Chivalry: You're Doing It Wrong (Series, Part 6)

Part 6: Sir Gawain the Chaste

Warning: Spoilers

The treatment of chastity in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is highly contradictory.  For instance, abstinence is highly prized, but kisses are don’t seem to matter at all.  King Arthur’s court plays kissing games, and Sir Gawain gives and takes kisses like they are dollar bills.  Even the sex and status of the recipient doesn’t even seem to matter when it comes to kissing.  Sir Gawain goes from kissing Lady Bertilak to Lord Bertilak without a second thought.  Basically, kisses don’t matter.

Likewise, while actually having sex with a married woman would have definitely been against Sir Gawain’s moral code, apparently flirting with her, kissing her, and generally getting her hopes up, but then never satisfying them is perfectly acceptable.  This doesn’t seem fair at all.  For Sir Gawain, chastity doesn’t require positive actions such as removing himself from the situation so much as negative ones like not actually having sex.  And this is mostly because Lady Bertilak is Lord Bertilak’s wife.  Otherwise, bedding her wouldn’t even have been an issue.

You would think that since the chivalric code doesn’t require much of Sir Gawain when it comes to chastity, it would be easy for him to remain chaste.  Actually, though, the ambiguity of the chivalric code when it comes to sexuality makes it very difficult for Sir Gawain to fend off Lady Bertilak’s advances while still remaining courteous.  He is only barely able to resist her, and it is partly because of the weakening of his moral defenses that he takes the magic girdle (ribbon).  Though the idea of chastity should be pretty unambiguous in principle, in practice it actually confuses the issue for Sir Gawain because it doesn’t make clear which behaviors are o.k. and which are not, or allow him to withdraw from the situation, and this moral state of confusion is what allows him to take the seemingly innocent gift of the girdle.

Chivalry: You're Doing It Wrong (Series, Part 5)

Part 5: Friendship and Loyalty in Hautdesert

Warning: Spoilers

Like King Arthur, the Bertilaks fail Sir Gawain in the comitatus relationship in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (comitatus = the reciprocal relationship between a superior and his charges).  While they are initially good hosts, caring for Sir Gawain’s every need, they are not who they claim to be.  Far from setting a good example for their guest, the Bertilaks actually try to tempt Sir Gawain to behave unchivalrously.  From the minute Sir Gawain enters their castle, Hautdesert, their whole relationship with Sir Gawain is a lie, a test to see whether he will screw up. 

Lord Bertilak tricks Sir Gawain into making an agreement that he will not want to keep, and Lady Bertilak tempts Sir Gawain in multiple ways in the bedroom.  Is it any wonder that Sir Gawain wasn’t able to stay completely blameless?  In his relationship with each of the Bertilaks, Sir Gawain is being controlled by the very people that should be setting an example for him, and he is forced to choose between his honor and his own needs.

Of course, Sir Gawain didn’t fulfill his side of the host-guest relationship, either.  That Sir Gawain didn’t fulfill the agreement that they had created was a lack of loyalty on his part, even if it was only to save his own life.  Through the consequences of comitatus at Hautdesert, the author shows that although fellowship is a virtue, it can actually prompt people to behave unchivalrously if the betters in the relationship do not act with the chivalry befitting their status.

Chivalry: You're Doing It Wrong (Series, Part 4)

Part 4: Friendship and Loyalty in King Arthur’s Court

Warning: Spoilers

The value of friendship in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight needs to be broken down into two parts.  This, the first part, will deal with friendship in King Arthur’s Court.

First, a clarification: since Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was written in Middle English, some of the words in it don’t exactly translate to modern English.  I talked about two of these words, troth and comitatus (although comitatus is really more of an Old English word), in Part 3: Generosity.  Felaȝschyp is one of these words.  It doesn’t really have a perfect translation.  It is most often translated as “fellowship” or “friendship”, though Tolkien translate it “friendliness”.  However, Gerald Morgan of Jesus College Oxford insists that it should be defined more like “loyalty”, so that’s the definition that I’m going to use. 

Really, the only examples of loyalty we see in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are comitatus relationships, either between King Arthur and his Knights, here, or between Lord Bertilak and his retainers and guests, which I will discuss in Part 5: Friendship and Loyalty in Hautdesert.  Remember, comitatus is the reciprocal relationship between a superior and his charges.  If you want more information, see Part 3: Generosity.

The unknown author of the poem obviously has great respect for loyalty, but takes great care to show how loyalty to a superior can be problematic if that superior is not a good role model.  This is very true for King Arthur.  King Arthur should have been the one setting an example of prudence for his knights.  Instead, he rashly puts himself at risk by accepting the Green Knight’s challenge, and Sir Gawain is honor-bound to step in to protect his king. 

He does not reciprocate the honor, respect, and loyalty that Sir Gawain shows him. Not only that, but the king doesn’t even really thank Sir Gawain for sacrificing himself on his behalf.  In King Arthur’s court, Sir Gawain is betrayed by his own loyalty to an insufficiently virtuous superior.

Chivalry: You're Doing It Wrong (Series, Part 3)

Part 3: Generosity

Warning: Spoilers

Sir Gawain’s main fault in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is his failure to give his host the magical green girdle (ribbon) he won.  In this respect, his failure is a failure of generosity.  This failure was a lot worse back then than it is now, so much so that Middle English had words that helped describe the situation that we no longer have. 

There was troth, the keeping of one’s word.  This word had the connotations that integrity does today.  By breaking his word, Sir Gawain did not keep his troth with his host. 

There was also the concept of comitatus, the reciprocal relationship between a superior and his charges.  This could be between a king and his knights, a lord and his vassals, a husband and his wife, a host and his guest, a father and his children, etc.  In a comitatus relationship, the superior gives his charges gifts and serves as an example to them, and in return his underlings are loyal to him, protect him, and bring him the spoils of their conquests. 

Because Sir Gawain did not bring his host the item he had won even after he had promised to do so, he also broke the comitatus bond.

However, it seems like this is the only instance that Sir Gawain is not generous.  Usually, he is generous to a fault.  He volunteers his life to protect his king.  Because he considers them winnings, he gives Lord Bertilak the kisses he won from Lord Bertilak’s wife, despite his winning them being an admission of sorts that he has been flirting with her. 

Yet when Sir Gawain has to choose between generosity and life, he chooses life.

We can’t really blame Sir Gawain for this.  The Green Knight says that his real fault is loving his life too much, and that he cannot fault Sir Gawain for that.  As a reader, I wasn’t sure what to think about this.  On the one hand, it does seem a little ridiculous to hold Sir Gawain to the standards of a Christmas party game when his life is at stake.  On the other hand, it is somewhat shocking that a knight as virtuous as Sir Gawain fails a test as simple as generosity.

The poem shows that generosity, though highly valuable, is not always possible.  Sometimes pragmatism must take precedent.  The Green Knight cannot fault Gawain for loving his life more than generosity, and neither should we.