There has been much scholarly writing has been done on the content, imagery and Christian symbolism of ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, yet little has been said about the emotional effect of the text on its audience, both medieval and modern. The protagonist of the story, Sir Gawain, embodies the chivalric ideal, as a knight “of courage ever-constant, and customs pure” (‘Gawain’, 912). Yet both values are tested relentlessly, first with the Green Knight then Lady Bertilak, only to be found lacking. As Sir Gawain struggles to uphold his reputation against harsh realities, the reader questions if it is necessary, or even possible for Gawain to attain the chivalric ideal — to have “ever-constant” courage would mean going against human mortality and having no fear of death. The extremities to which Sir Gawain attempts to uphold the chivalric code furthermore beg the larger question if similar belief structures are compatible with human mortality. I will argue in this essay that the Gawain poet’s depiction of Sir Gawain’s chivalry are instead a test of the compatibility of chivalry with real-life problems like mortality, which ultimately reveal the inflexibility and rigidity of belief systems such as chivalry, an issue which plagues Sir Gawain throughout the poem.
The knights of ‘Gawain’, including Sir Gawain himself, all attempt to follow the chivalric code, which is crucial to our understanding of Gawain’s actions. In her paper ‘How Christian is Chivalry?’, professor of medieval literature Raluca Radulescu defines the chivalric code as “prowess in arms, loyalty, generosity and courtesy, service to women and the dispossessed, alongside personal piety and fellowship among the members of the chivalric community.” In addition to the martial prowess required of knights on the battlefield, the chivalric code also required knights to display qualities of respect and friendship to their peers.
At first glance, ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’ appears to be a mere espousal of chivalric values, namely those of courage and loyalty. Gawain’s reputation as one of King Arthur’s knights is acknowledged right from the start of the poem. The Green Knight’s opening words to King Arthur eschew and acknowledge his chivalry. Upon his arrival to the court, the Green Knight praises the court’s skill in battle and courteous manners. King Arthur’s court is “counted the best” (‘Gawain’, 259) in terms of their chivalric code. They are unparalleled in “passages of arms” (‘Gawain’, 262). “passages of arms” refers to the martial skill of the King’s knights, an important facet of the chivalric code. At the same time, “courtesy here is carried to its height” (‘Gawain’, 263). The “courtesy” here refers to values of dignity and good manners, greatly valued by knights. “carried to its height” suggests that the Arthurian court had done everything humanly possible to obey chivalric values. King Arthur’s court, as quoted in the Green Knight’s speech, can be said to be a thorough representation of the chivalric ideals.
But even Sir Gawain, the most chivalrous of knights, is hampered by the rigidity of the chivalric code. During his stay at Lord Bertilak’s castle, he is forced to fend off multiple aggressive advances by Lady Bertilak. An interesting conundrum surfaces:
“His courtesy concerned him, lest crass he appear,
But more his soul’s mischief, should he commit sin
And belie his loyal oath to the lord of that house.” (‘Gawain’, 1773)
As a knight, Sir Gawain is obliged to accept Lady Bertilak’s advances. Lady Bertilak is a noble, higher than him in rank. Courtesy being one of the chivalric ideals (Radulescu, 1), he is expected to obey her. Failing to do so would make him appear rude and boorish, tarnishing his reputation as a virtuous knight. On the other hand, should he “commit sin” by sleeping with the Lady, he would lose his chastity and again ruin his reputation. Furthermore, it would be discourteous towards Lord Bertilak, the lord of the house, to sleep with his wife in the first place. The chivalric ideal of courteousness forces Sir Gawain into a lose-lose situation: he is forced to offend either Lord Bertilak or his wife.
More importantly, this dilemma causes much psychological suffering for Sir Gawain. Amid a dinner feast, Sir Gawain is “wondrous vexed” (‘Gawain’, 1660), thinking of a solution for Lady Bertilak’s advances without offending anyone. But there is none — the very code that defines Gawain also emasculates him. For the three days in Bertilak’s hold, he is forced to obey Lady Bertilak and take a passive position. In contrast, Lord Bertilak and his men, unrestricted by chivalric ideals, exercise their free agency by going on hunts. In one passage, Lord Bertilak “leads the chase” (‘Gawain’, 1464) on a wild boar, conjuring up warlike images of the lord leading his soldiers. The image is contrasted with the domestic scene of Sir Gawain “safe at home, in silken bower” (‘Gawain’, 1470). This juxtaposition of Bertilak on his brutal hunt and Gawain in relative safety highlights how Sir Gawain’s adherence to the chivalric code emasculates instead of empowers him, as well as causes him psychological torment.
Britton Harwood argues that the noble class of ‘Gawain’ have a strict custom of gift-giving, characterized by Sir Gawain’s courtesy matches with Lady Bertilak and the exchange game between Sir Gawain and Lord Bertilak, where each must exchange whatever wealth he has acquired that day with the other. When knights began to gain wealth and reputations, “nobility and chivalry fused” (Harwood, 4), which put Sir Gawain, a knight, and Lord Bertilak, a nobleman, on a similar social ranking. Their interactions are framed within the historical context of gift giving. Lord Bertilak bestows wealth upon Sir Gawain “because heaping wealth on Gawain makes Bertilak happy.” (Harwood, 5). Each participant is motivated to present the greater gift — whoever does so, is more courteous and hence more chivalrous. This competition manifests itself on the third day of Sir Gawain’s stay. He gives Lord Bertilak the three kisses he stole, only to receive a fox skin, which Bertilak bemoans “poorly repays such precious things / That you have cordially conferred” (‘Gawain’, 1945). Lord Bertilak is disgusted at being unable to trump Sir Gawain’s gift. Indeed, both the nobles and knights are locked into performing their gift-giving ritual by their obligations as what Harwood calls “nobility” (Harwood, 4). “nobility”, in this sense, is an inflexible social structure which forces Sir Gawain and Lord Bertilak to exchange gifts with each other during their relationship of host and guest.
If Lord Bertilak is bound by Harwood’s nobility to trump Sir Gawain’s gift, Gawain, as a knight of high reputation, has his own chivalric code to abide to. Yet Gawain suffers repeated lapses with the chivalric code and refuses to forgive himself. Out of his fear of death, Gawain breaks his truce of loyalty with Lord Bertilak by keeping Lady Bertilak’s girdle for himself. At the same time, he bares his cowardice to Lady Bertilak by accepting her gift. When his shame is revealed before the Green Knight, Gawain is unable to forgive himself for his lapses to the chivalric code and punishes himself. The Gawain poet’s portrayal of chivalric values allows the reader to examine if chivalry and mortality are compatible.
Sir Gawain is repeatedly made aware of his own mortality. His fear of death comes into conflict with his chivalric code when he accepts Lady Bertilak’s girdle and hides it from Bertilak because he “loved your own life” (‘Gawain’, 2367). He is aware of the fragility of his being and abandons chivalric values of loyalty and honesty due to his fear of death. He later claims that “where a fault is made fast, it is fixed evermore” (‘Gawain’, 2512). “a fault” refers to Gawain’s blunders where he succumbs to his fear of death in front of Lady Bertilak and the Green Knight. His physical mortality is at odds with the extremes to which he follows the chivalric code. Lapses in the chivalric code are “fixed evermore”, meaning that they cannot be atoned for. In this case, the values of the chivalric code clash with a fundamentally human value, the fear of death. The lack of tolerance for mortality points to an inherent inflexibility of the chivalric code.
In her paper ‘Emotion and Narrative Empathy in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, Antonina Harbus argues that the intentionally sympathetic portrayal of Sir Gawain’s actions, thoughts and indecision invite audiences to empathise and relate with the protagonist (Harbus, 13). She illustrates the scene in which Sir Gawain shrinks away from the Green Knight’s axe:
But Gawain at the great ax glanced up aside.
As down it descended with death-dealing force,
And his shoulders shrank a little from the sharp iron. (‘Gawain’, 2265)
Harbus claims that through Gawain’s instinctive recoiling from the blade, the text highlights the “contrast between ideal and real” (Harbus, 9) and allows the reader to empathise with Gawain’s “involuntary physical reaction” to “imminent extreme trauma”. Gawain’s reaction is telling of his mental state. As a human, mortal being, he cannot help but fear death. At the same time, he must appear fearless to uphold his chivalrous image. The extent to which Gawain is bound by the chivalric code is extreme. He embarks on the quest for King Arthur to challenge the Green Knight, fulfilling his duty to his lord. In a confession, Gawain is absolved of his sin, fulfilling his duty as a Christian (‘Gawain’, 1883). Yet he considers himself a failure due to the rigid, “lofty, unrealistic heroic ideals” of chivalry. Indeed, the realistic mental and physical depiction of Gawain’s reaction to events taking place in the story allow for greater audience participation. The reader, while empathizing with Gawain, is asked an invisible question: if Sir Gawain cannot live up to his lofty chivalric ideals (Harbus, 13), can they live up to the strict standards of whatever belief system is in place for them?
Gawain’s adherence to the chivalric code is extreme. He punishes himself by wearing the Lady Bertilak’s girdle over his shield as a reminder of his “cowardice and coveting” (‘Gawain’, 2508). These guttural alliterated attributes, especially that of “cowardice”, run contrary to Gawain’s chivalric values of bravery and courage. He is unable to reconcile with his straying from the chivalric code, even if it was for the fear of death. A conflict arises within Gawain when he is forced to choose between his values and life. It begs the question if his unbending form of chivalry may coexist with human mortality.
Gawain is presented to us as the perfect knight who upholds the chivalric code. But then it is shown that even he cannot live up to his reputation. Gawain’s struggle to maintain chivalrous courage in the face of death and honour in Lady Bertilak’s advances reveal the absurdity and inflexibility of the chivalric code. Chivalric ideas are found to be incompatible with human mortality due to the fear of death. Through the audience’s emotional interaction with the text, they are invited to question and critique the social systems in their own lives as well.
Works Cited
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Translated by Marie Borroff. Norton Anthology of English Literature, general editor, Stephen Greenblatt. 9th ed., vol. A, Norton, 2012. pp. 162–213.
Harwood, Britton J. “Gawain and the Gift”, PMLA 106:3 (1991), 483.
Radulescu, Raluca L. “How Christian Is Chivalry?” Christianity and Romance in Medieval England, edited by Rosalind Field et al., NED – New edition ed., Boydell and Brewer, 2010, pp. 69–83. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt9qdj7h.11.
Harbus, Antonina. (2016) “Emotion and Narrative Empathy in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, English Studies 97:6, 594-607, DOI: 10.1080/0013838X.2016.1183929