburst:
For care of thy knokke cowardyze me taght To acorde me with covetyse, my kynde to forsake, That is larges and lewté that longez to knyghtez. Now am I fawty and falce, and ferde haf ben ever Of trecherye and untrawthe: bothe bityde sorwe and care! (ll.2379-2384).
His reference to himself – “me taght”, “my kynde”, and “I fawty” (emphasis mine) – clearly indicates Sir Gawain’s willingness to accede guilt. Furthermore, upon his return to Camelot, Sir Gawain again re-iterates this personal blame, albeit softened in terms more ambiguous than in his first speech of self-incrimination:
‘Lo, lorde,’ quoth the leude, and the lace hondeled, ‘This is the bende of this blame I bere in my nek, This is the lathe and the losse that I laght have Of cowardise and covetyse that I haf caght thare, This is the token of untrawthe that I am tane inne, And I mot nedez hit were wyle I may last’
For mon may hyden his harme, bot unhap ne may hit,
For ther hit onez is tachched twynne wil hit never’ (ll. 2505-2512).
As Derek Pearsall explains in his article “Courtesy and Chivalry”, the choice of words in this excerpt points to Sir Gawain’s ambiguity regarding the extent of his personal responsibility in his moral downfall. According to Pearsall, “laght” means “‘obtained’, but in the sense of ‘received’ rather than ‘obtained as a result of seeking to obtain’” (357). “Caght” similary suggests a wavering concerning any self-recrimination on the part of Sir Gawain by creating a
“displacement of agency” and putting Sir Gawain in the passive role of being acted upon by his environment (Pearsall 357). Nevertheless for the purposes of this thesis, it is significant that Sir Gawain does not place the blame on the women or on any particular people at Hautdesert, but rather on himself albeit as a passive conduit. As seen in the previously quoted text from the poem, the repetition of “I” throughout this passage clearly places the moral responsibility on Sir Gawain. These two passages read together strongly suggest that Sir Gawain ultimately acknowledges personal wrongdoing for having acted covetously when he was placed in a situation where his cowardice was invoked, namely by the Green Knight’s axe. The causation is laid out between the Green Knight’s axe causing Sir Gawain’s cowardice and ultimately his resort to being cowardly by taking the green girdle for protection and thus becoming prey to covetousness. Therefore, Batt’s argument, albeit very convincing, fails to rule out the possibility that Sir Gawain does not evade personal responsibility and thus the search for another theory must continue.
The blatant omission of disapprobation of Lord Bertilak’s complicity and active participation in the deceptive scheme is one of the most difficult problems to overcome in arguing any justification of the anti-feminist ranting. Sir Gawain should have been equally perturbed with Sir Bertilak for instructing Lady Bertilak: (i) to attempt to seduce Sir Gawain, and as a consequence tainting his virtuous reputation; and (ii) to offer Sir Gawain the girdle, which leads to Sir Gawain’s need to lie about possessing it (Batt 137). The acceptance of the girdle thus initiates the moral downfall of an as-yet morally unscathed knight (Putter and Stokes 255). Therefore, the double standard that seems to be employed by Sir Gawain in blaming females, when a male is equally culpable of deceit and revenge, creates an impasse that has yet to be satisfactorily explained by research to date. In Chapter III I propose a theory which bypasses the problem of this glaring double-standard.
Much research has shown the general proclivity of medieval writers and thinkers to propagate the topos of the deceptive and morally corrupting female in her capacity to sexually seduce men (Batt 137, Trigg 262, Rowley 172 citing Butler, Kristeva and Heng). Even in a text extolled for breaking sexist stereotypes of women (Carter 329), Geoffrey Chaucer’s The
Canterbury Tales (a text contemporaneous with SGGK) subjugates women to violence, treats
them as objects to be possessed and enjoyed, and often places them in stereotypical roles of cuckolding their trusting husbands. For instance, the “likerous” Alison in The Miller’s Tale conspires with her lover Absolon in a deception that leaves her husband John a cuckold. In
The Reeve’s Tale the two young clerks devise a plan to take revenge on the miller for having
cheated his customers by replacing the meal and corn with bran and for setting the two young clerks’ horse free. They essentially plan to rape the miller’s daughter : “yon wenche wil I swyve” (l.4178); despite Chaucer’s humorous depiction of this cleverly planned deception and the daughter’s ostensible “enjoyment” of the act, it is non-consensual intercourse which must be considered rape (Barnett 149). On the one hand, some of Chaucer’s female characters are pursued by sexual predators (the men), and on the other hand, they participate either willingly in the case of The Miller’s Alison or they enjoy the sexual act as in the miller’s daughter, just as Lady Bertilak attempts to seduce Sir Gawain and cause him to pursue her, which he does not. The stereotyping of women as licentious or willing sexual victims reflects the characterization of Lady Bertilak to some extent; however, significantly, she is the sexual predator (and not the stereotypically willing prey) and her prey, Sir Gawain, does not give in to his lustful desires and remains chaste throughout the three temptation scenes. The Gawain-Poet’s women remain unscathed either through self-imposed chastity (Virgin Mary,
Guenevere1) or through rejection by virtuous men (Lady Bertilak); whereas Chaucer’s women
1 Chastity in medieval terms can either denote abstention from sexual intercourse or in Guenevere’s case
abstinence from extra-marital sexual intercourse (Mazo Karras 29). This view of Guenevere is restricted to SGGK.
engage in sex, consensual and non-consensual.
By examining a text accredited to the same author of SGGK, the Pearl poem, it is possible to shed more light on the Gawain-Poet’s attitude toward women, which in the case of
Pearl is a very young girl. The Pearl girl is described in terms not unlike those used to
describe both Guenevere and the Virgin Mary in SGGK; whereas the Pearl girl is “To clanly clos in golde so clere; Out of orient, I hardly saye. Ne proved I never her precios pere.” (l. 2-4), Guenevere is
…graythed in the myddes,… …dubbed al aboute… The comlokest to discrye Ther glent with yghen gray, A semloker that ever he syghe
Soth moght no mon say (ll. 74-75, 81-84).
Both female characters are incomparably beautiful, adorned with riches and good. Moreover, the Pearl girl and the Virgin Mary are figures who have an unearthly quality, being spirits from Heaven who act as intermediaries between the male figures and God. In Pearl the deceased girl preaches to the mourning man not to judge God unjustly as if she is privy to God’s thoughts and sentiments:
‘Deme Dry3ten, euer hym adyte, Of Þe way a fote ne wyl he wryÞe. Þy mende3 mounte3 not a myte, Þa3 Þou for sor3e be neuer blyÞe. Stynt of Þy strot and fyne to flyte ,
And sech hys blyÞe ful swefte and swyÞe. Þy prayer may hys pyté byte,
Þat mercy schal hyr crafte3 kyÞe (ll. 348-355).
The Virgin Mary is considered in Christian thought to be the intermediary between God and man, a position that the Pearl girl mirrors in the poem.
Although there are a number of similarities between the females in both poems, there are also significant differences. The Pearl narrator likens himself to a jeweller who has lost his jewel, a clear reference to one exerting control over another to such an extent that the jeweller can change the form of the object he is manipulating: “I haf ben a joyle3 juelere./That juel Þenne in gemme3 gente” (ll.251-252). Whereas the narrator in the Pearl poem regards the girl as his lost property that he could manipulate, the Gawain women are not perceived by Gawain as malleable objects by which he can exert control. To the contrary, Gawain is
actually manipulated by Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay ultimately, and similarly inspired to act by Guenevere and the Virgin Mary. In all instances, Gawain is the one acted upon in
SGGK by the various women in the poem. Furthermore, when the Pearl girl dies, she gains in
power and stature:
‘More haf I of joye and blysse hereinne, Of ladyschyp gret and lyue3 blom,
Þen alle Þe wy3e3 in Þe worlde my3t wynne By Þe way of ry3t to aske dome (ll. 577-580).
Guenevere, Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay, on the other hand, exhibit great power over men on Earth, namely King Arthur, Sir Gawain and Lord Bertilak.
What is most remarkable in the Pearl poem is the anti-male ranting found in the middle of this poem that finds its anti-feminist equivalent in SGGK at the end of that poem. In
Pearl, Adam and significantly not Eve is disparaged for his role in the downfall of mankind:
‘Ino3e is knawen Þat mankyn grete Fyrste wat3 wro3t to blysse parfyt;
Oure forme fader hit con forfete Þur3 an apple Þat he vpon con byte. Al wer we dampned for Þat mete To dy3e in doel out of delyt And syÞen wende to helle hete,
Þerinne to won wythoute respyt ( ll. 637-344).
The Pearl poet demonstrates a gender-neutral attitude that could be viewed from a modern standpoint as more feministic than that of the Gawain-Poet, who scholars agree are one and the same. This point strengthens the idea that a feminist reading of SGGK is conceivable. If the Pearl-Poet expresses a balanced view between men and women toward moral
responsibility, it would be inconsistent for that same writer to then express the exact opposite opinion in another work. At least the inconsistency warrants further search into the possibility for an alternate interpretation of the one statement to harmonize it with the other.
By placing the anti-feminist rant in the context of the times in which SGGK was written, the rant loses some of its anti-feminist potency. Seen in the light of practices such as the cucking or ducking stool and the scold’s bridle, Gawain’s bantering of Old Testament women seems much lighter hearted than when it stands in contrast to an otherwise gallant and chivalric knight. The cucking stool or commode, which later became known as the ducking stool when it was used to place the woman on the stool in a pond, was a medieval2 means of humiliating women who had engaged in an activity not becoming a woman, mostly nagging their husbands (Quinion). The idea was to humiliate her in public by forcing her to sit on a commode with wheels, where she would be transported around the village or town. Later by the 17th century, the cucking stool became the ducking stool, where she would be “ducked”
into a body of water. Either method produced the same result: the woman was publically shamed as a future deterrence to nagging her husband further (Quinion).
In the 1500s in Britain, the Scold’s Bridle was invented (Science Museum). This horrendous-looking contraption was placed over a scold’s head, a scold being a “rude, clamorous woman”, at the order of a magistrate who would have determined that the woman had spent too much time “gossiping or quarrelling” (Science Museum). The Scold’s Bridle would render the accused literally speechless as well as expose her to humiliation and ridicule. Seen from the context of medieval misogyny in general and the two material examples of female humiliation and torture, Sir Gawain’s anti-feminist ranting appears to be less severe in contemporaneous historical context as opposed to the context of post-1960s feminist perception.
Feminist theorists have not only focused on the anti-feminist “scapegoatism” and misogyny of SGGK, but have also re-analysed the poem to formulate a pro-feminist perspective and as such to reclaim it for a modern female audience. If the anti-feminist ranting is isolated then indeed the Gawain-Poet appears to be anti-feminist from a modern, post-1970s perspective; however, if the entire poem is analysed from the standpoint of the author’s viewpoint on women, a different picture is formed of this mysterious writer. First, the female characters command respect or at least awe. Guenevere, the Virgin Mary, Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay are four powerful figures in this poem (Heng 501). Both Guenevere and the Virgin Mary are idealized women beyond reproach and remain so for the duration of the poem. Guenevere is the queen of a well-reputed kingdom, who remains “aloof, distant and static” throughout the poem (Haruta 209). An even more “aloof, distant and static” figure is the Virgin Mary, who is represented in the pentangle, which Sir Gawain bears on his shield. She is the inspiration for his being virtuous and brave in the treacherous world beyond Camelot, as well as his spiritual protector (although her trustworthiness can be doubted when
she leads him to Hautdesert (Heng 501)). Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay, despite lacking in the virtue of the previously mentioned women, exhibit strengths that actively propel the narrative forward leaving Sir Gawain a mere pawn in the game of vengeance (Heng 501). Morgan le Fay is the grand schemer in this play as is discovered in the last Fitt of the poem and Lady Bertilak (along with Lord Bertilak) is her able assistant. As Geraldine Heng aptly describes, the action of the poem is orchestrated by means of the four female characters: Morgan le Fay directing her wrath at Guenevere via the trickery of Lady Bertilak toward Gawain who seeks protection from the Virgin Mary (Heng 501). Thus, the women play a more fundamental role than the men in the poem by creating the premise of the game, directing the action of those partaking in the game and offering divine intervention.
In continuing the feminist approach of re-analysing canonical medieval pieces of literature, Setsuko Haruta poses the question of the influence of the posthumously imposed title of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight on the reader’s perception of the significance of the male figures in the narrative. By highlighting these two characters in the title of the poem, Haruta argues that the chosen title “may be chiefly responsible for misleading the major critics of the poem” (206). What if the poem had been titled Morgan le Fay’s Revenge on
Guenevere and the Knights of the Round Table? Or The Christmas Game? The former would
have undermined the surprise element of the story; however, the latter would not and it would be gender neutral. Since the poem ends with a penitent but still praised protagonist and a Green Knight or monster turned God-like and merciful, the focus on these two characters of the plot sets up a dichotomy posing the flawed “good guys” against the rest of the characters in the poem, who manipulate the male protagonists (Lady Bertilak misusing Sir Gawain, and Morgan le Fay managing Sir Bertilak/The Green Knight).
Haruta also suggests a pro-feminist alteration to the posthumously chosen title. If it were The Courtly Ladies and Their Agents, then the focus would be placed on the female
adversaries in the poem, namely Morgan le Fay and Guenevere (207-208). In this adaptation of the poem’s title, the two static courtly ladies are Guenevere and Morgan le Fay and their agents are Sir Gawain, and Lord and Lady Bertilak respectively (Haruta 210). Lady Bertilak, a female character that holds a relatively prominent female role in the poem, acts as a reminder to the audience of Guenevere, who plays a non-speaking role throughout the poem and Lady Bertilak thereby maintains Guenevere’s importance to the whole of the poem (Haruta 208). For example, Sir Gawain is seated next to Guenevere at the New Year’s feast at Camelot and is seated next to Lady Bertilak, whose beauty rivals Guenevere’s, at the New Year’s feast at Hautdesert (Haruta 208). Both ladies are also described as the epitome of beauty, Lady Bertilak in fact exceeding Guenevere’s beauty according to Sir Gawain’s assessment upon their first encounter. Guenevere is described as
The comlokest to discrye Ther glent with yghen gray, A semloker that ever he syghe Soth moght no mon say (ll.81-84).
Sir Gawain describes Lady Bertilak’s beauty with equivalent hyperbole: Ho watz the fairest in felle, of flesche and of lyre,
And of compass and colour and costs, of all other,
And wener then Wenore, as the wyght thought (943-945).
Where Guenevere is the “comlokest”, Lady Bertilak is the “fairest”; Guenevere “semloker that ever he syghe” and Lady Bertilak “of all other”. One mirrors the other. Thus these ladies merge and by unity have a presence throughout the poem as Haruta argues (208). Morgan le Fay and Lady Bertilak are also mirrored, however, in a contrasting manner: Morgan le Fay being the opposite of beauty and youth (Haruta 211). The old hag and the youthful beauty greet Sir Gawain together, and the one leads the other as if the one led is a shadow of the
other. Despite their contrasting appearances, there is unity in the manner in which they are introduced.
For if the yonge watz yep, yolwe watz that other; Riche red on that on rayled ayquere,
Rugh ronkled chekez that other on rolled; Kerchofes of that on, wyth mony cler perlez, Hir brest and hir bryght throte bare displayed, Schon schyrer then snawe that schedez on hillez; That other wyth a gorger watz gered over the swyre, Chymbled over hir blake chyn with chalkquyte vayles, Hir frount folden in sylk, enfoubled ayquere (ll.951-959).
All three female characters are then intertwined by association (mirroring and polarizing). With a feminized title and visually interlocked female figures, the poem shifts the focus of the story from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight/Lord Bertilak to Guenevere, Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay. In that sense the female-driven plot becomes emphasized and the poem as a whole becomes a poem more about women than men.
Haruta sets forth a convincing argument that may resolve the discrepancy between the Gawain with the impeccable reputation for chivalry toward women and the one who
impulsively berates all women. Haruta places the four female characters into a framework whereby the anti-feminist ranting can be contextualized and harmonized with Gawain’s high regard for some women. The argument places women in four categories: courtly (virtuous and dangerous), eccelesiastical and folk (Haruta 213). Guenevere satisfies the ideals of a courtly woman who is beautiful and as such to be desired (Haruta 213). Guenevere acts as “the typical courtly lady of medieval love lyrics and romances” in her aloofness and distance (Haruta 209). Lady Bertilak falls into the category of a courtly woman who is beautiful but
dangerous and should be avoided (Haruta 213). Morgan le Fay represents the “Loathly Lady” paradigm from the folk tradition who is old, undesirable and should be avoided (Haruta 213). Lastly, the Virgin Mary is the ecclesiastical paradigm of virtue (Haruta 213). According to Haruta’s analysis, Sir Gawain misjudges Lady Bertilak as a courtly lady who can be trusted, but once he finds out otherwise, he places her correctly in the category of dangerous courtly lady, who should not be trusted, just like the long line of deceitful women starting with Eve (Haruta 212). If Gawain’s ranting then can be perceived as merely a denunciation of this last stereotype of a woman, then in fact Sir Gawain’s and the Gawain-Poet’s grievance or
resentment is against certain types of stereotyped women and not all women. Together with Battles’s argument that the Gawain-Poet held Francophobic views toward the post-Conquest culture imposed by the Normans and their English-born descendants, then this anti-feminist ranting becomes both contextualized within the structurally sound plot and attenuated in that the scope of the disparagement is focused not on all women but only those who seem
trustworthy but who are not.
Nevertheless, this argument still fails to resolve the awkwardness and unfairness of Sir Gawain’s diatribe against women. In isolating the target of the anti-feminist ranting at women who deceive, then the statement would lose its range of effect; however, there are two
problems with this explanation. The statement would still be directed exclusively at women and cunning men such as Sir Bertilak would be free of the wrath of Sir Gawain and thus the double–standard of punishing women and not men for the same acts would not be resolved. Moreover, the question of which women would fall within the category of deceiving women poses another problem. According to medieval attitudes toward women, all women were essentially classified into the category to which Sir Gawain addresses his scathing remark. It is generally accepted that what is now perceived as misogyny and medieval attitudes toward women are synonymous (Bloch 1). According to R. Howard Bloch, antifeminism is older than
the Bible and has been propagated by religion, literature, science and philosophy well into the fifteenth century (Bloch 1). According to medieval common knowledge, women were placed into two categories: those engaging in rhetorical persuasion or trickery (Eve as seducer paradigm) and those offering redemption (Mary as a divine intermediary) (Bloch 8,17). The historical attitudes toward female chastity and virginity have varied historically. Although female virginity was not associated with virtue in biblical times, the association was later developed in the middle ages (Mazo Karras 29-30). However, at the same time, female virginity from a medical standpoint was considered unhealthy since it was believed that abstinence upset the balance of the humors. And by the late middle ages, the “conception of virginity” concerned more of a “psychological and spiritual state” (Mazo Karras citing Clarissa Atkinson 53). Even disregarding the Virgin Mary’s chaste status, most if not all women arguably fall short of the standards established by the lore surrounding the Virgin Mary (her extreme piety, virtue, humility), the anti-feminist outburst would be directed at the majority of, if not all, women.
Haruta’s most compelling argument in regard to the anti-feminist diatribe is that the poem in general reflects “the age of crisis” that England was undergoing at the end of the fourteenth century and that this statement exemplifies the fall of Gawain as the ideal knight and thus all knights as well as the decline of all paragons in society (Haruta 212). She also takes examples from Geoffrey Chaucer’s great work, where the Wife of Bath tells of a tale where a knight rapes a woman, which is a gross violation of his courtly duty toward women (212). Haruta proclaims that Sir Gawain in SGGK and the rapist-knight in the Wife of Bath’s
Tale illustrate the fourteenth-century phenomenon that “[t]he image of the Arthurian knight,
which once functioned as the paragon of heroes in courtly literature, was undergoing a change in the waning of its supporting mores” (Haruta 212). If Haruta’s argument is extrapolated to the rest of the poem, it is possible to see that the safety of Camelot, Sir Gawain’s reputation
for virtue and bravery, and the honour of the Knights of the Round Table are all called into question by the acts of the Green Knight and Sir Gawain. Sir Gawain’s view of women as strongly suggested in his ranting contrasts with his adoration of idealistic women such as Guenevere and the Virgin Mary. Still seated next Guenevere at the end of the poem, his wish to love women and yet not to trust them shakes the foundations of doubt regarding his unquestioned reverence of women at the beginning of the poem. The chivalric knight of the Round Table as an ideal figure has degenerated into a man whose courage, honour and respect for women are less than ideal. The poem itself then reflects the degeneration of the genre of the medieval romance from a text of ideals to one of realism or cynicism of idealism (Haruta 212). The ranting then can be viewed in terms of this loss of idealism to one of cynicism: women are not ideal objects of adoration but people who should not be trusted. Furthermore, chivalrous knights are subject to bouts of discourteous behaviour (i.e., anti-feminist ranting) and to the shame of self-discovery that they fall short of the high standards of the Chivalric Code.
Therefore, in employing Haruta’s first argument that the statement can only be targeted at deceiving women, the anti-feminist statement still remains problematical, since according to medieval mores of the day most women fall under the rubric of “deceptive female.” Moreover, there is the problem that the statement excludes male betrayers. In applying the second argument that Sir Gawain’s socially awkward blunder in denigrating all or most women as grand schemers and deceivers of men as the symbolic decline of the image of knights at the end of the fourteenth century, the statement finds a logical place in the plot; however, the fact that no one addresses this social blunder, not even the knight himself later in the Fitt, undermines the logic of this argument. If he had made a mistake, which he had in the case of accepting the girdle and not revealing that to his host, then he would have admitted that mistake upon his return to Camelot as he had done regarding his acts of covetousness and
cowardice. Under the existing scholarship, the statement in isolation or otherwise, therefore, remains patently anti-feminist unless another theory can be set forth to re-claim it as otherwise.
Chapter II Application of New Literary Theory and Critical Analysis
Despite even pro-feminist approaches to interpreting SGGK as a female-driven plot, the anti-feminist statement continues to carry the message that the Gawain-Poet and Sir Gawain were misogynistic males who simply reflected the status quo of the late medieval period in England. It is possible to stop here and accept this interpretation; however, given the power of the female characters in this poem and the Gawain-Poet’s ostensibly positive valuation of females in his poem Pearl, it is compelling to search for another method or approach that can lead to an alternative interpretation that both correlates with the female image in the poem as well as to the concept established in the poem itself and other related Arthurian texts that Sir Gawain is a chivalric knight who esteems women (Morgan 266). Although Dominique Battles does not address this particular issue in her book, she does provide a methodology that can be applied to the research question at hand and divert the discourse away from the conclusion that the ranting is merely another example of medieval misogyny.
As the title to her book suggests, Battles utilizes material culture to decipher the literary value of the historical texts she has chosen to evaluate in her book. This suggests that she has utilized the tenets of Cultural Materialism, which is defined by two of its best-known practitioners, Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, as the application of an understanding of historical context, modern literary theories such as structuralism, and political thought arising from feminist theories to canonical literary texts (Barry 176-177). It is generally deemed an optimistic method of literary analysis, as opposed to its New Historicist counterpart, since cultural materialists tend to take a piece of literature from the past and interpret it in the context of today’s society, thus revealing an aspect of our society through the context of past literary perspectives which have been perceived for our own political agenda (Barry 178). In other words, the cultural material forces the iconic work to reflect on our own political situation. Since Battles analyses documents regarding architecture, and landscape from the
late-fourteenth century as a contextual basis for understanding the underlying political intentions of the author of SGGK3, I would hesitate to call Battles’s literary analysis Cultural Materialism. Cultural Material applies modern documents and co-texts to a reading of an iconic literary work; for example, this methodology would examine the programme notes from a BBC production of Hamlet for a re-interpretation of the late sixteenth-century play. Therefore, Material Culturalism will not be the approach of analysing the anti-feminist ranting in SGGK later in this chapter.
Although she does not apply a Cultural Materialist approach to her analysis, it appears that Battles’s methodology is based on New Historicist thought. In the spirit of New Historicist thinking, Battles analyzes the historical context of the poem by examining documents that give an insight into the England of the Gawain-Poet and in particular those areas of England that appear to be described in SGGK by analysing co-texts such as documents that describe an Anglo-Saxon mead hall, French-inspired castles, historical texts that support a feeling of resentment by the Anglo-Saxon descendants toward the French conquerors, and so forth; in other words, texts or non-texts that show the material culture appearing in SGGK as fictional elements, which have real historical counterparts in the England of the fourteenth-century (Battles 10).
For the purposes of this thesis, New Historicism means the fusion of structuralist theory, the political commitment of feminist literary perspectives, the historical context achieved by examining objects and historical events contemporaneous to the writing of text, as well as textual analysis of canonical texts like SGGK that “continue to be the focus of massive amounts of academic and professional attention” (Barry 176-7). Employing the literary theory of New Historicism, Dominique Battles demonstrates that there are cryptic cultural messages underlying the narrative in SGGK that illuminate the author’s own political
views on the English culture of post-Conquest England, namely the clashing interplay between the Anglo-Saxon past and the ruling Anglo-Norman aristocratic cultural mores. By interpreting the “material culture”- in the case of SGGK the castle, and the depiction of the wilderness, Battles argues that it is possible to decipher the imbedded political message of the
Gawain-Poet in terms of how he felt in regard to the conquerors and the conquered (146). By
examining the way that the poet deals with his female characters, I would like to expand on Battles’s ideas and determine to which degree her theory can adequately decipher the so-called anti-feminist ranting.
In focusing on the social, economic, cultural and political impact on literature, Battles demonstrates how the “material culture” of fourteenth-century England influenced the
creation and contemporary interpretation of SGGK (10). Essentially, fiction and fact are then fused within the poem itself. Namely, Battles illustrates how the Gawain-Poet instilled his narrative with “spaces and objects” infused with literary significance, which seem cryptic to modern audiences but were likely decipherable to a contemporary audience (10). By
interpreting these coded messages, it is possible to glean evidence that elucidates the poet’s animosity toward the new French rulers and a pining to days gone-by when the
Anglo-Saxons, his probable clan of people, ruled the island of England (Battles 146). As she states in her conclusion:
I have worked from the premise, all along, that people do not forget who they are, especially when their identity comes under sharp assault, as it did for the Anglo-Saxons in 1066 and beyond. Likewise, people do not easily relax their cultural perceptions of themselves when those perceptions form the basis of unbridled success and gain, as they did for the Normans during that same period (146).
From this premise, Battles employs the historical background of the Norman Conquest to establish a clear picture of the disgruntled Anglo-Saxon of the first centuries following William the Conqueror’s and his Norman entourage’s violent and merciless takeover of England (Battles 1). Not only did the Anglo-Saxon nobility lose control of their lands, but also the Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastics lost their authority and the Anglo-Saxon peasants were forced to pay higher taxes and rents under the new French rulers (Battles 1). As a result of the extent and degree of the brutality and injustices waged against the Anglo-Saxons, generations of English even as late as the early fifteenth century could not forget the “shameless power-grab” of the Normans after 1066 (Battles 1-2). While Battles admits that “to a large extent” many native English were ready to adapt to the French ways of the Court and to intermarry and thus diminishing any cultural differences over time, recent studies have shown that discord between the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman cultures persisted well into the late medieval period (Battles 4-5). This cultural disparity is evidenced, according to Battles, in
SGGK as well as other contemporaneous texts (Battles 8).
On all levels of society, the Norman-French influence was felt (Battles 4-5). The English poet, for example, had to adapt and did adapt to a world encompassing two literary traditions, the English and the French, by intermingling two literary traditions “with evident indifference to any feeling of national identity or cultural integrity” (Battles quoting Rosalind Field 5). Nonetheless, the degree of assimilation was not complete, as it never is, and many recent scholars including Battles are exploring how the cultural divide between the native English and the Anglo-Norman or Franci persisted well into the late Middle English period (Battles 5). The loss of Normandy to the French in 1204 helped to catalyse the anglicised identity of the Anglo-Normans and to give them pause to consider where their cultural identities should lie (Battles 6). A number of literary texts amalgamating the elements of pre-Conquest English heroes with particularly the French chanson de geste literary tradition
evidence the move toward a merged culture and society (Battles 6). Nevertheless, French elements predominated: Anglo-Saxon heroes were set on a course to the landscape of continental Europe, a place more familiar for the Anglo-Norman readers than their native English counterparts (Battles 7). The setting as well as literary features of these texts suggest a “non-native perspective on Anglo-Saxon identity…[where] the ‘English’ heroes succeed only on Norman terms” (Battles 7). Despite the emergence of French literature draped in token Anglo-Saxon elements, scholars such as Thorlac Turville-Petre and Mark Amodio assert the existence of a current of Anglo-Saxon literature existing well into the late-fourteenth century, where the issue of “native English identity” is forged in opposition to Norman or even Danish identities (Battles 7-8). Elaine Treharne also echoes this sentiment where the English traditions continue well beyond the Conquest as forms of “resistance and negotiation” (Battles 8).
In concurrence with this line of thought, Battles believes that the Gawain-Poet promulgated the Anglo-Saxon traditions in writing SGGK by creating oppositions of clearly French and English elements into the narrative, evidencing therefore cultural division and not assimilation (Battles 8). Furthermore, SGGK deals with the theme of “restoring what is lost” in that Sir Gawain must find a way to restore the lost honour of King Arthur’s court as a result of the Green Knight’s verbal abuses in Fitt 1, as well as his own identity as a virtuous knight, tarnished as a result of Lord Bertilak’s temptation game in Fitt 3 (Battles 9). Battles argues that Sir Gawain and King Arthur exhibit Anglo-Saxon motivations of restoring one’s own honour or the honour of the clan; whereas their enemies, Lord Bertilak alias the Green Knight and Morgan le Fay, exhibit French chivalric characteristics (Battles 9). This Anglo-Saxon personality trait of reclaiming lost honour and re-establishing prior self-worth are
characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon sentiment of “restoring English honour and patrimony” (Battles 9).
Battles explains further how the opening scene of SGGK harkens back to the plot structure of Anglo-Saxon literature, most famously illustrated in Beowulf, where the hero resides in a safe haven which is violently breached by a monster-like creature, the Green Knight and Grendel respectively (Battles 10). The Green Knight is a combination of an Anglo-Saxon monster like Grendel as evidenced by his superhuman measurements (“Half etayn (l.140)”) and strength and his and a French chivalrous knight or lord as evidenced by his fashionable (“A strayte cote ful streght, that stek on his sides,/A meré mantile abof, mensked withinne (ll.152-153)”) and handsome (“myriest (l.142)”) appearance (Battles 10). The “aghlich mayster” (l.136) abruptly disrupts the short-lived atmosphere of safety of the communal meeting place of Camelot just as Grendel does in Beowulf when he enters Heorot uninvitedly with the similar purpose of death and destruction, albeit to a greater magnitude. The Green Knight, unlike Grendel, is “Wel gay” (l.179) with “Fayre fannand fax” (l.181) as one would expect a chivalric knight to be and in that sense he embodies the qualities of a French lord as well. Interpreting the Gawain-Poet’s clues, the logical conclusion is then that belligerent monsters are French.
Architecturally the poem is divided into an Anglo-Saxon pre-Conquest world and a post-Conquest Norman world. The poem begins in the safe haven of Camelot, described as a “hall” not unlike the mead hall of Anglo-Saxon rulers, such as Heorot in Beowulf. By using the word “halle” which is etymologically related to Old English “heall” the connection between the mead hall and Camelot is established (Battles 76). Most significantly, writes Battles, the Green Knight refers to Camelot as a “Þy bur3” (l.259) which is etymologically related to the Old English term “burh”, a “pre-Conquest fortified city” (Battles 76). In
Camelot, there is a large common room with a “private chamber attached” (Battles 11). Lord Bertilak on the other hand resides in a French-like castle, an architectural introduction to England after the Conquest (Battles 11). Battles explains that “[a]s a tool of conquest, castles
retained their association with power and its abuses, hence the ‘good’ characters do not live in them” (Battles 11). In arriving at these observations, Battles relies on archaeological findings of mead halls found in for instance Lyminge, Kent, findings which mirror literary descriptions of the mead-halls built by the Anglo-Saxons of pre-Conquest England, such as the one
described in significant detail in Beowulf (59). Battles argues that when the Green Knight exits Camelot with his head held in his hand, the time that it takes him to mount his horse and depart would be insufficient had Camelot been the building typology of a French castle; however, the immediacy of his departure would have sufficed had King Arthur’s hall been designed in a similar vein to Heorot or a typical Anglo-Saxon mead hall, since the entry was flush with the earth outside the hall (76). The Green Knight’s horse could have easily stood in front of the entrance to Camelot the mead hall and could have been dismounted and mounted immediately upon entering and exiting the main door. The Green Knight “hales in (l. 136” after a brief audible warning and later “halled out (l. 458)” without the sound of footsteps ascending or descending a long flight of stairs, as would be heard in entering or exiting a castle. Norman castles had moats, defence walls, drawbridges and halls accessed by flights of stairs, just as Sir Gawain mentions in his description of Hautdesert: “mote (l.764)”, “wall (l.786)”, “bryge (l.781)”, “hall ful hyghe (l.794)” (Battles 77-78). When Sir Gawain exits Hautdesert, his exit is a relatively protracted event as should be expected considering the construction of a French castle:
The brygge watz brayed doun, and the brode gatez Unbarred and born open upon bothe halve.
The burne blessed hym bilyve, and the brede passed – Prayses the porter bifore the prynce kneled (ll.2069-2072).
Anglo-Saxon mead halls were also built on the ground, where the hall would be entered immediately from the outside without having to ascend a staircase or cross a barrier (Battles
75). Since the Green Knight so quickly enters (“hales in at the halle dor” (l.136)) and leaves (“halled out at the hal dor” (l.458)) the building while on his horse, it appears that the entrance is similar to that of a mead hall, in other words, flush with the ground outside (Battles 76).
A similar comparison can be made between the social function of the great halls of Camelot and Heorot. Camelot is described as a “halle” (l. 62) with a “dece” (l.61), a raised platform where the most honoured people sit, with an adjacent room which serves as a “chapel” (l. 63). Guenevere sits under a “selure” (l.76) or canopy. For the new year’s festivities at the beginning of the poem, all the knights gather there along with King Arthur and Queen Guenevere for a great feast where “no wont that ther were” (l.131). According to Battles, the Anglo-Saxon “heall” served as the “heart of the Germanic lordly residence”, which was communally shared and typically abutted a smaller room that was used by the lord and his family as a more private gathering place (Battles 59). Heorot is similarly used by the lord, his lady and their warriors as a communal place, where they all sit and drink to their guest Beowulf and where Unferth begins his famous boasting challenge or “flyting” (ll. 456-661). Moreover, both Heorot and Camelot are disrupted by the unexpected appearance of a terrible sight, Grendel and the Green Knight, respectively. Numerous parallels can thus be drawn between Camelot and Heorot in terms of how they were utilized socially.
From the description of the landscape, the Gawain-Poet has differentiated the world of the Anglo-Saxons from that of the Normans: a contrast between dangerous wilderness and civilized forests (Battles 92). Sir Gawain accompanied by his guide is forced to endure the perilous route through a wild and unwelcoming landscape to reach the Green Chapel.
Thay bowen bi bonkkez ther boghez ar bare, Thay clomben bi clyffez ther clengez the colde. The heven watz uphalt, bot ugly ther-under;
Mist muged on the mor, malt on the mountez, Uche hille had a hatte, a myst-hakel huge. Brokez byled and breke bi bonkkez about,
Schyre schaterande on schorez ther thay doun showved (ll.2077-2083). The time between his residence at Camelot and his sojourn in Hautdesert, Sir Gawain is exposed to an uncivilized and brutal environment in which he almost dies.
Now ridez this renk thurgh the ryalme of Logres,
Sir Gawan, on Godez halve, thagh hym no gomen thoght. Oft leudlez and alone he lengez on nyghtez
Ther he fonde noght hym byfore the fare that he lyked. Hade he no fere bot his fole by frythez and dounez,
Ne no gome bot God bi gate wyth to carp (ll.691-696). Sir Gawain is “leudlez and alone” not unlike the “anhaga (l.1)” and “freondleasne (l.28)” solitary and friendless man described in the Anglo-Saxon elegy “The Wanderer” found in the Exeter Book (Treharne 56). They have both departed their respective lords, halls, and
companions and thus feel alone and sorrowful. Like the wanderer and Sir Gawain, Beowulf is similarly forced out of the safe confines of Heorot to an inhospitable landscape where Grendel lives. Beowulf also risks his life by exposing himself to the natural elements of this world. Sir Bertilak, on the other hand, experiences the wilderness in a distinctly contrasting fashion. The French lord finds entertainment outside of the castle in his private forest where he is able to hunt for game that provides his guest with gifts, and his household with the necessary nourishment to live in a high-mannered style.
Yet is the lorde on the launde ledande his gomnes. He hatz forfaren this fox that he folwed longe; As he sprent over a spenne to spye the schrewe,
Ther as he herd the howndes that hasted hym swythe, Renaud com richchande thurgh a roghe greve,
And alle the rabel in a res ryght at his helez.
The wyghe watz war of the wylde, and warly abides, And braydez out the brught bronde, and at the best castez. And he schunt for the scharp, and schulde haf arered; A rach rapes hym to, ryght er he myght,
And ryght bifore the hors fete thay fel on hym alle, And woried me this wyly wyth a wroth noyse. The lorde lyghtez bilyve, and lachez hym sone, Rased hym ful radly out of the rach mouthes, Haldez heghe over his hede, halowez faste,
And ther bayen aboute hym mony brath houndez (ll.1894-1909). Sir Bertilak, joined by his companions, is clearly enjoying the game of hunting in his forest of
entertainment. He is neither alone nor friendless, and he is devoid of any sorrowful
sentiments, unlike the Anglo-Saxon wanderer, Beowulf and Sir Gawain. Nature is therefore depicted from dual perspectives, where the “good” Anglo-Saxon hero has to survive in “bad” nature and the “bad” French lord can dominate and profit from “good” nature.
Following the dichotomies established by Battles regarding architecture and landscape as they appear in SGGK, this analysis can be transposed onto the topic of women in SGGK. The women fall into two camps: “good” and “bad”, and respectively non-Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Norman. The good women are outside of Hautdesert, the French castle: Guenevere and the Virgin Mary. The women of Anglo-Saxon Camelot as represented by Guenevere are good, and beyond reproach. Guenevere, a Roman noble woman according to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (Monmouth 221), can be compared to Beowulf’s
Wealhtheow in her role as a foreign queen whose virtue is beyond reproach (at least in the version provided by the Gawain-Poet). In Beowulf, Wealhtheow commands a larger role in the poem than Guenevere in that she speaks and acts, whereas Guenevere remains static and silent; however, Guenevere’s role as the beautiful, virtuous queen of a benevolent king who is given the responsibility of taking care of the best of knights, mirrors that of Wealhtheow. Where Guenevere is seated next to Sir Gawain, the best of King Arthur’s knights,
Wealhtheow is given the responsibility and honour of giving Beowulf, the bravest warrior in the mead hall, a “béages” or torque (l.1216) that is intended to bring Beowulf “haéle” (l.1217) or luck . In SGGK Guenevere is described as adorned and surrounded by precious and
valuable adornments:
Whene Guenore, ful gay, graythed in the myddes, Dressed on the dere des, dubbed al aboute,
Smal sental besides, a selure hir over Of tryed tolouse, of tars tapites innoghe,
That were enbrawded and beten wyth the best gemmes That myght be preved of prys wyth penyes to bye, in daye (ll.74-80).
Similarly, Wealhtheow is portrayed in Beowulf as a richly adorned beauty: Éode WealhÞeow forð
Cwén Hróðgáres cynna gemyndig Grétte goldhroden guman on healle
Ond Þa fréolic wif ful gesealde (l.612-615).
In carrying forward Battles’s ideas of a pre-Conquest and post-Conquest dichotomy underlying the plot of this iconic poem, further dichotomies can be perceived. The English “endeles knot” or pentangle on which appears the symbol of the Virgin Mary, the idealization
of womankind, is replaced by the French girdle at Hautdesert, a symbol of Sir Gawain’s moral failure. Whereas the symbol of the Virgin of Mary protects Sir Gawain from the unknown treachery in the unhospitable woods, the girdle proves to be Sir Gawain’s moral downfall by luring his sense of covetousness and cowardice to overwhelm his sense of honour and duty to his word that he would hand over all his winnings to his host at the end of each day. Where the Virgin Mary leads Sir Gawain to safety4, the French girdle leads Sir Gawain to shame and self-loathing. The dichotomy of good and evil are maintained along culturally material differences of the pentangle or “the endeles knot” (l. 630) as it is called in England and the green girdle or “luf-lace” (“Gered hit watz with grene sylke and with golde schaped, Noght bot arounde Brayden, beten with fyngrez” (ll. 1832-1833)). Through these dichotomies it is possible to perceive the numerous subtle messages of the Gawain-Poet which embody his Francophobic sentiment, which makes Battles’s analysis useful for the purposes of this thesis. Battles’s argument can consequently be transposed onto the division of the women in the poem. The “bad” women with French surnames, Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay, are in the “bad” French castle. The “good” women appear in the “good” Anglo-Saxon mead hall of Camelot: Guenevere and the Virgin Mary whose image appears on Sir Gawain’s shield transported from Camelot. Whereas Guenevere is the paragon of beauty, her beautiful French counterpart, Lady Bertilak, exhibits adulterous behaviour and acts as a licentious
Frenchwoman. Lady Bertilak proves to be a woman that Sir Gawain cannot trust and whose name elicits ill-repute for all women; however, Guenevere remains a paragon of virtue whose good name is not disparaged even after Sir Gawain returns from Hautdesert where he has encountered two examples of treacherous women (Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay).
Similarly, the Anglo-Saxon or pre-Conquest characteristics of Sir Gawain can be juxtaposed to the French promiscuity associated with the courtly love tradition, which Lady
4 Nevertheless, the Virgin Mary leads him to the false safety of Hautdesert where he becomes the victim of
Bertilak unsuccessfully attempts to elicit from Sir Gawain in the multiple temptation scenes. According to the courtly literature of the time of SGGK, “[k]nights are inspired by ladies and are prepared to die for ladies. They humiliate themselves for ladies…and are humiliated by ladies. They languish for ladies…and they sometimes succeed in marrying ladies…, and even after marriage they can lie subject to the sovereign power of ladies…” (Morgan 266). Women were to be protected (Goodman 143), and only the bravest of knights could deserve the fairest of women. A lady’s love was the motivation for a knight to act in accordance to the strict chivalric code (Putter and Stokes 253). In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon women or peace-weavers as depicted in Beowulf or self-reliant warrior-princesses as described in the Anglo-Saxon version of the Old Testament story of Judith for example, French courtly ladies
became the focus of the male protagonists and the reason for risking their lives by embarking on dangerous adventures. Yet, Lady Bertilak’s attempts at seducing Sir Gawain fail to divert his attention away from the impending doom that awaits him at the Green Chapel and his focus remains on the monster and the fight, both being the focal elements in a typical Anglo-Saxon plot. Upon meeting Lady Bertilak, Sir Gawain takes notice of her exceeding beauty and yet is not overwhelmed by it as a chivalric knight would be expected to react:
Thagh ho were burde bryghtest the burne in mynde hade, The lasse luf in his lode for lur that he soght
bout hone –
The dunte that schulde hym deve,
And nedez hit most be done (ll. 1283-1287).
Even at the height of temptation, on the third day, Gawain can hardly contain his lust for Lady Bertilak and yet he manages to overcome his sexual urges by focusing on his duty toward his lord, Lord Bertilak, again a characteristic more typical of an Anglo-Saxon warrior under the Anglo-Saxon code of the comitatus - the Germanic rules governing the relationship between a
lord and his warriors (P. Battles 42)- than a chivalric knight of the French courtly love tradition (Morgan 272).
With smothe smylyng and smolt thay smeten into merthe,… Fo that prynces of pris depresed hym so thikke,
Nurned hym so neghe the thred, that nede hym bihoved Other lach ther hir luf other lodly refuse.
He cared for his cortaysye, lest crathayn he were, And more for his meschef yif he schulde make synne,
And be traytor to that tolke that that telde aght (ll. 1763, 1770-1775).
Even Guenevere is not the inspiration for Gawain’s valorous deeds, but rather the lost honour of his lord, King Arthur, serves as his inspiration to partake in the exchange of blows game. In offering to King Arthur to stand in his stead to commit the first blow, Gawain explains his sense of duty:
For me think hit not semly, as hit is soth knawen, Ther such an askyng is hevened so hyghe in your sale, Thagh ye yourself be talenttyf, to take hit to yourselven, Whil mony so bolde yow aboute upon bench sytten That under heven I hope non hagherer of wylle, Ne better bodyes on bent ther baret is rered…
And sythen this note is so nys that noght hit yow falles, And I have frayned hit at how fyrst, foldez hit to me; And if I carp not comlyly, let alle this cort rych bout blame’ (ll. 348-353, 358-361).
Despite the trappings of a courtly knight, the exquisite clothing and the polite speech, Sir Gawain remains an essentially Anglo-Saxon figure throughout the poem, until the point in the
bad French Castle that he temporarily slips into “covetyse”, “cowardise” and misogynistic
ranting, after being subjected to multiple attempts of trickery and temptation. Gawain exhibits the exterior qualities of the chivalric knight, while maintaining an inner resolve of a pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon warrior; however, once he is successfully tempted to commit the moral failings of “covetyse” and “cowardise”, Sir Gawain uncharacteristically falls short of his reputation for virtue and chivalric behaviour. The French castle environment seems to have overcome even Sir Gawain’s moral resolve to be Christian or true in the Anglo-Saxon sense to his lord, King Arthur, or to his host or temporary lord, Sir Bertilak. Sir Gawain eventually discards his protective Christian shield bearing the incorruptible Virgin Mary symbol for the sin-laden Green Girdle during his sojourn in the insidious environment of the French castle. As a result, Gawain curses all women, or at least all the major temptresses in the Old Testament, while in Hautdesert, in stark contrast to his courteous behaviour toward women prior to his revelation of being deceived. In contrast, Sir Gawain in Camelot exhibits virtue, bravery and respect toward women, both at the beginning and end of the poem while in the safe confines of good Camelot. At the beginning of the poem he exhibits in dress and language the qualities of the quintessential chivalric knight. He is seated next to Guenevere at the beginning Christmas banquet: “There gode Gawan watz graythed Gwenore bisyde” (l.109). His virtue is extoled by the word “gode”. He is dutiful to his lord as a good Anglo-Saxon would be and moves gracefully as befitting a chivalric knight: “And he ful radly upros, and ruchched hym fayre” (l. 366). Gawain manifests the appropriate respect toward his lord in the spirit of the Anglo-Saxon comitatus:
I am the wakkest, I wot, and of wyt feblest, And lest lur of my lyf, quo laytes the sothe:
No bounté bot your blod I in my bodé knowe” (ll.354-357).
Gawain’s chivalric behaviour toward women manifests more noticeably at Hautdesert when he addresses the courtly ladies of the castle. Upon meeting Morgan La Fey and Lady Bertilak, Sir Gawain approaches them as a chivalric knight:
The alder he haylses, heldande full lowe, The loveloker he lappez a lyttel in armez, He kysses hir comlyly, and knyghtly he melez.
Thay kallen hym of aquoyntaunce, and he hit quyk askez To be hir servaunt sothly, if hemself lyked (ll. 972-976).
During the temptation scenes Sir Gawain speaks to Lady Bertilak with the courtesy expected of a chivalric knight:
I am wyghe unworthy, I wot wel myselven. Bi God, I were glad, and yow god thoght, At saghe other at servyce that I sette myght
To the plesaunce of your prys – hit were a pure joye (ll.1244-1247). After Gawain receives the protective girdle, he again exhibits the reputation as a courtly lover for which he is endowed by Chretién de Troyes’ romance Yvain, le Chevalier au
Lion, where lovemaking proves as important and central to the lives of knights as fighting for
honor (Comfort 32).
By isolating the anti-feminist statement in the corrupting French castle according to Battles’s approach, the content of the outburst can be perceived within the structure of an Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-French paradigm. By analysing the anti-feminist remark within this structure allows us to isolate the offending remark in a place that is corrupting and insidious, the Anglo-French social environment, where even the finest of Anglo-Saxon warriors can succumb to the weaknesses of discourteous speech and behaviour.
Similar to Battles’s approach of dividing the poem into dichotomies which demonstrate the genius in the Gawain-Poet’s design of the poem, Stephanie Trigg in her article “The Romance of Exchange” artfully displays other dichotomies throughout the poem: the echoing beginning and ending remarks about the origins of England, the concentric contracts between Gawain and the Green Knight, and Gawain and Sir Bertilak (Trigg 261). There are numerous layers of duplexity throughout the poem that gives rise to the acclamation that this poem is indeed craftily engineered. Sir Gawain is introduced at the beginning of the poem as a proud knight of the Round Table, but by the end of SGGK Gawain is a penitent Christian knight. In both cases, he is virtuous. Only at Hautdesert does Sir Gawain display less than virtuous behaviour, including his recriminating outburst against women from the beginning of recorded history to the fourteenth century. The Green Knight in Fitt 1 is a Grendel-like intruder with devilish plans of destroying the peace and harmony of Camelot or Heorot. By the end of the poem, he is revealed to be Sir Bertilak, a benign Anglo-Norman aristocrat who enjoys mean-spirited games but who is hospitable and generous. Sir Gawain at the commencement of the poem is brave and virtuous, but by the end of the poem he has morally failed and instead of feeling courageous or morally righteous, he disparages himself for his cowardly and covetous nature, which has been revealed for all to see. To practice proper penance, he chooses to bear the girdle that was initially a lifesaver; however, by the end of the poem it proves to be his moral downfall and a symbol of his failure. The kind and hospitable host and hostess, Lord and Lady Bertilak, become the treacherous, inhospitable tricksters that allow the evil Morgan le Fay to carry out at least half of her aim to destroy King Arthur’s Court. These dual patterns identified using Trigg’s analysis represent a small portion of those that can be found throughout the poem, from beginning to end, which underscores the intricate and intelligent design of SGGK.
The dichotomy of a safe Camelot and a perfidious Hautdesert Castle exhibits the puzzle-like craft of the poet. Hautdesert itself can even be divided within the dichotomy of safe and treacherous: initially it is a place of hospitality and safety as opposed to the
inhospitable and dangerous woods that leads up to the castle entrance. Yet by the end of the poem, the castle has taken on the character of a place of treachery and trial, where one is indeed not safe from the dangers caused by one’s own immoral tendencies. By offering Sir Gawain refuge and an opportunity to restore himself prior to returning to Camelot, Hautdesert becomes again a place of restoration and hospitability, albeit tinged with a memory of
betrayal and deceit.
By carrying on the structural dichotomies to the women in the poem, it is possible to shed a new light on the anti-feminist diatribe. The women at the beginning of the poem, Guenevere and the Virgin Mary, can be juxtaposed against the women at Hautdesert, Morgan le Fay and Lady Bertilak. The women at the beginning of the poem are idealistic and morally impeccable, whereas the women in Hautdesert are duplicitous, untrustworthy and scheming. When introduced to Morgan le Fay, she is presented as a benign old lady who can be quickly dismiss as an insignificant character to the plot; however, by the end of the last Fitt, she becomes the grand schemer who has been the progenitor of all the mischief that propels the narrative along in this poem. Since the anti-feminist outburst is stated in response to the discovery that Sir Gawain had been tricked by Morgan le Fey, and Lady (and Lord) Bertilak, Sir Gawain’s verbal attack should not be construed to be directed at Guenevere or the Virgin Mary. The “bad” half of the dichotomy must have been the intended target of the anti-feminist diatribe, since the “good” half had no causal connection to the mischief propagated on the unsuspecting good knight.
If we conclude that the dichotomies intertwined in the plot of the poem suggest political ideas as Battles sets forth in her book, then it is possible to impose this politicization
