Monday, November 9, 2009

We thought there was a great deal of blood in the other Arthurian Tales. However, what can beat Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Not only does Gawain slice off the Green Knight’s head, there is such a minute description of the killing and dismembering of the animals that Gawain’s host hunts.
Sir Gawain and the Turk appears to be the same plot with a variation as does The Green Knight. I am wondering whether these are just different versions as different story tellers adjusted the story according to their audience.
In our own story, it surprises me that Gawain refused to meet his aunt who set up the challenge. What was the need for such a challenge? I don’t have my text with me but I was wondering whether about the relationship between Gawain and the three women. Were they his relatives? It appears that Gawain has a number of female relatives whose existence he is not always aware of. Also when Sir Percival and Sir Galahad are not around, then Gawain is the purest and bravest of the knights.
The Green Knight is obviously the “Other,” or has Morgan bewitched a human? The same with the Turk; I can see that the Turk is a romanticized representation of the “Other,” but does every “Other” have to be magical and truly “otherworldly?”
As for the question about Arthur, he is even more “whimpy” than in the other stories. Presumably to create a contrast between him and the brave Gawain; which of course leads to the next question: how come Arthur is not supposed to accept a challenge, and when he does, it is Gawain who jumps up and puts his life on the line.
My final question is about the host’s wife. Does she represent women’s promiscuity or she is simply the magical “Other?”

3 comments:

  1. Nasreen comments on Arthur's lack of courage and questions why in so many stories, especially _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_, Arthur does not jump to the challenge at hand. Instead, the Knights of the Round Table put their lives on the line in honor of their king.

    I have to assume that as the figurehead of British identity, Arthur must be protected at all costs, which is why knights such as Gawain are integral to the Arthur's rule. And yet, if one looks at the Arthur of the Welsh in early stories such as "Culhwch and Olwen," and also in Monmouth, Arthur's fighting and questing are, ironically enough, the very reason he is able to maintain a stronghold in Britain and attract such brave and valiant followers.

    In reading the beginning pages of _Le Morte Darthur_ (I've put just a small dent in it), I've noticed that in chronicling the early days of Arthur's rule Malory depicts a series of battles in which Arthur fully participates. I haven't read Malory before this, but now I'm wondering if there will be a shift at some point in _Le Morte_. Perhaps this battle-competent Arthur will *become* the "hands-off" king we've seen in Chretien's romances, _SGGK_, et al. In this way, Malory might fill in the gaps of the back story and link the previously disconnected elements and inconsistencies of Arthuriana. Perhaps more to come on this as I finish the reading for this week....

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Malory does attempt to answer this question of why Arthur seems so wimpy, but in a rather tongue-in-cheek way. When Arthur does venture out to meet King Pellinore one-on-one, he fares rather badly and has to be rescued by Merlin. Apparently, Arthur is not the best knight ever, and his knights must do most of the fighting for him. Balyn has to take care of King Royns for him, and sundry other enemies are taken care of by his knights.

    That leads to the questions: Why, if Arthur is not the epitome of knighthood, has he become The Once and Future King? Is it because readers like our heroes flawed and human? How did medieval readers/listeners respond to this treatment of Arthur as less-than-best? Did they ridicule him, or like him better for it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Megan is largely correct here, that a more bellicose young Arthur fights well to establish his throne and then can ease back a bit once he has gathered the fellowship of the Round Table and has to be somewhat more mindful of the responsibilities of kingship. (Not that we often see him *exercising* any such responsbilities, but I do think that some of Arthur's disinclination to fight has to do with the need for the sovereign to preserve his life.)

    Medieval readers seem not to have ridiculed Arthur; that comes later, in the eighteenth century mostly, when much of the trappings of chivalry and romance came to see somewhat ridiculous and overblown. But the flawed element in his story was indeed recognized and crucial to some tellings of it, particularly when Arthur was associated with the Wheel of Fortune and the probably decay of even the greatest of leaders and champions. The Alliterative Morte Arthure makes a lot of hay out of this.

    ReplyDelete