Van Bennekom 1
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
Van Bennekom 2
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
Van Bennekom 3
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-
Van Bennekom 4
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.
Van Bennekom 5
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
and Pauper II). This well-regarded theory could bring this statement into a logical
Van Bennekom 6
amalgamation with the rest of the plot if in fact we believe that Sir Gawain is evading selfrecrimination; 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
Van Bennekom 7
“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.
Van Bennekom 8
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 GawainPoet’s women remain unscathed either through self-imposed chastity (Virgin Mary,
Guenevere 1) 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.
Van Bennekom 9
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. 24), 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,
Van Bennekom 10
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;
Van Bennekom 11
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 medieval 2 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”
2
It was utilized up to the seventeenth century in Europe (Quinion).
Van Bennekom 12
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, post1970s 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
Van Bennekom 13
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
Van Bennekom 14
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
Van Bennekom 15
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
Van Bennekom 16
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
Van Bennekom 17
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
Van Bennekom 18
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
Van Bennekom 19
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.
Van Bennekom 20
Chapter II Application of New Literary Theory and Critical Analysis
Despite even pro-feminist approaches to interpreting SGGK as a female-driven plot, the antifeminist 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
Van Bennekom 21
late-fourteenth century as a contextual basis for understanding the underlying political
intentions of the author of SGGK 3, 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
3
Battles also addresses the issues of heroes and outlaws, however, not in the context of SGGK.
Van Bennekom 22
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 socalled 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 AngloSaxons, 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).
Van Bennekom 23
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 powergrab” 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 preConquest English heroes with particularly the French chanson de geste literary tradition
Van Bennekom 24
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 latefourteenth 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).
Van Bennekom 25
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
Van Bennekom 26
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
Van Bennekom 27
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. 456661). 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;
Van Bennekom 28
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,
Van Bennekom 29
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
Van Bennekom 30
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
Van Bennekom 31
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 safety 4, 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
Morgan le Fay, Lord Bertilak, and Lady Bertilak’s treachery.
Van Bennekom 32
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 peaceweavers as depicted in Beowulf or self-reliant warrior-princesses as described in the AngloSaxon 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 AngloSaxon 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
Van Bennekom 33
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
Van Bennekom 34
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 preConquest 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 AngloSaxon 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:
Bot for as much as ye are myn em I am only to prayse,
Van Bennekom 35
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.
Van Bennekom 36
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.
Van Bennekom 37
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
Van Bennekom 38
on the anti-feminist rant as that of an Anglo-Saxon remarking on French women. This
argument, however, still fails to liberate this statement of its inherent inequity. If Sir Gawain
had only ranted against Lady Bertilak, then perhaps it could be prevailed upon the modern
feminist critics that the Gawain-Poet was a mere Francophobe who wished to express in a
subtle or cryptic manner his sentiments against the Anglo-Norman leadership of his day. By
asserting that the anti-feminist remark merely allays critique on one of the French females in
the poem, the arguments generated by feminist critics can be substantially mitigated;
however, this argument would still fail for a number of patent reasons. One, the females
enumerated in the anti-feminist outburst do not explicitly refer to Lady Bertilak, but rather to
Eve and several women who deceived Samson and Bath Sheba (the Old Testament women).
Second, Sir Bertilak admits his central role in orchestrating the trial of Sir Gawain’s and his
fellow knights’ virtue and moral stamina, as well as his role in carrying out Morgan le Fay’s
murderous wishes to shock Queen Guenevere to death when his decapitated head spoke to
King Arthur’s Court in Fitt 1. This glaring double standard imposes a false logic within the
misogynistic statement, since the misdeed is partially male-induced, and yet the blame is
exclusively on females. Therefore, the anti-feminist diatribe remains problematic unless
another theory can explain away these inequities.
Van Bennekom 39
Chapter III The Remaining Gap
Whereas Battles’s and Trigg’s respective methodologies can be utilized to isolate the antifeminist ranting within the confines of the “bad” French castle and thereby to add a
Francophobic undertone to the poem, Haruta’s arguments can be implemented to place the
focus perhaps rightfully on the female characters as the principle forces in driving the plot
forward and away from the passive or male conduits and thereby to shed a more genderneutral light on the entire poem as a whole. At the same time, an intertextual analysis and a
new-historicist method promote a reading of the so-called anti-feminist rant that ameliorates
the harshness of the statement by placing the statement against the harsh standards of
Gawain-Poet’s society which condoned much crueller means of demeaning and demoralizing
women. Still, the awkward and seemingly uncharacteristic anti-feminist rant remains
sufficiently anti-feminist for modern readers despite the alternative interpretations offered by
the above-mentioned literary critical methods. The remaining chapter of this thesis is thus
devoted to endeavouring to close the gap of substantive disparity with the rest of the narrative
that remains at the end of this iconic poem by offering an additional means of interpreting the
anti-feminist diatribe and returning it to its status prior to the 1970s as an impeccably
structured poem. In this chapter, I explore the use of language by Sir Gawain throughout the
poem in contrast to his anti-feminist ranting, where in the vast majority of his verbal
exchanges he utilizes ritualistic or speech acts to convey an explicit or implicit meaning and
yet in the anti-feminist diatribe, Sir Gawain reveals his innermost intentions through the
language of a spontaneous outburst. In addition to being a mere expression of antipathy
toward women, this shocking statement can be seen in another way that has not been
discussed thus far in this thesis. I propose that it can also be viewed as a medieval equivalent
of swearing or a spontaneous outburst of emotional language that fits the purposes that
swearing fulfils.
Van Bennekom 40
Throughout SGGK, Sir Gawain speaks as a chivalric knight would be expected, more
specifically, with carefully chosen words that fit within the prescribed social etiquette of the
day (Putter and Stokes 246); and by the end of the poem, he utilizes the prescribed language
of Christianity to confess and pay penance (Pearsall 352). Sir Gawain exhibits his verbal
acumen at courtly speech when addressing King Arthur and Sir Bertilak, and his adeptness at
courtly love speech with Lady Bertilak. After venting his frustration at being humiliated and
shamed by the wicked wiles of Morgan le Fay as carried out by Lord and Lady Bertilak, Sir
Gawain expresses his penitence in ostensibly Christian terms:
‘Bot your gordel,’ quoth Gawayn, ‘God yow foryelde!
That wyl I welde wyth goud wylle, not for the wynne golde,
Ne the saynt, ne the sylk, ne fore syde pendaundes,
For wele ne for worchyp, ne for the wlonk werkkez,
Bot in syngne of my surfet I schal se hit ofte,
When I ride in renoun, remorde to myselven
The faut and the fayntyse of the flesche crabbed.
How tender hit is to entyse teches of fylthe (ll.2429-2435).
James Winny translates fylthe as “sin” and therefore perceives this speech connoting Christian
penance. Similarly, when Sir Gawain returns to Camelot he repents again of these so-called
sins (although cowardice is not a sin (Pearsall 352)):
‘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 cowardice 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;
Van Bennekom 41
For mon may hyden his harme, bot unhap ne may hit,
For ther hit onez is tachched twynne wil hit never (ll.2505-2512).
Derek Pearsall refers to this speech as “redolent of the Christian formulae of confession”
(352). As Pearsall argues Sir Gawain utilizes the language of Christianity superficially
concerning a subject that concerns ethics more than religion (352). In times of dire need when
his aim is in fact a religious one, Sir Gawain demonstrates a verbal elegance of religious
speech when seeking protection:
…‘I beseche the, lorde,
And Mary, that is myldest moder so dere
Of sum herber ther heghly I myght here masse,
And thy matynez to-morne, mekely I ask,
And therto prestly I pray my pater and ave
and crede.’
He rode in his prayere,
And cryed for his mysdede,
He sayned hym in sythes sere,
And sayde, ‘Cros Kryst me spede!’ (ll. 753-762).
When utilizing ritual speech, Sir Gawain adroitly delivers the prescribed speech, relying on
the self-evidence of the words that have been learned by rote and used by other pious knights
in the appropriate situation. Even when the poet omits the spoken text and refers to the
prescribed speech, as in the case of the confession to the priest, Pearsall asserts
…we know what he said and that it had nothing to do with any of the things
that were happening to him that were to turn out to be of such serious
importance” (353).
Van Bennekom 42
These speech acts or ritualistic speeches that are formulaic in nature lack the personal quality
of spontaneous, original locution. They contain words that replace acts (“I pronounce you
man and wife”) or convey social and not personal meaning (“How lovely to make your
acquaintance”). More specifically, prescribed speech or even ritualistic speech derive from
practices imposed by the cultural institutions that deem these speech acts or verbal rituals
necessary for social or communicative efficacy. When one is forced to apologize, for
example, the speech of repentance may not be sincere or heartfelt; however, it carries the
message that society deems important for harmonious relations. By the deliverance of this
speech act, the enforcer’s guilt is alleviated, the perpetrator is exonerated and the victim feels
vindicated. The social order is thus restored.
Returning to Battles’s concept of pre- and post-Conquest dichotomies in the poem,
there is a significant linguistic event that occurs prior to the curses and anti-feminist rant that
suggests that Sir Gawain is breaking psychologically under the corrupting influences of the
“bad” French Castle and the morally noxious green girdle. When presented with the green
girdle, Sir Gawain responds:
Then kest the knyght, and hit come to his hert
Hit were a juel for the jopardé that hym jugged were (ll.1855-1856).
As Ad Putter and Myra Stokes assert, the first line is spoken with words of Old English
origin, whereas the words spoken in the second line are etymologically French (248). In other
words, Sir Gawain reflects rationally in Anglo-Saxon terms, but is suddenly conquered by his
covetousness for survival which he expresses in apropos French terms. Again this gives
credence to the Gawain-Poet’s intention to place a moral value on the Anglo-Saxon and
Anglo-Norman cultures, where even a great virtuous knight can be forced to morally fall, a
fall which is first witnessed in a subtle linguistic turn from Germanic to French, rational to
irrational, modest to avaricious.
Van Bennekom 43
As is typical of a courteous knight whose actions are governed by strict rules of
conduct, his speech is likewise restricted to courteous speech (Dinshaw 213). The act of being
a knight is
“a performance – is indeed a performative, conventional and iterable, not freely
chosen but constrained by birth, class status, and other structures of the
normative and Gawain is always in production in this poem” (Dinshaw 213).
As such, he says what he is allowed to say in a prescribed manner that befits a knight. When
Sir Gawain speaks in the poem, he addresses King Arthur offering to stand in his place
against the Green Knight as a show of honour to his lord, the King. The statement is replete
with humility and respect to his king, and is as such “a masterpiece of courtly rhetoric”
(Pearsall 358).
‘Wolde ye, worthilych lorde,’ quoth Wawan to the kyng,
‘Bid me bowe fro this benche, and stoned by yow there,
That I wythoute vylanye myght voyde this table,
And that my legge lady liked not ille,
I wolde com to your counseyl bifore your cort riche.
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.
I am the wakkest, I wot, and of wyt feblest,
And lest lur of my lyf, quo laytes the sothe:
Bot for as much as ye are myn em I am only to prayse,
Van Bennekom 44
No bounté bot your blod I in my bodé knowe;
And sythen this note is so nys that noght hit yow falles,
And I have frayned hit at yow fyrst, foldez hit to me;
And if I carp not comlyly, let alle this cort rych
bout blame’ (ll.344-361).
Sir Gawain’s speech exemplifies the paragon of courteous speech by requesting the
permission of his lord to “stonde (l.344)”, hoping that his request does not displease his
“legge lady (l.346)”, claiming that he is in fact the “wakkest (l.354)” and “feeblest (l.354)”
warrior, which he is not, so that should he die, then his death would not amount to much “lur
(l.355)”. The speech is highly prescribed and even its content should not be literally
interpreted (Pearsall 358). It relates the genteel request of a great warrior to risk his own life
for that of his lord, which is the duty of a knight according to the strict Chivalric Code
(Pearsall 358) as well as the duty of an Anglo-Saxon warrior under the comitatus (O’Brien,
Karen 1). Just prior to departing from Camelot to face the Green Knight, Sir Gawain
exclaims: “Quat schuld I wonde?/ Of destinés derf and dere/What may mon do bot fonde?”
(ll.563-565). Here, Gawain is speaking the ritual words of a chivalric or Anglo-Saxon warrior
who is obliged to show courage in the face of battle. According to the comitatus, the worst
shame that an Anglo-Saxon warrior could commit is to retreat from a fight (O’Brien 1). A
chivalrous knight must similarly face danger with courage. When Sir Gawain is welcomed
into Sir Bertilak’s home, his knights express their excitement that they will be exposed to
examples of courteous speech and conduct, in accordance to Sir Gawain’s reputation for such:
‘Now schal we semlych se sleghtez of thewez
And the teccheles termes of talking noble,
Wich spede is in speche unspurd may we lerne,
Syn we haf fonged that fyne fader of nurture’ (ll. 916-919).
Van Bennekom 45
Upon meeting Lord Bertilak for the first time, Sir Gawain and the lord exchange common
courteous greetings, which are exhibitions of fine breeding and politeness and not meant to be
interpreted literally:
‘Iwysse, sir, quyl I leve, me worthez the better
That Gawayn hatz ben my gest at Goddez awen fest.’
‘Grant merci, sir,’ quoth Gawayn, ‘in god fayth hit is yowrez,
Al the honour is your awen – the heghe kyng yow yelde! (ll.1035-1039)
In addition to chivalric and Christian speech acts, legal language is often used between
the Green Knight or Sir Bertilak and Sir Gawain. In the first mentioning of the terms of the
agreement between Sir Bertilak and Sir Gawain at the castle, Sir Bertilak speaks the
prescribed legal language of contracts:
‘Yet firre,’ quoth the freke, ‘a forwarde we make:
Quat-so-ever I wynne in the wod hit worthez to yourez,
And quat chek so ye acheve chaunge me therforne.
Swete, swap we so, sware with trawthe,
Quether, leude, so lymp, lere other better’ (ll.1105-1109).
The exchange or “swap” necessary to a contract is stated under oath or “trawthe” and thereby
the legally charged language forms the essence of the contract. These are again examples of
prescribed language that the speaker uses in accordance with the customs, in this case,
pertaining to the law. By utilizing prescribed legal language, the parties to the contract
understand one another more clearly and thus speech acts here facilitate communication.
Another example of legal speech acts comes at the end of the poem. After Sir Gawain
receives the “nirt” on the neck, he comes to his feet to defend himself from another blow and
threatens the Green Knight with a return blow should another ensue. Here, Sir Gawain wants
Van Bennekom 46
his words to be understood literally since they are a warning that he will defend himself now
to the death as he has complied with the terms of the original contract:
‘Blynne, burne, of thy bur, bede me no mo!
I haf a stroke in this sted withoute stryf hent,
And if thow rechez me any mo, I redyly schal quyte,
And yelde yederly agayn – and therto ye tryst –
and foo.
Bot on stroke here me fallez –
The covenaunt schop so,
Fermed in Arthurez hallez –
And therefore, hende, now hoo! (ll.2322-2330).
The crux of this speech is to convey the contractual language that the terms have been met
and the threat of retaliation if the Green Knight violates the terms by striking another blow.
The speech is thus a legal act in essence. After exclaiming the two curses and the swearing or
anti-feminist outburst, Sir Gawain confesses his wrongdoings: “I biknowe yow, knight, here
style,/Al fawty is my fare” (ll. 2385-2386). This is the speech act of a confession in which the
speaker acknowledges personal responsibility for a moral failing.
Another speech act is the socially intended one, of which there are numerous examples
in SGGK. When Lady Bertilak clandestinely arrives in Sir Gawain’s bed, although confused
by the gesture Gawain greets the lady with courtesy:
‘Goud moroun, gay,’ quoth Gawayn the blythe,
‘Me schal worthe at your wille, and that me wel lykez,
For I yelde me yederly, and yeghe after grace,
And that is the best, be my dome, for me byhovez nede’ (ll.1213-1216).
Van Bennekom 47
His courteous language informs Lady Bertilak that he is well-versed in courtly conversation
with a lady; however, his words are not to be taken literally as is evidenced by his later refusal
to engage in her will to commit adultery. They continue with this level of courteous speech
throughout all three bedroom scenes and Sir Gawain proves proficiently conversant in the art
of courtly speech. In the third bedroom scene, when Sir Gawain is almost driven to commit
the adulterous act, he exclaims: “‘God schylde,’ quoth the schalk, ‘that schal not befalle!’”
(l.1776). This appears to be spontaneously spoken out of desperation and thus a form of
natural, non-prescribed speech; however, the appeal to God’s power recalls the language of a
divine incantation that one may declare in the face of danger or temptation, a modern
equivalent of “God help me!”, where even the non-pious will exclaim such expression as a
means of expressing helplessness and frustration.
Whether this is a poem imbued with Christian values is a debated topic (Pearsall citing
Bensen 352); nevertheless, Sir Gawain at least utilizes Christian speech acts on a number of
occasions in the poem, as previously mentioned. Prior to mounting Gringolet on the day of his
departure from the castle, Sir Gawain says a prayer asking that God reward his hospitable host
and hostess:
‘Here is a meyny in this mote that on menske thenkkez,
The mon hem maynteines, joy mot thay have;
The leve lady on lyve luf hir bityde;
Yif thay for charyté cherysen a gest,
And halden honour in her honde, the hathel hem yelde
That haldez the heven upon hyghe, and also yow alle! (ll.2052-2057).
Sir Gawain is grateful for the apparent generous and kind treatment he received from his host
and hostess and can only return their magnanimity and benevolence with a prayer.
Van Bennekom 48
Curses are another form of speech act. Cursing “invokes a deity to make something
bad happen to someone” (Mohr 10). For example, Sir Gawain angrily curses Covetousness
and Cowardice as well as the green girdle after discovering that his moral failure was
publically disclosed. In only two situations in the poem does Sir Gawain express himself with
his own spontaneously manufactured speech, once to the Green Knight when Sir Gawain
flinches at the first false blow:
‘But busk, burne, bi thi fayth, and bryng me to the poynt.
Dele to me my destiné, and do hit out of honde,
For I schal stonde the a strok, and start no more
Til thy ax have me hitte: haf here my trawthe’ (ll.2284-2287).
And the second time occurs when Sir Gawain pours forth the anti-feminist rant. In both
spontaneous outbursts, Sir Gawain’s inner emotional and psychological state is revealed. In
the first outburst, Sir Gawain expresses his sense of frustration at being teased with a feigned
blow. In the second outburst, he expresses his shame at being humiliated and tricked. The
words themselves carry less linguistic merit than the emotions behind them. In both instances
his emotions, rightfully so, overwhelm his existence. He is frustration personified in the first
situation and he is shame personified in the second. As Pearsall argues, Sir Gawain is
experiencing private embarrassment at the moment the deceit is revealed.
There is nothing to be done, no action which will cleanse and renew his
humiliated self, no person, however well-disposed, who will properly
understand what has happened to him, but the quality he has found in himself
is the quality in individuals that we have become accustomed to believe
constitutes them in their essential individual humanity as distinct from their
animal or their social being (361).
Van Bennekom 49
This is the great moment at which Sir Gawain becomes like us, humans subject to fault. The
fall is great for the paragon of courtly perfection. As such, the unrelenting shame that wells up
inside of Sir Gawain forces an expression full of words that are ugly and regrettable. The antifeminist becomes the vehicle by which he can release the burden of his shame, just as
swearwords can, which I discuss in more detail below.
It is, therefore, clear that the ostensibly antagonistic statement against women does
not fall within the rubric of ritual speech or a speech act, but rather in the category of
spontaneous speech that reflects a psychological or emotional state of the speaker. I suggest
then that Sir Gawain’s anti-feminist diatribe is the equivalent of getting angry and then
releasing a well-known taboo swearword, where the speaker does not literally mean to imply
that the intended victim of this obscenity is actually engaging in sexual intercourse with his
own mother, but it rather conveys that the speaker is angry and the anger is directed at the one
arousing those belligerent feelings. The content of the swearing is therefore completely
irrelevant and only the purpose of the swearing is taken into account: the speaker is angry and
is compelled to release the anger cathartically. Taken as such, Gawain does not literally
expound on his hidden misogynistic feelings, but he rather utilizes coarse language to carry
the message that he is indeed very upset.
Melissa Mohr has written a book of unexpected erudition and academic seriousness on
the subject of swearing called Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing, covering a time period
of two-thousand years. The main focus of her book concerns the historical development of
swearing, cursing, obscenities, vulgar language, etc.; however, for the purposes of this thesis,
I will focus on the connotative analysis of swearing and its physiological and social effects.
As Mohr states, swearing involves primarily connotation: swearwords “carry an emotional
charge that exceeds the taboo status of their referents” (6). “I am fucking happy” is not to be
literally understood as “I am having sexual intercourse with ‘happy’” but rather “fucking” is
Van Bennekom 50
synonymous with “extremely” and as such denotes a benign adverb while connoting a more
emotionally charged word. By choosing the lower-register swearword, the speaker increases
the power and remarkability of the statement. As such, a swearword, from a linguistic
standpoint, “‘kidnaps our attention and forces us to consider its unpleasant connotation’”
(Mohr quoting Steven Pinker 6).
In addition to the linguistic quality of swearwords, Mohr also elaborates on the
physiological and social functions of swearing. Physiologically swearwords elicit a different
response than synonymous words that are not swearwords; for example, “shit” has a stronger
impact on the speaker and listener than “excrement” does (Mohr 5). In studies, obscenities
“induce greater skin conductance responses” than other words, which indicates how deeply
these words can affect a person emotionally (Mohr 5). For instance, while swearing, one can
endure more pain than while saying non-swearwords (Mohr 5). According to modern
research, two separate areas of the brain are responsible for swearwords and non-swearwords,
namely the limbic system (regulating emotions, “fight-or-flight response”, cardiac functions)
and the cerebral cortex (regulating “voluntary actions and rational thought”) respectively
(Mohr 5-6). Swearwords elicit stronger reactions than ordinary words and are employed to
either threaten the one addressed (obscene fighting words), purge the speaker of unwanted
emotions (catharsis) or as aforementioned arm the speaker with enough courage or physical
stamina to endure a painful or otherwise physically unpleasant experience (anaesthetic). As
Mohr aptly states, swearwords are
the most powerful words we have with which to express extreme emotion,
whether negative or positive….[L]anguage is a tool box and swearing is a
hammer. You can try to pound a nail into a piece of wood with the handle of
your screwdriver, with your wrench, or with your pliers, but it’s only your
hammer that’s perfectly designed for the job (13-14).
Van Bennekom 51
This chapter is, of course, not proposing that the anti-feminist diatribe constitutes
swearing; however, I believe the underlying purpose and the common practice of swearing
can explain the unconscious or psychological compulsion of Sir Gawain to utilize a
commonplace medieval expression that banters against the female sex in a circumstance
where he is overcome by shame due to the direct actions of a temptress, Lady Bertilak. For
such purposes, the cathartic and anaesthetic uses of swearing are most relevant. Sir Gawain’s
ranting appears appropriately timed at a point in the plot when he is made aware of having
been deceived by his trusted host and hostess into exhibiting shameful behaviour: cowardice
and covetousness. Sir Gawain is visibly angry at himself as well as those who deceived him:
That other stif mon in study stod a gret whyle,
So agreved for greme he gryed withinne;
Alle the blod of his brest blende in his face,
That al he schranke for schome that the schalk talked (ll. 2369-2373).
The good knight is shocked into silence, which suggests that the emotions well up within him
and come pouring forth in the following lines, where Sir Gawain curses: “’Corsed worth
cowarddyse and covetyse bothe!/In yow is vylany and vyse that virtue disstryez’” (ll. 22742275). Medieval cursing was commonly used as a means to protect property that otherwise
would receive no protection from the law (Leeson 193). When cursing, one summons a
“supernatural power to physically, emotionally, spiritually, or otherwise bring harm to another
person” (Leeson 194). Although the curse was normally directed at a person, in this case, Sir
Gawain addresses Cowardice and Covetousness personified, and his intent is to protect his
own worth post facto from the villainy of these two immoral culprits. According to Leeson,
the curse must be “unfalsifiable” (202), which is the case of Sir Gawain’s curse in that the two
qualities that he curses indeed pre-empt virtue. As such, his curse falls within the rubric of
medieval cursing. After cursing Covetousness and Cowardice, Sir Gawain is still visibly upset
Van Bennekom 52
when he violently tosses the girdle at the Green Knight: “Thenne he kaght to the knot, and the
kest lawsez,/ Brayde brothely the belt to the burne selven” (ll. 2276-2277). Another curse is
then spoken: “foule mot hit falle” (l. 2378) as a means to protect future harm by the girdle to
others or himself. Sir Gawain continues his cursing tirade by wishing “sorwe and care
(ll.2384-2385)” on “trecherye and untrawthe (l. 2384)”. The good knight is clearly
overwhelmed with anger and shame. And only when Sir Bertilak suggests to Sir Gawain to
reconcile with Lady Bertilak does Sir Gawain begin his anti-feminist ranting. By this time Sir
Gawain is not as emotionally disturbed (since he has vented his anger by means of the curses)
as suggested by the polite removal of his helmet and his genteel manner of refusing Sir
Bertilak’s offer to stay for the New Year’s feast:
…and sesed hys helme,
And hatz hit of hendely, and the hathel thonkkez,
‘I haf sojourned sadly; sele yow bytyde
And he yelde hit yow yare that yarkkez al menskes!
And comaundez me to that cortays, your comlych fere,
Bothe that on and that other, myn honoured ladyez,
That thus hor knight wyth hor kest han koyntly bigyled (ll. 2407-2413).
Once Sir Gawain is reminded of the deception that was played upon him by Lady Bertilak
(and Lord Bertilak), the knight rekindles his anger and is forced to relieve these emotions by
cursing or swearing. Sir Gawain then swears or rants against the existence of all beguiling
females throughout history. It is not a curse, since Sir Gawain does not ask a supernatural
entity to bring harm to deceptive women. It is more of an acceptance that some women are
such. It is the modern equivalent of “sh*t happens” or “you can’t live with them and you can’t
live without them”. It is what one says when something unfavourable or unpleasant happens
which is unavoidable. The purging of emotions can be accomplished then by words that due
Van Bennekom 53
to their symbolic nature (sh*t, f*ck, etc.) carry a stronger meaning than commonplace words
(cat, grass, etc.). In this case, the polite and chivalric knight Sir Gawain chooses genteel but
emotional words: “a fole madde (l.2414)”, “wyles of wymmen (l.2415)”, “bygyled (l.2416)”,
“Dalyda dalt hym hys wyrde (l.2418)”, “blended with Barsabe (l.2419)”, “bale tholed
(l.2419)”, “wrathed with her wyles (l.2420)”. The alliteration of these words that carry a harsh
condemnation of women serves one of the functions of swearwords: a catharsis in times of
distress. This fits the situation that Sir Gawain faces at the moment of revelation in the poem.
Therefore, I believe that a valid argument lies in placing less emphasis on the substance of the
statement and more on the manner and purpose of it.
Van Bennekom 54
Conclusion
The trademark of an iconic work of literature is the longevity of its appeal to a scholastic
readership. Works by Shakespeare, Austen and Dickens will continue to be read for the
foreseeable future in schools where English is either a native or second language of the pupils.
Works such as Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Ulysses will likely remain on
university lists of iconic literature for generations to come. What qualities do these literary
texts possess to deem them important such that some must be read by the masses and others
by the intellectual elite? An essential component to a work’s longevity and its ability to
achieve iconic status is whether it can be read by a group of literary scholars and incite a
lively discussion or debate that is essentially unresolvable. SGGK has offered scholars a
substantial quantity of debatable material-whether Morgan le Fay was a last minute addition
to the text or not (Winny153), whether homosocial undertones exist between the exchange of
kisses between Sir Gawain and Lord Bertilak (Dinshaw 205), whether Sir Gawain is ashamed,
humiliated or embarrassed when confronted with his publicized moral failing (Pearsall 361),
and so forth. The question posed in this thesis - whether the anti-feminist rant is indeed antifeminist – may not ever be definitively resolved. In the above chapters, I have set forth an
argument that acknowledges the work of researchers like Haruta who bring a feminist light to
this work in general, and then apply the groundbreaking work of Dominique Battles to the
anti-feminist diatribe to demonstrate that the Gawain-Poet may have intended to imbed his
Francophobic sentiment in this statement. Where these theories fail to completely release this
statement of its anti-feminist connotation, I have advanced the discourse further by
demonstrating the distinction between the rant and the majority of other spoken text in the
poem, where the rant shows an emotional and psychological verbalization of Sir Gawain’s
inner turmoil at being publically exposed as morally weak, in contrast to the speech acts and
ritualistic utterances which are types of borrowed speech dictated by social and cultural
Van Bennekom 55
norms. Swearing, which has been extensively studied by Melissa Mohr, is one typology of
emotionally charged language whose physiological and social purposes satisfy the argument
presented in this thesis. As with swearwords, by extracting the emotions underlying the words
and disregarding the lexical quality of the text, the text becomes devoid of substantive
signification and is simply a vehicle for emotional release. As with the anti-feministic
utterance, the meaning can be disregarded and its words mere substitutions for his
overwhelming emotions. By applying these linguistic and logical systems to the text, we
arrive at a new interpretation, one that returns Sir Gawain to his previous stature as a knight
who respects women.
Van Bennekom 56
Works Cited List
Andrew, Malcom and Robert Waldron. The Poems of the Pearl Manuscript. Exeter: Edward
Arnold Ltd., 1987. Print.
Barnett, Pamela E. “‘And shortly for to seyn they were aton’: Chaucer’s Deflection of Rape in
the Reeve’s and the Franklin’s Tales.” Women’s Studies 22.2 (1993): 145-162. Print.
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory.
Manchester: Manchester UP., 2009. Print.
Batt, Catherine. “Gawain’s Antifeminist Rant, the Pentangle, and Narrative Space.” The
Yearbook of English Studies 22 (1992):117-139. Print.
Battles, Dominique. Cultural Difference and Material Culture in Middle English
Romance: Normans and Saxons. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Battles, Paul. “‘Contending Throng’ Scenes and the Comitatus Ideal in Old English Poetry,
with Special Attention to The Battle of Maldon 122a.” Studia Neophilologica 83
(2011): 41-53. Print.
Bloch, R. Howard. “Medieval Misogyny.” Representations 20 Special Issue: Misogyny,
Misandry and Misanthropy (1987): 1-24. Print.
Carter, Susan. “Coupling the Beastly Bride and the Hunter Hunted: What Lies Behind
Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale.” The Chaucer Review 37.4 (2003):329-345. Print.
Comfort, W.W., transl. Yvain, the Knight of the Lion by Chrétien de Troyes. Web. 23April
2015 <http://www.heroofcamelot.com.>
Van Bennekom 57
Dinshaw, Carolyn. “A Kiss is just a Kiss: Heterosexuality and its Consolations in Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight,” Diacritics 24.2/3 (1994): 204-226. Print.
Friedman, Albert and Richard Osberg. “Gawain’s Girdle as Traditional Symbol.”
Journal of American Folklore, xc (1977): 301-315. Print.
Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Thorpe, Lewis. Transl. London:
Penguin Books, 1966. Print.
Goodman, Jennifer R. Chivalry and Exploration 1298-1630. Woodbridge (Suffolk): The
Boydell Press, 1998. Print.
Haruta, Setsuko. "The Women in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." Arthurian Romance and
Gender/Masculin/Féminin dans le roman arthurien médiéval/Geschlechterrollen im
mittelalterlichen Artusroman. Ed. Friedrich Wolfzettel. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995.
206-14. Print.
Heng, Geraldine. “Feminine Knots and the other Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” PMLA
106.3 (1991): 500-514. Print.
Howard, Donald R. “Structure and Symmetry in Sir Gawain.” Speculum 39.3 (1964):
425-433. Print.
Leeson, Peter T. “ ‘God Damn’: The Law and Economics of Monastic Malediction”. The
Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 30.1. Oxford: Oxford UP (2012):193216. Print.
Mazo Karras, Ruth. Sexuality in Medieval Europe. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, 2005. Print.
Mohr, Melissa. Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
Monmouth, Geoffrey of. History of the Kings of Britain. London: Penguin Books, 1966. Print.
Van Bennekom 58
Morgan, Gerald. “Medieval Misogyny and Gawain’s Outburst against Women in Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight.” Modern Language Review 97.2 (2002): 265-78. Print.
O’Brien, Karen. “Images of the Germanic Comitatus.” The Sydney eScholarship Repository.
The University of Sydney, 2007. Web. 16 May 201 <http://hdl.handle.net/2123/9873>.
Pearsall, Derek. “Courtesy and Chivalry.” A Companion to the Gawain-Poet. Eds. Derek
Brewer and Jonathan Gibson. Suffolk: D.S. Brewer, 1997. 351-362. Print.
Putter, Ad and Myra Stokes, eds. The Works of the Gawain Poet: Pearl, Cleanness, Patience,
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. London: Penguin Books, 2014. Print.
Quinion, Michael. “World Wide Words: Investigating the English Language across the
Globe.” Web. 6 May 2015 <http://www.worldwidewords.org.>.
Rowley, Sharon. “Textual Studies, Feminism, and Performance in Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight.” The Chaucer Review 38.2 (2003):158-177. Print.
Science Museum. “Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine.” Web. 6 May 2015
<http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk.>.
Sharma, Manish. “Hiding the Harm: Revisionism and Marvel in Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight.” Papers on Language and Literature 44.2 (2008):168-193. Print.
Treharne, Elaine, ed. Old and Middle English c. 890-1450: An Anthology, Third Edition.
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.
Trigg, Stephanie. “The Romance of Exchange: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” Viator 22
(1991):251-266. Print.
Twomey, Michael W. “Morgan le Fay at Hautdesert.” On Arthurian Women: Essays in
Memory of Maureen Fries. Eds. Bonnie Wheeler and Fiona Tolhurst. Dallas:
Scriptorium Press, 2001. 103-119. Print.
Van Bennekom 59
Winny, James, ed. and transl. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. London: Broadview Press,
1992. Print.