SOURCE: Nicholls, Jonathan. “The Testing of Courtesy at Camelot and Hautdesert in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” In The Matter of Courtesy: Medieval Courtesy Books and the Gawain-Poet, pp. 112-38. Suffolk, England: D. S. Brewer, 1985.

[In the following essay, Nicholls contrasts the notion of courtesy as practiced by Sir Gawain with the behavior of other courtiers, especially the discourtesy displayed by the Green Knight.]

Despite having a consistent Christian framework, SGGK [Sir Gawain and the Green Knight] explores more fully the social meaning of courtesy than its companion poems. There are only three occasions in the poem when ‘courtesy’ or ‘hende’ is used in an explicitly religious context: twice when Gawain offers thanks to Jesus and St Julian for finding him a lodging at Christmas, and once in connection with Mary, ‘þe hende heuen-quene’.(647) Other verbal contexts for the words suggest a less explicit religious reference, although the poet's normal sensitivity to the complexity of the idea never allows us to view its use as simplistic.

The most prominent use of ‘courtaysye’ occurs in the pentangle-passage where it is enumerated along with ‘clannes’, ‘fraunchyse’, ‘felaȝschyp’, and ‘pité’, as the fourth quality of the ‘fyft fyue’. (651) Here the word must pick up resonances of Christian virtue from its proximity to the other emblematic explanations of the pentangle, but it is equally true that the other qualities in its immediate group are applicable as much to chivalry as to Christianity. Their prominence in the analysis of the pentangle is emphasised by the poet, not only by their final position, but also by the poet's statement that ‘þyse pure fyue / Were harder happed on þat haþel þen on any oþer’. (654-55) Thus it should be no surprise that the subsequent events of the romance seem designed to test the virtues that are most operable in the social sphere of knighthood. We are aware that Gawain is Mary's knight (646-50), but it is as well to remember that on the ‘vrysoun’ of his helmet, Gawain wears embroidery of ‘papiayez’, ‘tortors’, and ‘trulofez’. (608-12) As Gawain sets out, he journeys not as a knight ascetic, but as one who carries with him the symbols of courtly life in all its richness.¹

This does not preclude, as John Burrow points out, that the final sections of the poem have a penitential movement to them.² The poet encourages us to compare the confession that Gawain makes in the castle to the confession and absolution that the Green Knight hears and grants in the wilds of Cheshire.³ But the very fact that the final scene with the Green Knight is a secular confession, almost a distortion of religious practice by its location at a ‘Green Chapel’, which Gawain thinks of as an ‘vgly’ ‘oritore’ where the devil might hear Matins (2188, 2190), may make us re-assess the nature of his trial. In the Green Knight's opinion, the Exchange of Winnings and the Sexual Temptation are inextricably linked. In his explanation of the three strokes of the axe, he emphasises the surrender of all the gains which Gawain made: ‘Trwe mon trwe restore’. (2354) Gawain suffers a ‘nirt in þe nek’ (2498) because he withheld the girdle, and lacked ‘lewte’. (2366) The retention of the girdle is part of the ‘wowyng of my wyf’ (2361) because the lady manoeuvres Gawain into a position where he can no longer keep faith both to her and to Bertilak. Presented with a chance to save his life, Gawain forgets the bonds of hospitality which tie him to Bertilak, supposing an obligation to the lady that runs counter to his over-riding agreement with his host. More than a matter of chastity, it is, as Burrow stressed, a question of ‘trouthe’ that is involved,⁴ a test that is appropriate to the pentangle, ‘a syngne þat Salamon set sumquyle / In bytoknyng of trawþe’, (625-26) and at which the poet probably hints in his comment (on the third day of temptation) that:

He cared for his cortaysye, lest craþayn he were,
And more for his meschef ȝif he schulde make synne,
And be traytor to þat tolke þat þat telde aȝt.

(1773-75)

It seems to me, following Burrow, that 1775 qualifies ‘synne’ in 1774, and if this is so, then our attention is being drawn to the treacherous consequences of adultery in destroying the fabric of society, as much as to its consequences for the individual soul.⁵ Adultery, as Lancelot and Guinevere discovered, can easily create intolerable tensions in a society that exists on the mutual trust and obligation of lord and retainer.⁶ Gawain's eventual breach of loyalty does not portend the end of his society, and in not succumbing to the lady's full sexual temptation, he proves himself to be ‘on þe fautlest freke þat euer on fote ȝede’. (2363)

However, as well as accusing himself of ‘trecherye and vntrawþe’, (2383) Gawain also stresses other facets of his weakness, enumerating a number of possible vices. This extreme reaction, natural perhaps to a perfectionist, may not be the view of the poet, and should be balanced by the moderating voice of the Green Knight. It is worth noting that for him, the fact that Gawain ‘lufed’ his ‘lyf’ (2368) extenuates further what he sees as Gawain's minor failing. Undoubtedly it is possible to take a stern moral view of this last scene and support such a view with examples from penitential literature and homilies.⁷ But in spite of the Christian perspective which Gawain adds to his trial, it seems to be the social tests that have been the Green Knight's concern, and which the poem best illustrates. During his stay at Hautdesert, trial is made of Gawain's social virtues by associating them with a code that ultimately contradicts Gawain's beliefs.⁸ The most central of these values is courtesy, and in the action of the poem, the poet explores the meanings and consequences of following a courteous mode of behaviour, linking it both with the integrity of society and of the individual.

Arrival and Reception

The two main elements of plot in SGGK, a Beheading Challenge and a Sexual Temptation, each have as a prelude the arrival of a knight at court. The Green Knight's entry into Camelot begins the ‘outtrage awenture’, (29) and Gawain's reception at Hautdesert begins the sequence of sexual temptations and agreement about the Exchange of Winnings which is the crucial phase of the story. Of the two arrivals, the Green Knight's is characterised by a deliberate flouting of normal convention, whereas Gawain's reception at Hautdesert is described as the consummation of courteous conduct and good manners. The ‘principle of good manners’ is something that Kittredge sees as being a common element in a number of analogues to this poem.⁹ In both Le Chevalier à l'Épee and the Carl of Carlisle, it is the hero's strict adherence to the host's commands that saves him from a beating or death, and Kittredge cites a number of other similar exempla or tales that illustrate the same point.¹⁰ In all, it is the point of the story that the guest does not contradict the host in his own house, a dictum which, as Kittredge also realised, lies at the heart of a guest's behaviour to his entertainer as depicted in non-fictional works. Kittredge cites two examples from courtesy books to substantiate his case, but there are many others, both in the general and the particular, that make it quite clear that to do what the host wanted was a fundamental point of courtesy.¹¹

Because Gawain is treated with such good manners at Hautdesert, and responds in kind, there are limitations as to what he may do. Being a conscientious guest involves a loss of self-determination. As will be shown, this explains in part why he appears to act with passivity at Hautdesert; he does not go hunting because his sense of obligation to Bertilak requires him to carry out his host's wishes, even though this means that he is placed in dangerous proximity to the lady. But because the Green Knight breaks all rules of courteous behaviour when he ‘hales’ (136) into Camelot, he is not hampered by the restrictions of ritualised politeness. His lack of concern for the principles governing that society gives him the licence to harass and intimidate the court, and to insist upon his strange request. In order that this disruptive presence has the greatest possible impact, the poet describes the interruption from the viewpoint of the court, and establishes the joy and harmony at Camelot before their disruption.

The poet is at pains to stress the excellence and courtesy of Camelot at Christmas time. Of all Britain's kings, Arthur was the ‘hendest’, (26) the ‘luflych lorde’ are ‘ledez of the best’, (38) ‘þe most kyd knyȝtez vnder Krystes seluen’, (51) and their ladies are ‘þe louelokkest … þat euer lif haden’. (52) Their festivities are described in the same glowing terms and with the same kind of superlatives. Recognisable social decorum is observed when everyone washes before the meal (72), and twice the poet particularises the seating arrangements at the high table, which enables us to reconstruct the order of the guests confronted by the Green Knight.¹² The impression that we obtain from the description of the Christmas feast is of conventional courtesy and luxury being taken to their highest level. As an image of society it is one of an elite in perfect accord.

This is the over-riding impression, although some commentators have wished to see in certain phrases an implied criticism of the court and of Arthur in particular.¹³ But any note of disapprobation that may be imagined in the phrase ‘rechles merþes’ (40) should be dissipated by the same line when the poet talks of ‘rych reuel oryȝt’, a qualifying statement that seems to approve of the fun and games as being appropriate to a celebration of Christmas. In the same way, the description of Arthur's easy dissatisfaction with a settled existence, particularly the much discussed phrase ‘sumquat childgered’, (86) may be just as appropriate to a young king at the head of a group of knights all in their ‘first age’. (54) ‘Childgered’ would only have a distinctly critical connotation if used of a much older man, and in the only other known use of the compound (as a noun rather than an adjective), it describes Alexander at the age of fourteen going on his first expedition, where it serves to emphasise the responsibility undertaken by one so young.¹⁴ Even if the poet leads us to expect that the court may be unequal to the Green Knight's challenge because of its immaturity, the expectations are confounded by the response of Arthur to the challenge (apart from a momentary lapse of control quickly restored by Gawain's intervention) despite these earlier suggestions of brittle resolve.

One of the manifestations of Arthur's restless spirit is that he ‘wolde not ete til al were serued’, (85) a new aspect of the well-known custom that Arthur would not dine at certain feasts (often Pentecost rather than Christmas) until he had heard or seen a marvel. A presiding Lord at a banquet would normally expect to be served first;¹⁵ Arthur inverts these normal rules of precedence, but does not act discourteously. Everything is still effected with the utmost attention to the requirements of good manners, and the deliberate reversal of ranks (here only in the order of serving, not in the position of the guests) has been a feature of Christmas celebrations since at least the Roman Saturnalia when slaves ate with masters and all marks of rank were discarded. It found a counterpart in the Middle Ages with the celebrations such as the Feast of the Boy Bishop, and even today, in some units of the British Army, officers act as serving men on Christmas Day in the privates' mess.¹⁶ To follow such customs is a kind of game, the taking of delight in a brief reversal of the normal course of events. In SGGK it is another aspect of the gaiety and joy which pervades this young court at its feast. There have been carols, interludes, a game of forfeits, and a traditional disregard of everyday rules within the wider terms of courtesy. The general impression of this feast-day is one of concord, social well-being, and fine manners.

But the first course has hardly been served when, without warning, the Green Knight bursts in. It is not learnt that the knight is green until the last line of the wheel (150), and although this adds to the shock of revelation, it also means that the first thing that is known about the newcomer is his enormous height. A stranger rushes into the hall, and the poet says that he was the largest man alive (137). The Green Knight's colour, his height and size, and his precipitous entrance obviously contravene what is reasonable. Not only his physical appearance, but his behaviour too, lack ‘measure’.¹⁷ As in Cleanness, we have a further example of the interrupted feast, and the poet's most elaborate example of the unwanted-guest motif. Following a similar pattern in Cleanness, the poet has described in detail the state of the society (represented by the order and cohesive good-will of the feast) before its disruption by a potentially dangerous intruder. Much of the interest in this opening scene now rests on seeing how the disrupted society copes with the stranger, who, unlike the ragged beggar at the wedding feast, can not be thrown into chains and hauled out of the door.

Although the Green Knight is like no other human being, the poet takes care not to dismiss him as a monster or another ‘wild man’. (Benson, Art and Tradition, pp. 83-90) The admission that ‘Bot mon most I algate mynne hym to bene’, (141) and the care taken to describe his clothing and other physical features as being in accord with the ideals of beauty and fashion, means that the reader reacts to this visitor as a knight as well. Courtesy is due to and from a knight, and although the Green Knight's appearance is shocking, and subsequent events prove that he is supernatural, much of the dramatic tension in this scene is generated by expectations of courteous behaviour being disregarded, reflecting the fact that though he is a ‘mayster’, he is also ‘aghlich’, though (in a sense) a courtier, he is also a monster. This ambiguity is the most fundamental aspect in the presentation of the Green Knight, and it is essential to respond to it in order to respond adequately to the subtlety of the poem.¹⁸

In his analysis of this scene, Burrow argues that the Green Knight's entrance is an example of what he terms the topos of the ‘hostile challenger’.¹⁹ He picks out two distinguishing actions in the knight's behaviour (refusing to greet the king and addressing him with the singular pronoun), and quotes examples from Chrétien de Troyes and the Vulgate Romances to further his argument. Such instances and comments are helpful in an assessment of the tradition behind the Green Knight's challenge, but Burrow underestimates the role which deliberate discourtesy plays in the convention that he describes. Politeness is a veneer over the violence latent in human affairs, and courtesy, however frigid or strained, acts as a restraining force between a violent thought and a violent act. If courtesy is ignored and disregarded, then the rules of mediation and ‘mesure’ cease to apply, with potentially dangerous results.

The importance of the Green Knight's discourtesy in SGGK can be seen by comparing his actions with those of the knights in some of the analogues to this part of the story. The three versions of the Carados story do not contain the same details of disrespect for the court.²⁰ In none does the knight omit to greet Arthur. In all, he states his mission reasonably, using the polite form of the second person pronoun. This neutralises some of the menace in the approach, and the gaiety and courtesy of the knight's entry contrasts with his strange request. The later Middle English ballad, The Grene Knight, does not describe Sir Bredbeddle bursting into the court, but pictures him waiting at the gate for the porter to request an audience with Arthur.²¹ It will be seen, when Gawain's arrival at Hautdesert is discussed, that this was one of the accepted courtesies when seeking a lodging. Like Carados's father, Sir Bredbeddle greets Arthur with becoming courtesy when he does enter the hall. These analogues all contain essentially the same story in which the intention of the visitor is, at least in part, hostile. In none, however, does the intruder cause the same degree of alarm as results from the Green Knight's interruption. The Green Knight undoubtedly acts with more hostility than either Carados's father or Sir Bredbeddle, but without his deliberate neglect of polite forms of behaviour, his hostility would also be less threatening, especially since he claims to come in peace without the trappings of war (265-71).

Without announcement, therefore, the Green Knight rides into the hall on horseback. This refusal to dismount is another indication of his disruptive purpose. When Guy of Warwick goes as a messenger to the Sowdan's tent without peaceful intentions, one manuscript records that, ‘Into that pauylon Guy is went / On horsbak, y telle you, verament’, and repeats the information a little later to emphasise his point: ‘And Guy on horsbak sate there’.²² In another English romance, Sir Degrevant, the squire sent by Degravant to the Earl's to challenge him about his crimes, ‘nolde nat down lyght’ from his horse, and gives his message while mounted.²³ To remain on horseback indicates mobility and the capability of attack. It also gives the mounted person a height advantage which emphasises his challenge for superiority. When Gawain arrives at Hautdesert, dismounting is one of the first signs of his peaceful intention.

It was shown, when the first feast passage in Cleanness was discussed, that some form of greeting was expected from anyone entering another's dwelling. Thus the poet's comment that, ‘haylsed he neuer one’, (223) is a further example of the Green Knight's calculated surliness. In this case, the insult is compounded by the splendid haughtiness of, ‘“Where is,” he sayd, / “þe gouernour of þis gyng?”’ (224-25) justified, perhaps, because Arthur is not at that moment sitting at the head of the high table, but still scornful of the other insignia of rank which Arthur is presumably wearing.

As Arthur is of a higher rank than the Green Knight, the latter's consistent use of the less polite form of the pronoun also increases our sense of the lack of regard that has been manifest in his disruption of the feast.²⁴ The challenge to identity or reputation (‘What, is þis Arþures hous’, 309) is a recurrent motif of the poem, and becomes of crucial importance later, as will be seen, when the Lady questions the identity of the Gawain she has before her with the phrases, ‘“Bot þat ȝe be Gawan, hit gotz in mynde,”’ (1293) and ‘“Sir, ȝif ȝe be Wawan.”’ (1481)²⁵

Arthur's initial reaction to the Green Knight's disruptive presence is to remain courteous and attempt to restore the status quo.²⁶ We are told that ‘rekenly hym reuerenced’, (251) and he welcomes the stranger to court, reasserting his own authority as head of the court (‘þe hede of þis ostel Arthour I hat’, 253) while readily telling the stranger his name. Arthur wants the Green Knight to dismount and stay (254), and he seems to try to neutralise the possible effects of the Green Knight's challenge by treating him as if he were a normal guest of the court. At this point, no one knows whether the Green Knight is going to follow his threatening behaviour with direct action, and Arthur, through the use of courtesy, does not precipitate immediate violence. The Green Knight abruptly refuses any offers of friendship (nor does he reveal his name) with claims that he has come in peace. Despite having just been treated with some degree of polite tolerance, he insinuates that the ‘courtesy’ of the Round Table is hearsay (‘as I haf herd carp’, 263) and seems to suggest that their courtesy, as well as their courage, will be solely determined by whether they will play his ‘gomen’. (273) Arthur, now perhaps responding more to the axe than the holly-bob, offers the Green Knight ‘batayl bare’, (277) calling him with ill-concealed irony ‘Sir cortays knyȝt’. (275) Throughout these exchanges, Arthur has addressed the Green Knight with the second-person singular pronoun, (as he does Gawain), which, like his offers of hospitality, is an assertion of normal social codes. A king would naturally address an inferior with the less polite form of address. Having had his kingship questioned by the stranger, Arthur behaves as a person of authority and maintains his tone of command.

But the Green Knight is not satisfied with individual combat, and as his purpose becomes known, his impatience is as threatening as it is insulting:

þe renk on his rouncé hym ruched in his sadel,
And runischly his rede yȝen he reled aboute,
Bende his bresed broȝez, blycande grene,
Wayued his berde for to wayte quo-so wolde ryse.

(303-06)

His imputation of cowardice on the part of the Round Table stings Arthur into an angry and shamed response, and he prepares to carry out the beheading. Arthur's anger, however natural as the reaction of a man whose manhood has been doubted, is impotent in the face of the Green Knight's impassivity (‘No more mate ne dismayd for hys mayn dintez / þen any burne vpon bench hade broȝt hym to drynk / Of wyne’, 336-38), and Camelot loses its focal point of order when the king steps off the dais.²⁷ It is at this point that Gawain intervenes, and the respite this gives Arthur, enables him to regain his self-control. He behaves with regal grace towards Gawain (366), and even finds the presence of mind to offer him some witty advice (372-74).

Just as it was Arthur who attempted to act normally when the court was initially confronted by the Green Knight, so it is Arthur again, who, after the headless and no more polite Green Knight has rushed out of the door, restores calm to the uneasy court. He remains ‘þe hende kyng’ and speaks to Guinevere ‘wyth cortays speche’, (467, 469) and he controls any natural apprehensiveness (‘He let no semblaunt be sene’, 468) for the sake of his companions. The incident is brushed off as ‘Laykyng of enterludez’, (472) and he redirects attention back to the feast by admitting that his condition of a marvel has been fulfilled (474-75). This display of courtly wit and politeness is rounded off by a punning reference to the whole business (‘Now sir, heng vp þyn ax, þat hatz innogh hewen’, 477) with which he signals an end to the disruption of the feast. Although it may seem, from subsequent events, that Arthur treats the whole matter too lightly, we know of his true feelings, that he ‘hade wonder’, (467) and his public comments are appropriate for the restoration of the court's well-being. Arthur acts as a king acutely conscious of his social duties, and despite the Green Knight's suggestions to the contrary, he also shows a becoming regal authority.

But at the critical moment when it seems that Arthur loses some of his composure and makes ready to use the axe, it is Gawain who re-establishes the order and courtesy of the Round Table by re-affirming faith in Arthur as the head of the court. His speech, with its careful flattery of the king and its courteous subordination of self, relaxes the tension in the hall.²⁸ Authority is restored to Arthur because Gawain, although assuming control of the situation, leaves the matter of whether he should proceed with the Green Knight's request solely to his king and his fellow-knights.

Like his sovereign, Gawain also treats the Green Knight with some degree of courtesy. It is true that he consistently uses the singular form of the second-person pronoun to him, in marked contrast to his use of the plural form to Bertilak. But in the latter case, Gawain is a guest and Bertilak is the lord of a castle. By using the singular form to the Green Knight, Gawain makes the assumption that the intruder is an equal, and refuses to cede any authority to him by being over-polite, a politeness that could be misconstrued as an inferior's deference. Besides, having used the plural form to Arthur, and having heard Arthur call the Green Knight by the singular form, it would be insulting to treat them as of equal rank.

One of the main indications that Gawain acts politely towards the Green Knight is the ready way in which he reveals his name: ‘“In god fayth,” quoþ þe goode knyȝt, “Gawan I hatte.”’ (381) Burrow points out that Gawain was particularly noted for revealing his name when asked, and substantiates the remark by reference to Le Haut Livre du Graal.²⁹ There does seem to be a connection between refusing to conceal identity and Gawain's traditional character, although it should not be thought that this is a peculiarity of Gawain, as the practice was a universally recognised point of good manners. Arthur, at an earlier moment in this scene, willingly reveals who he is (253), and the custom can be illustrated from many other romances as well. When Guy of Warwick is asked for his name by Amis, the lord of the castle in which Guy is hospitably received during his search for Oisel and Tirri, he readily answers (6021-23), to be repaid with similar information by the host a few lines further on (6039). In the same romance, Tirri also comes to lodge at this castle after having been set free by Guy, and he too is asked for his name (6367), although this time there is no need for an exchange, as Tirri has already called the host by his proper name (6359). The same kind of thing happens during an episode in the Continuation de Perceval, when Perceval, with several companions, takes lodging at a castle:

Aprés souper molt belement
Li sires de cele maison
A mis Percheval a raison,
Son non li demande et enquist.
Et Perchevaus son non li dist
Et puis li demande le sien.(30)

As often with the examples of courteous behaviour from romances, the custom has a non-fictional basis too, and the right to ask a name is an established precept in courtesy books, especially in the context of travel. Facetus: ‘cum nihil utilius’ advises that, ‘Cum quocumque tibi prope vel procul accidit ire / Nomen et esse suum, quo, qua, quis, et unde require’,³¹ which was repeated by the Sloane Courtesy Book as:

With woso men, boþe fer and negh,
The falle to go, loke þou be slegh
To aske his nome, and qweche he be,
Whidur he wille kepe welle þes thre.

(299-303)

It would not be worth dwelling on this point were it not for the fact that names and identities play an important part in SGGK, a poem in which the ambiguity of reputation is fully explored.

Gawain's reply to the Green Knight's question fulfils certain obligations when two strangers meet. The Green Knight, for the moment, keeps his identity secret, and even when Gawain asks some understandable questions:

‘Where schulde I wale þe,’ quoþ Gauan, ‘where is þy place?
I wot neuer where þou wonyes, bi hym þat me wroȝt,
Ne I know not þe, knyȝt, þy cort ne þi name.’

(398-400)

the stranger avoids the request. When he does tell Gawain who he is, he uses a riddling reference, almost a nickname, ‘þe knyȝt of þe grene chapel’, (454) which does not satisfactorily solve the problem of his identity. The description does not give Gawain any clearer idea of the stranger's motives or reputation than does his appearance, and even during these final exchanges with the Green Knight, the values of the court are largely powerless in defining this mysterious figure. But despite the Green Knight's intransigence and his consistent refusal to conform to the courteous values of Camelot, Gawain comes through the encounter with great presence of mind, and without compromising his own code of social ethics.

Having examined Arthur and Gawain's reaction to these events, it is illuminating to observe the way in which the court behaves. At no point does any other member of the court rise to the same mastery and control as does Gawain, which serves further to pick him out from his companions as the knight who best embodies the ideal qualities of Camelot. After the Green Knight's first challenging speech, the court stare rudely at him (232), and without respect for his trappings as a knight, show only an awed interest in him as a freak: ‘Al studied þat þer stod, and stalked hym nerre’. (237) In the face of this supernatural visitant, an uneasy hush settles over the hall, which the poet says is ‘not al for doute / Bot sum for cortaysye’. (246-47) Contemporary etiquette demanded quiet attention when a superior was talking, which may explain the poet's claim that the silence was courteous in origin.³² It may also refer to the fact that it was not their duty to welcome the stranger, so they ‘courteously’ defer the obligation to Arthur, as the next lines (‘Bot let hym þat al schulde loute, / Cast vnto þat wyȝe’, 248-49) imply.

However, in reminding the reader that the silence can partly be explained by the polite habits of the knights, the poet only further underscores the bewildered awe which the Green Knight provokes. It is almost as if the majority of the court takes refuge in a corporate reputation for courtesy to hide its real feelings.

When the court does talk, it is to whisper together before deciding whether Arthur or Gawain should meet the challenge. Gawain's clear and eloquent courtesy contrasts sharply with this mode of discussion, and further marks him off as an individual. Throughout the poem the opinions of courtiers are generalised, their opinions often being misleading or ambiguous. At Hautdesert, and at Camelot, broad statements are offered by members of the court which need modification in the light of the other information that we can gather from both the events and the poet's interpretation of his story. The knights of Camelot, for example, imply that Arthur is to blame for not preventing Gawain's quest (677-83), although they are only too delighted to share in Gawain's success on his return: ‘for þat watz acorded þe renoun of þe Rounde Table’. (2519)

The reader's attitude to the courtiers is conditioned by the obvious superiority of Gawain and Arthur over their companions. Not only do they behave with more poise than the court, but the poet is also not afraid to question the qualities of the other knights so that Gawain's conduct is seen to be more exemplary. The last reference to the court in this opening scene does not give much credit to it either, and illustrates the possible dissolution of courteous values in the face of the Green Knight's threat, were it not for the ethical resilience of Arthur and Gawain. After Gawain decapitates the Green Knight, ‘þe fayre hede fro þe halce hit to þe erþe / þat fele hit foyned with her fete, þere hit forth roled’. (427-28) Even if this is not a reference to medieval football, a sport which was generally frowned upon by the authorities as being disorderly and ignoble, it shows an unbecoming attitude to a ‘defeated’ opponent, and in its contrast to the standards of behaviour displayed before the Green Knight's arrival, it indicates how thin the veneer of courtesy can be.³³

Even when under duress, the retention of courteous modes of behaviour by Gawain and Arthur hold the society together, its potential disintegration being represented by the reaction of the courtiers to the events. Gawain and Arthur are shown to be the leaders of their society: Arthur because of his rank and the acceptance of responsibilities that go with leadership, and Gawain because of his possession of qualities that will come under closer scrutiny at Hautdesert. Thus the poet underlines the importance of courtesy and etiquette, associating such concepts not only with ‘sleȝtez of þewez’, (916) and the ‘teccheles terms of talkyng noble’, (917) but with the whole meaning of society and the forces that bind it together. At both Camelot and Hautdesert, the potency of courtesy is in evidence, whether this potency is shown in the deliberate breaking of accepted codes and patterns of behaviour, or whether in the acceptance and fulfilment of them.

In contrast to the Green Knight's arrival at Camelot, Gawain's reception and entrance into Hautdesert is seen through his eyes. The Green Knight appears from nowhere (rather like his departure from the poem, ‘Whiderwarde-so-euer he wolde’, 1478) whereas we are made acutely aware of the spiritual and physical discomfort that Gawain encounters before the sudden discovery of the castle. For an Arthurian knight to come fortuitiously to a dwelling where he will be offered hospitality, is a common episode in romances.³⁴ The poet of SGGK makes full use of this traditional element, emphasising and expanding upon details of hospitality (to be found in other such incidents) in order to stress the courteous reception that the knight receives.

After gazing at the impressive architecture of the castle, Gawain decides to ask for lodging. He calls out (807) to indicate his presence, and a porter soon appears who greets him pleasantly (810). Courtesy books do not often deal with admission into another's dwelling, but there is a brief reminder in Facetus: ‘cum nihil utilius’ of the need to wait at the gate after making a noise to draw attention to the inhabitants, and in the much later Sloane Courtesy Book, fuller treatment is given to the same procedure.³⁵ In accordance with the ideas advocated there, Gawain asks the porter to act as an emissary to the lord, a task which the porter gladly undertakes, adding that he is certain that Gawain will be able to stay for as long as he likes (814). It is not difficult to find parallel examples in other romances of castle porters showing similar respect to travelling knights, and such a detail would have been viewed as typical of courteous reception.³⁶ Rude porters can be found in medieval literature (as, for example, in Sir Cleges, when one tries to bar Cleges's entrance into the hall, in order to prevent him from showing the king the miraculous cherries), but they are deliberate elements of discord that indicate an atypical reception for the knight.³⁷

Other elements in Gawain's arrival and reception can also be paralleled in the romances, showing them to be connected with a traditionally polite mode of conduct that both guest and host were expected to follow.³⁸ Although they do not share many similarities with the customs to be found in religious houses, the adherence to a ritualised procedure is common to both the secular and the religious forms. In the passage that has already been partially quoted from Gerbert de Montreuil's Continuation de Perceval (1094-1116), for example, a similar order of events takes place to those in SGGK.

Perceval, Agravain, Saigremour, and two maidens arrive at a lodging. The preudom who owns the Manoir comes out to greet them, the travellers dismount, and the ladies are helped from their horses. The horses are then stabled, the guests are led by hand into the hall, where the men are disarmed and given robes suitable for indoor wear. In Ywain and Gawain, Colgrevaunce's reception at the castle where he is impressed by the excellence of the hospitality, matches that shown to Perceval. He mentions particularly that ‘Mi sterap toke þat hende knight / And kindly cumanded my to lyght’. (173-74) His horse is taken to the stables, and he is also taken by the hand and undressed in a chamber (193-204). In the episode in Guy of Warwick that has already been discussed, Guy too is led by the hand into Amis' castle and dressed in a mantle. (6009-12) References such as these could be duplicated at length from other romances, and the details of greeting, asking permission, alighting and being helped from a horse, the taking by the hand, dressing in a robe, and the stabling of the horse, establish a strong pattern of courtesy that necessitates a similar response.

Some of these customs are also recorded by the courtesy books as well. Giving a welcome or greeting to the assembled company when arriving in hall, was, as we have seen in the discussion of Cleanness, recommended by several poems. Facetus: ‘cum nihil utilius’ also contains the advice that help should be given to any one who has trouble dismounting, ‘Si quis descendat ab equo vel equum grave scandat / te praesente, strepae manus obsequium cito pandat’, and no doubt the precept about removing the spurs after dismounting, also in the same poem (213-14), bears a close relationship to the disarming passages, which symbolise the peaceful intentions of the visitor.

In SGGK, a very similar sequence of events can be observed. Gawain is greeted and greets all the attendants who meet him, he is helped from the saddle (822), and his horse is taken to the stables. Courtiers help to disarm him, and he is led to the hall where Bertilak meets him with great reverence. Also in accordance with other passages, Gawain is stripped of his war-like gear and given an indoor robe when he is taken to his chamber.

For a medieval audience, Gawain's arrival and reception at Hautdesert would have contained many recognisable and conventional gestures of courtesy. But even though it is useful to compare Bertilak and Hautdesert with a vavasor and his castle, Scattergood is correct in qualifying his parallel between the two by stating that Hautdesert ‘is a much more splendid place’. (‘Sir Gawain’, p. 350) The Gawain-poet takes some pains to emphasise the meticulous attention paid to his hero, and the sumptuous richness of his new surroundings. It is a large crowd of people who come to greet Gawain, not just a few attendants but ‘sere seggez’, (822) ‘knyȝtez and swyerez’, (824) and ‘mony proud mon’. (830) Apart from greeting him, they treat him to especial reverence, even though it is the middle of winter, ‘And kneled doun on her knes vpon þe colde erþe’. (818) When he takes off his helmet, ‘þer hiȝed innoghe / For to hent hit at his honde, þe hende to seruen’. (826-27) In the chamber, the trappings and furnishings are of the best, and prominence is given to the luxurious garments that Gawain wears. After the privations of the journey, the comfort seems even greater, and Gawain responds to this treatment, his servants thinking that Christ never made a more comely knight (869-70).

The meal or feast in this part of the poem figures prominently as an image of relaxed and harmonious good-will, as it does in Cleanness. To be offered a meal as a stranger is a sign that participation in the household has been effected to an intimate degree. Even today, to serve a visitor with a meal is to acknowledge to the recipient that they have been treated with a familiarity that distinguishes them from other people. The meal that honours Gawain on this first night consists of a grandeur commensurate to his surroundings, and is made more of an honour by being brought to him in his chamber. Some writers in the Middle Ages condemned this particular custom, but it was generally seen as a privilege reserved for special guests or dignitaries. Ffor to serve a Lord, p. 373, gives instructions on how ‘grand Guests’ are to be served in chambers after the main course in the hall, and several accounts of feasts, such as the Nevill Feast, pp. 95-97, and the testimony of the Czechs who visited England in 1465, (Rozmital, Travels, p. 47) support the notion that the private meal was a respected honour.³⁹

The details of the meal served to Gawain in his chamber, given prominence by selectivity and intensifying adjectives, also illustrate the excellent courtesy on display at Hautdesert. That the meal is generally attended to with due regard to the forms of polite society can be determined by the poet's choosing to draw attention to Gawain washing before the meal (887). This particular courtesy, that occurs at Camelot, and is notable in Cleanness, can also be found in many other romances where meals are described.⁴⁰ As in these other cases, the particularisation of it at Hautdesert seems to be a traditional signal that the meal was passed with full attention to courteous behaviour.

The meal itself, as Davis's note says (edn., n. to 897) is recognisable from contemporary descriptions of such fast day feasts. From John Russell's Book of Nurture, we can see the possible elaboration and skill in preparing a meal from fish, skills which were developed to counter the Church's restrictions on diet on certain dates in the calendar. There is no suggestion from the poet that a various and sumptuous fish meal is to be viewed as either immoral or casuistical. Some church reformers would have been unhappy with this shadow of abstinence, but there are no such strictures here, just as in Cleanness it is not the luxury of Belshazzar's feast that is being criticised, but the misuse of the expense for an egotistical and perverted end.⁴¹

Since Gawain's arrival at Hautdesert, the words ‘hende’ or ‘cortaysye’ in their various forms have appeared with remarkable frequency (nine times between 773 and 946) and particularly in this scene describing the meal, during which the compliments between guests and hosts are rapidly swapped. Gawain has completely accepted the standards of Hautdesert, and even becomes a little tipsy (899-900), recalling to the reader the poet's comment on the effects of ‘mayn drynk’. (497) It would be wrong to seize upon this and elaborate a scheme of moral censure by which the poet is condemning Gawain.⁴² But it does seem to suggest that Gawain's unsuspicious enjoyment of his courteous treatment ensures that he will be drawn into the darker designs of Bertilak. During Gawain's first night at the castle, the poet explores the conditions under which Gawain feels obliged to enter into another agreement with Bertilak/The Green Knight, and to remain in the castle while the lord goes hunting. As the courtesy becomes more extravagant, so it becomes more difficult for Gawain to avoid doing what is demanded of him.

After the meal, Gawain again finds himself being asked for his identity in a significant passage that in some ways parallels the Pentangle description because it too defines the qualities of Gawain's character. This time, however, the emphasis is solely on the secular virtues as seen by other courtiers, and their expectations of Gawain are ambiguous enough to prepare the reader for the difficulties of definition that characterise the temptation scenes. For a stranger to be questioned after a meal as to his identity was another established courteous practice in the Middle Ages. To entertain a visitor first and only then to enquire who, or what, he was, placed strong faith in him, and has echoes in the ideal code of hospitality practised in monasteries. …Urbanus Magnus is quite clear about the propriety of waiting until after the meal:

Advena dum comedit, verbis non sit stimulatus,
Quelibet interea rumorum questio cesset
Querere si placeat, post cenam questio fiat.

(2389-91)

In the episode from the Continuation de Perceval that has been quoted from before, it is ‘aprés souper’ that host and guest exchange names (1132), and Rauf Coilȝear also waits until after supper before asking the anonymous Charlemagne for his dwelling-place, his occupation, and his name.⁴³ As at Camelot, Gawain readily responds to the attendants' enquiries, but it is noticeable, as Burrow points out (A Reading, p. 59), that Bertilak never reveals his name throughout Gawain's stay, a fact which has all the significances of ignorance and mystery that Burrow describes so well.

As soon as the court and Bertilak know they are entertaining Gawain, ‘þat fyne fader of nurture’, (919) his name conjures up a reputation which incorporates a wider interpretation of courtesy than that of which Gawain has hitherto shown himself master. We are reminded of his ‘pured þewes’, (912) and the court not only think that they will see ‘manerez mere’, (924) ‘sleȝtez of þewez’, (916) and the ‘teccheles termes of talkyng noble’, (917) but also that they will hear the skills of ‘luf talkyng’. (927) This last quality need not necessarily imply the specious blandishments of the seducer, and there may be little difference between the art of talking about love and the art of ‘talkyng noble’. During his stay at Hautdesert, Gawain is not inept at talking to women, either alone or in company, and such conversational ease (which comes under extreme pressure) is all part of the courteous man. There is ample evidence to suggest that talking about love was a courtly pursuit, and one at which Gawain would no doubt be proficient. It seems to be fairly clear that, apart from anything else they do, the Lady and Gawain discuss the subject of love because this was a topic that becomes a courtly pastime: ‘Much speche þay þer expoun / Of druryes greme and grace’. (1506-07) In the Knight's Tale, Chaucer says he will not discuss the finer points of Theseus's feast: who sat highest on the dais, who danced and sang best, ‘Ne who most felyngly speketh of love’, (CT, [Canterbury Tales] The Knight's Tale, I, 2203) an aspect of the feast which is bracketed quite innocently amongst other points of interest in its organisation.⁴⁴ What Gawain has to repudiate is the idea that such conversation necessarily means that there is a sexual interest too.⁴⁵ The Lady assumes that courtesy shown towards women must have an ulterior motive, and will not be offered as a polite refinement. Gawain shows that courtesy is a worthy virtue in and of itself, even though he is handicapped by being a guest, a social role that allows him little room for manoeuvre when subjected to the testing motives of Hautdesert.

The remainder of Fitt 2, which describes the events leading up to the three days before New Year, explores further the ambiguity of courtesy and courtly love, as well as the limitations placed on Gawain by a solicitous host. There can be little doubt of the excellence of the court-life at Hautdesert. The Christmas feast, with its particularisation of the seating arrangements (1001-05, paralleling the feast at Camelot), the Christmas games of the lord and the conversation of Gawain and the Lady, ‘Wyth clene cortays carp closed fro fylþe, / þat hor play watz passande vche prynce gomen, / in vayres’, (1013-15) which is probably another reference to the ‘game of love’, all suggest another society in which the pursuits of the noble life are followed to the highest degree. However, there are several indications of the passive role that Gawain plays in the Christmas celebration, and the poet takes pains to emphasise that he rarely does anything of his own volition. There are overtones of control for instance, in the way the lord ‘laches’ Gawain by ‘þe lappe and ledez hym to sytte’ (936) when they go to the chapel, although Bertilak shows a generous warmth to his guest.⁴⁶ The words are repeated when ‘þe godman hym lachchez, / Ledes hym to his awen chambre’ (1029-30) before they have their crucial conversation about the length of Gawain's stay, and even the manner in which the ladies ‘tan hym bytwene hem, wyth talkyng hym leden / To chambre’ (977-78) after the meeting in the chapel, suggests the powerlessness of Gawain's will when he has accepted the courtesies of Hautdesert.

Gawain's subservience to the desires of his host and hostess is encapsulated by his request to be the ladies' servant, an innocent gesture of chivalric politeness, but which is used to great effect by the lady in the temptation scenes when she also pretends serviture to Gawain's desires (1239-40) so that Gawain, in order to neutralise any possible sexual implication, has to reiterate his own willingness to serve her in word or deed (1245-47). His obligation to the lady is of a slightly different nature to his obligation to Bertilak, founded as it is upon medieval notions of respect for noble women by a single knight, but we are still aware of the lady's role of hostess, and how this further complicates Gawain's predicament.

If there is any doubt, at this point, of the restrictions that Gawain must feel as a guest at Hautdesert, the poet gives explicit attention to clearing these up in the conversation between Bertilak and Gawain just prior to the end of the fitt. While Bertilak (supposedly) does not know of Gawain's quest, Gawain is perfectly correct in refusing any further hospitality at the holiday season, although his words first bring to mind the debt he feels to his host: ‘And I am wyȝe at your wylle to worche youre hest, / As I am halden þerto, in hyȝe and in loȝe, / bi riȝt’. (1039-41) But when Bertilak informs him of the Green Chapel's proximity, any further thought of rudely departing is banished. It is at this point that Bertilak's speech takes on an authoritative tone, with words and phrases that imply necessity or command: ‘Now leng þe byhoues’, (1068) ‘Dowellez’, (1095), and ‘Ye schal lenge in your lofte’. (1096) In the face of this, Gawain can only express his willingness to stay, repeating the debt of gratitude he feels by stating the other side of the guest-host bargain, ‘I schal at your wylle / Dowelle, and ellez do quat ȝe demen’, (1081-82) and, ‘Whyl I byde in yowre borȝe, by bayn to ȝowre hest’. (1092) Having said this, Gawain can hardly refuse, what seems in retrospect, the ambiguous suggestion that he stay in bed, ‘Tomorn quyle þe messequyle, and to mete wende / When ȝe wyl, wyth my wif’, (1097-98) particularly as it seems sensible in view of his long journey and the tiredness he must feel.⁴⁷ When he agrees to this, Bertilak then proposes the Exchange of Winnings agreement, and with elaborate courtesy (‘Frenkysch fare’, 1116) they part and go to bed.

The Ambiguities of Kissing and Temptation

It should now be clear how important the first few days of Gawain's stay at Hautdesert are in preparing the reader for what will become the central issues of the Temptation scenes, and the cause of Gawain's eventual failure. One further incident over the Christmas period, however, adds to our sense of the difference between Hautdesert and Camelot, and also illustrates the difficulty in separating codes of love from codes of behaviour. Although Morgan la Fée is mentioned by name only once in the poem, when the Green Knight explains the motivation for his appearance at Camelot, her presence in Fitt 2 is a surprisingly dominating one, and the poet hints at her control over the court when she first appears (albeit anonymously). This line, ‘An oþer lady hir lad bi þe lyft honde’, (947) is another example of the verb ‘lead’ in this part of the poem referring to the treatment of guests, and likewise resonates with overtones of control.⁴⁸

Although the introduction of Morgan into the poem may make us more aware of the pitfalls that Gawain faces in observing a courteous code of conduct at Hautdesert, his greeting of the two ladies in the chapel underlines just as clearly how easy it is for the boundary between courtesy and romantic love to be disputed. His treatment of the two women appears to be differentiated according to their attractiveness. The poet has already said, ‘More lykkerwys on to lyk / Watz þat scho hade on lode’, (968-69) and although bowing to and greeting Morgan, he kisses the lady and clasps her in a light embrace. It may well be thought that the poet would like us to see behind this greeting an unconscious sexual response on the part of Gawain, and in retrospect the episode takes on more significance when seen as a foretaste of the temptation scenes. The poet's use here of the kiss of greeting, however, and his descriptions of kissing throughout the poem are more complex than they at first appear.

As we saw in the discussion of Lot's reception of the angels in Cleanness, the kiss as a gesture of greeting or parting is well-documented in the Middle Ages.⁴⁹ In this poem, Gawain is kissed when he leaves Camelot (596), and when he returns (2492). He kisses Bertilak and the lady farewell when he leaves Hautdesert (1979); during his stay, all three kiss each other goodnight the evening before the first day of temptation and hunting (1118); and when Gawain and Bertilak depart from the Green Chapel, they kiss once more (2472). It is still the case, however, that, in the chapel on his first night, Gawain only kisses the lady, and not Morgan. It would be easier to assume that Gawain thinks that to kiss Morgan would be distasteful were it not for the fact that he treats her with elaborate courtesy. In bowing to her, Gawain seems to be recognising her high rank, a rank that the poet has emphasised by some well-placed clues. There is little in other English references to the custom to suggest that Gawain was following a code of precedence when he does not offer a kiss of greeting to Morgan, but in Middle High German narrative works, there are several instances that indicate the kind of rules that he might have been following.⁵⁰

Broadly it seems that someone of high rank would not kiss someone of lower rank. Thus in Das Nibelungenlied, Rüedeger tells Kriemhild whom he thinks is worthy of her kiss when they meet Etzel, so that she does not make the mistake of treating all of Etzel's vassals equally.⁵¹ In Wolfram's Parzival, Belacane is at first afraid that Gahumuret may not be of high enough rank to merit her kiss, and in a reverse case, Cunneware hesitates to kiss Parzival because she does not feel worthy enough until he reassures her.⁵² These examples are from instances in which a noble lady is the first to salute a guest or visitor, but in Ulrich von Zatzikhoven's Lanzelet, a poem originally composed in Anglo-Norman (and therefore perhaps, closer to the Gawain-poet's milieu), the poet suggests that Lanzelet was highly honoured in being allowed to greet with a kiss a group of the noblest ladies when he arrives at Johfrit's castle:

The ladies obediently rose in a stately manner and received the unknown knight with kind greeting. On this occasion the host's affection for his companion was manifest. The youth had to kiss all the ladies in the better group, those who were noblest; he knew how to bear himself toward these so that they thought it praiseworthy.⁵³

German epic and SGGK are separated from each other by both time and culture, but they do share some similarities of courteous practice, particularly in the ritual of reception of which greeting is a part.⁵⁴ Using the examples of the protocol of giving the kiss of greeting in Das Nibelungenlied, Parzival, and Lanzelet with caution, it may be possible to argue that Gawain's motive for not kissing Morgan is partly due to his assessment of her higher rank. He can kiss his hostess, but does not feel of sufficient status to kiss the mysterious person of high power.

The scene in the chapel is not distinct enough to allow the reader to either wholly blame or excuse Gawain for his conduct. We feel that he has not treated Morgan discourteously, but we are also acutely aware of the Lady's beauty. The poet's treatment of this episode blurs further the distinctions between ‘courtesy’ and romantic love, a confusion which lies at the heart of the temptation scenes in Fitt 3. The Lady's insistence upon the act of kissing is a patent tactic to seduce Gawain. If he can be made to follow her example, then further developments may occur. But just as in the chapel when the kiss of greeting is given a shade of erotic meaning, here in the bedroom, the seemingly erotic kisses are so placed that they can also be seen as conventional gestures of greeting and farewell. Chaucer uses a similar ambiguity for comic effect in the Summoner's Tale. When the wife of Thomas enters the room:

The frere ariseth up ful curteisly,
And hire embraceth in his armes narwe,
And kiste hire sweete, and chirketh as a sparwe
With his lyppes.(55)

This is more than a kiss of peace or greeting, but because of the friar's usually flamboyant style of courtesy (he loves, in particular, to season his speech with fashionable French remarks), his licentiousness is partially camouflaged.

In SGGK, the ambiguities of kissing are treated with more seriousness than that reserved for a fabliau jest. At the end of the first temptation scene, the lady chides Gawain for staying so long with a women and not claiming a kiss:

þen quoþ Wowen: ‘lwysse, worþe as yow lykez;
I schal kysse at your comaundement, as a knyȝt fallez,
And fire, lest he displese yow, so plede hit no more.’

(1302-04)

Immediately after taking her kiss, the lady departs (1308). Gawain may be loth to accede to this demand, but he does not see any dishonour in fulfilling the request, partly because he must not disobey his hostess, and partly because the kiss does not have all the sexual connotations the lady would like it to have.⁵⁶ The other kisses in this part of the story follow the same pattern: Gawain is kissed once in greeting by the lady (1758), and twice on her departure (1555, 1794-96), and although the kiss at 1505 seems to break the pattern, it is still the result of the Lady's reproaching Gawain for not kissing her when she arrived. In response to the Lady's comment that he should have kissed her because it ‘bicumes vche a knyȝt þat cortaysy vses’, (1491) Gawain replies that he did not do so lest he had been refused, a clear indication that in the code to which he adheres, the kiss as a gesture of courtesy is not lightly given (it will be remembered that in the chapel, Gawain asks permission before greeting the ladies). What exactly the lady means by ‘cortaysy’ in 1491 is given more forceful expression in her rebuttal: ‘Ye ar stif innoghe to constrayne wyth strenkþe, ȝif yow lykez’. (1496) Gawain deflects this attempt by the Lady to encourage him to misuse the social code by which he conducts his life, and her eventual kiss has few overtones of meaning other than as a delayed gesture of greeting.

The duality of implication that can be observed in the use of this gesture is indicative of the general style of the three bedroom debates.⁵⁷ It is the lady's purpose to shift the meaning of courtesy from its purely social and virtuous associations so that it becomes a quality dependent on adulterous and dishonourable action. At the same time, she tries to insinuate that Gawain's reputation is founded upon expectations of a similar kind of behaviour.⁵⁸ This becomes clear through her use of words like ‘courtesy’, ‘hende’, and ‘hendelayke’, terms which take on a new shade of meaning when used by her, and which often are conjoined with an analysis of his character. Twice she openly questions whether he really is Gawain (1293 and 1481, quoted above) because he has not kissed her, and at the beginning of the first morning, her declaration that ‘Sir Wowen ȝe are’, (1226) is followed by an estimation of his ‘honour’ and ‘hendelayke’. (1228) This leads by loose association to an almost open invitation to sexual intercourse, which leaves little doubt that ‘hendelayke’ is seen by her as an inseparable part of the ‘game’ of romantic love.

A more direct expression of what the ‘game of love’ means to the lady, apart from, as we have seen, objective discussion of ‘druryes greme and grace’ comes on the second morning in her celebrated speech about ‘þe lettrure of armes’. (1513) In this long and elliptical exposition of the nature of romances, the lady seems to have abandoned some of her caution (‘And yow wrathed not þerwyth’, 1509) in order to ask why he, ‘so ȝong and so ȝepe’, (1510) is so uninterested in her as a sexual object. However, she changed her mind, eschewing the direct question, and implies the same by reference to ‘þe lel layk of luf’ (1513) in fiction, associating Gawain with fictional knights who perform deeds of valour for their ladies and who bring ‘blysse into boure’. (1519) Such an approach not only gains effect by being less vulnerable to direct rebuttal, but it also allows her to express doubt about Gawain's right to be so famous when he refuses to teach her about love: ‘Why! are ȝe lewed, þat alle þe los weldez?’ (1528) Once again, Gawain has to ignore the combination of flattery and disbelief, and then restate the different principles by which he governs his life, without seeming either insulting or discourteous.

Despite the lady's use of seductive and invitational language, like Gawain, she cannot, at any time, fail in reasonable standards of courtesy. If her tactics were too crude and overbearing, it would be easier for Gawain to rebuff her advances. The subtlety in the lady's approach lies in the way in which she delicately treads the thin line between being an alluring beauty and a witty adversary. At no point can Gawain merely dismiss her as an unworthy woman to whom he no longer feels obligations of courtesy.⁵⁹

Indications of the lady's desire to act in a mannerly fashion, without losing any of her suggestiveness, can be found in the construction of many of her speeches (see the one discussed above), and in her careful use of the ‘ȝe’ and ‘þou’ forms of the pronoun. Although she normally uses the plural form of the pronoun to Gawain (which, as was seen in the discussion of Pearl can be the normal form of address between lovers or courtly equals), her occasional lapse into the singular form (1252, 1272, 1746, 1799) is not without point, and tends to imply a momentary familiarity or special feeling for Gawain (‘Haf þe, hende’, 1252; ‘Now, dere, at þis departyng do me þis ese, / Gif me sumquat of þe gifte’. 1798-99) Gawain, on the other hand, is scrupulous in his use of the plural form, only once using the singular when he believes that all danger is past, and that he ought to feel compassion for his love-sick hostess (1802).

Other aspects of the lady's behaviour are, perhaps, more questionable when judged against strict standards of courtesy, but are less open to criticism when seen in the perspective of her overall purpose. There are few analogues in medieval literature to a temptress going to a knight's bedroom, and this behaviour causes Gawain much initial embarrassment. Although such an action should be considered as improper, the lady's reduction of its immediate implication into a kind of jest in which Gawain becomes her prisoner, lessens its possible outrageous effect. Gawain, even if he is alarmed and surprised, has no choice but to accept what has happened, given that the lady's approach is not apparently sinister, and that she is mistress of the household. After some deliberation, he pretends to arouse himself, and places his trust in his conversational skill.⁶⁰

Only once more is Gawain shocked by the lady's behaviour, but that is not in the bedroom. At the evening meal on the second night, her ‘stille stollen countenaunce’ (1659) seems designed to test Gawain's resistance to her when the temptation is taken out of the context of the bedroom, and to convince him that her love for him is genuine, and not merely a feigned strategem. Rather than being angry with her, Gawain chides himself (1660) and deftly turns the more serious nature of these love-glances to the less serious business of ‘luf-talkyng’ (‘Quen þay hade played in halle’, 1664) so that he does not have to ignore her rudely, and break the fellowship of the feast.

The one moment in the three days of conversation in the bedroom that possibly contradicts the view that the lady never acts without regard to some standards of courtesy and restraint, comes on the first morning with her much discussed invitation: ‘Ye ar welcum to by cors / Yowre awen won to wale’. (1237-38) Attempts to explain these lines as an idiom meaning ‘I am glad to have you here’, have been largely unconvincing.⁶¹ Nor is it entirely satisfactory to stress the deliberate crudity of the lady's assault as being a part of her strategy as others have tried to do.⁶² As Mills points out (‘An Analysis’, pp. 616-17), the lines also have a social reference apart from the sexual implication, and it is to the social reference that Gawain responds, choosing to concentrate upon the lady's offer to be his servant. ‘Cors’ puns on ‘court’, and ‘won’ (pleasure) on ‘won’ (dwelling), the puns gaining credence from the previous lines with their reference to ‘þis hous’ (1234) and the lady's reminder that her lord is away (1231). If we ignore all sexual connotation (which, of course, cannot be done), then it is possible to see the lady's words having a similar meaning to Bertilak's when he first greets Gawain:

‘Ye ar welcum to wonye as yow lykez;
þat here is, al is yowre awen, to haue at yowre wylle
and welde.’(63)

(835-37)

The lady's claim to become Gawain's servant follows naturally from these ambiguities, because although her primary meaning is ‘servant of love’, the domestic possibilities of the passage allow Gawain the opportunity to make a reply that takes no account of the underlying sexual offer.

Gawain's reply at this point is typical of his method throughout the three mornings. Without ever frankly contradicting the lady, he deftly turns back the compliments on herself and obliquely directs the conversation away from its more obviously sexual destination. His main difficulty is, of course, that he has to counter the redefinition of courtesy to which the lady wishes him to conform. Up to this point in the poem, we have seen Gawain as the exemplar of the courteous man both at Camelot and Hautdesert, but under pressure from the lady, he finds it harder to maintain command of his composure, and on each morning he becomes worried lest he has failed in the standards of polite behaviour. Two of these instances are connected with the lady's desire for a kiss (1295 and 1488), but the third, which encapsulates his predicament, is, as was shown, at the point when Gawain is in most danger of forgetting his obligation to Bertilak and succumbing to the lady's allurements (1770-75). Because his eventual failing is a lack of faith to Bertilak in not rendering up the girdle, it is notable that Gawain rarely lets thoughts of Bertilak stray far from his mind, and in the passage just referred to, it is thought of committing a sin against his host that inspires Gawain to renew his contest with the lady:

          ‘God schylde,’ quoþ þe schalk, ‘þat schal not befalle!’
With luf-laȝyng a lyt he layd hym bysyde
Alle þe spechez of specialté þat sprange of her mouthe.

(1776-78)

Reference to Bertilak also allows Gawain to remind the lady on the first morning that however much she may admire him, she has ‘waled wel better’, (1276) and he follows this gentle reproach by restating his social position (as a guest) with regard to her: ‘And, soberly your seruant, my souerayn I holde yow’. (1278) So it is that, when on the third morning Gawain accepts the girdle and promises to ‘lelly layne’ it from her lord (1863), we are left in no doubt of the cause of Gawain's error. For the first and only time in the poem, he loses a proper sense of his debt to Bertilak, and this forces him to break the rules of their agreement, an agreement that in some ways has objectified the social bonds between guest and host, and which has determined the tone of Gawain's stay at Hautdesert.

Acceptance of the girdle may be the manifestation of Gawain's failure, but it is too easy to neglect his triumph in not forsaking his code of courtesy when his system of values is severely questioned by a skilful and persistent adversary. At Hautdesert, we are made aware of the restrictions of courtesy and its ambiguity of interpretation. At Camelot, we encounter the potential disaster for society if this code, however difficult to follow consistently, should be broken. In both courts it is the Green Knight who instigates this searching analysis of courtesy, and who forces us to realise its importance by paradoxically suggesting its shortcomings when misunderstood or misused. Because he escapes from this ordeal virtually unscathed, Gawain's story celebrates this positive side of courtesy and the values around which society is built, not those which cause its destruction. Although this celebration is tempered by the knowledge of the impossibility of perfection in any man (however well he exemplifies both religious and social virtues), SGGK is still an optimistic poem about the possibilities for the ideal values of court life.

Notes

1. Cf. John A. Burrow, A Reading of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (London, 1965), p. 41: ‘This should put us on our guard against taking too narrowly ascetic a view of the ideal which he represents.’

2. ibid. esp. pp. 127-33, a view repeated in the same author's Ricardian Poetry (London, 1971), pp. 106-11. Since Burrow pointed this out, the idea has become something of a critical commonplace.

3. There has been much debate on the efficacy of Gawain's first confession to the castle-priest. Rather than agreeing with Burrow, A Reading, pp. 104-09 that his first confession is invalid, I follow Spearing, Gawain-poet, p. 225 who says that Gawain does not mention the girdle in confession because he fails to see its withholding as a sin.

4. Burrow, A Reading, esp. pp. 23-25, 42-45. For an assessment of earlier views of the poem, see Morton W. Bloomfield, ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: An Appraisal’, PMLA 76 (1961), 7-19. The most outspoken critic of Burrow's commentary on the poem's meaning is by Spearing, Gawain-poet, pp. 206-09, although his comments seem to misrepresent the wider implications of Burrow's reading, especially in connection with the nature of contracts in the poem: ‘In the narrow sense of fidelity to contracts, it does not appear that the poem is centrally concerned with trawthe’. (p. 207) William R. J. Barron, ‘Trawthe and Treason: The Sin of Gawain Reconsidered, Publications of the Faculty of Arts, University of Manchester 25 (Manchester, 1980) has the most recent discussion of ‘trawthe’ in SGGK, although he tends to emphasise the religious rather than the social aspect of the quality.

5. Burrow's view of these lines can be found in A Reading, p. 100. Spearing, Gawain-poet, pp. 204-206 takes the opposite view. Davenport, Art, pp. 184-85 sees the lines as encapsulating a ‘debating point about knighthood’, (p. 185) holding essentially the same view as Burrow, but strengthening it by his proposed emendation of 1769 which he revises to, ‘Nif mare of hir knyght (hym) mynne’, a point elaborated in his article ‘The word “norne” and the Temptation of Gawain’, NM 78 (1977), 256-63. Most other commentators follow Burrow or Spearing, although Joseph E. Gallagher, ‘“Trawþe” and “Luf-Talkyng” in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, NM 78 (1977), p. 373 sees the poet joining the two sins into ‘a single possible act’.

6. Larry D. Benson, Art and Tradition in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (New Brunswick, 1965), pp. 44 (with extended discussion of Le Chastelaine de Vergi, pp. 47-48) makes the point that in many medieval examples of the ‘Potiphar's Wife’ story, to which SGGK is surely related, the tempted knights repulse the ladies because of loyalty to the ladies' husbands rather than out of personal concern for chastity. That it would be Bertilak's honour that Gawain preserves by not committing adultery is indicated by Derek S. Brewer, ‘Honour in Chaucer’, Essays and Studies n.s. 26 (1973), 1-19, esp. p. 9.

7. A recent example of this kind of reading has been made by Vincent J. Scattergood, ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Sins of the Flesh’, Traditio 37 (1981), 347-71. But both Spearing, Gawain-poet, p. 227-31 and Davenport, Art, pp. 180-94 are suspicious of taking too seriously Gawain's judgement on his failings, or of reading the poem as an essay on gross moral failure.

8. This view of the test is also supported by Burrow, A Reading, p. 80, Brewer, ‘Courtesy and the Gawain-poet’, p. 84, and Benson, Art and Tradition, pp. 44-55; 218-26. Spearing, The Gawain-poet, pp. 200-01 sees the ambiguity residing in the term ‘cortaysye’ itself, and the different sorts of ‘courtesy’ have also been emphasised by John F. Kiteley, ‘The De Arte Honeste Amandi of Andreas Capellanus and the Concept of Courtesy in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, Anglia 79 (1961), 7-16.

9. George L. Kittredge, A Study of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Harvard, 1916), pp. 101-03.

10. ibid., pp. 90-101, including Italian Canzoni, Latin exempla, as well as romances such as Hunbaut and Rauf Coilȝear. Other folktale versions are discussed by Hamilton M. Smyser, The Taill of Rauf Coilyear and its Sources, Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature 14 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), pp. 135-38.

11. Kittredge quotes from Le Castoiement d'un Père à son Fils (a translation of Disciplina Clericalis) and Enfant qui veult estre courtoys. Other examples are not difficult to find. Cf. Doctrina Mense, 56, Carmen Iuvenile de Moribus, 69, De Ingenuis, 145-46, Petit Traitise, 116-18, and Urbanus Magnus, 1064-70. Some of these are in the context of drinking and therefore bear a close relationship to the anonymous Canzone retold by Kittredge, A Study, p. 93, in which the host singles out as a particular discourtesy he has suffered, a guest telling him to drink first. The general connection between loyalty and courtesy can be found by the inclusion of a number of precepts praising truth, loyalty, and honour in the courtesy poems. Cf. Urbain: ‘later version’, 28 (Harley MS), SPAM: Ashmole, 213, Caxton's Book of Courtesy, 492, and Young Children, 146.

12. 73-74, and 109-15. The latter passage is explained by Oliver F. Emerson, ‘Shakespearean and Other Feasts’, SP 22 (1925), p. 181. Also see Davis, edn., n. to 107.

13. For a good summary of the various critical responses to phrases such as ‘childgered’ and ‘rechles merþes’, see Patricia A. Moody, ‘The Childgered Arthur of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, SMC 8-9 (1976), 173-80.

14. Walter W. Skeat, ed., The Wars of Alexander, EETS ES 47 (London, 1866), *826-24 (Dublin MS).

15. Cf. Johannes de Garlandia, Morale Scholiarum, 400, and Urbanitatis, 45-48. It is also tacitly assumed in serving manuals, such as Ffor To Serve a Lord, p. 369.

16. Henry L. Savage, ‘The Feast of Fools in SGGK’, JEGP 51 (1951), 537-44 elaborates further on this point.

17. Benson, Art and Tradition, pp. 86-89 describes well the energy of the Green Knight/Bertilak.

18. Burrow, A Reading, pp. 13-17 also explores the ‘suggestiveness’ of the Green Knight.

19. ibid., pp. 17-20. Burrow challenges John Speirs, The Non-Chaucerian Tradition (London, 1957), p. 226 who notices the ‘outrageously discourteous’ behaviour of the knight.

20. Most easily read in L. Elisabeth Brewer, From Cuchulainn to Gawain (Cambridge, 1973).

21. John W. Hales & Frederick J. Furnivall, eds., Bishop Percy's Folio Manuscript, II (London, 1868), pp. 56-77. Also in Brewer, From Cuchulainn, pp. 83-91.

22. Julius Zupitza, ed., The Romance of Sir Guy of Warwick: The First or 14th century version, EETS ES 42, 49, 59 (London, 1883-91), Caius MS 3883-84; 3889. Burrow, A Reading, p. 18, n. 16, claims that such behaviour is not necessarily hostile, and refers to examples of suppliants and donors riding into hall. However, in the right context, such an action can only denote hostility and discourtesy.

23. Leslie F. Casson, ed., The Romance of Sir Degrevant, EETS 221 (London, 1949), Cambridge MS 117.

24. My comments on the use of the second person pronoun in SGGK owe much, once again, to the articles by Evans and Metcalf cited in Chapter Seven [in Nicholls, Jonathan. The Matter of Courtesy: Medieval Courtesy Books and the Gawain-Poet. Suffolk, England: D. S. Brewer, 1985.].The use of the pronoun in SGGK is also specifically treated by Basil Cottle, The Triumph of English 1350-1400 (London, 1969), pp. 280-84. Also see Israel Gollancz, ed., Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, EETS 210 (London, 1940), n. to 1071.

25. A final detail in this picture of the rude stranger is the way in which the Green Knight rolls his eyes (228-29). Apart from connotations of madness and aggression, Hugh Rhodes in his Book of Nurture (ed. Furnivall, Babees Book, pp. 63-114), condemns rolling the eyes when speaking to another man (p. 76, II.173-74), and Facetus: ‘cum nihil utilius’, 169-70 advises that a visitor should always show a happy face to his host. On the redness of the eyes, see Robert B. White, jr., ‘A Note on the Green Knight's Red Eyes (SGGK, 304)’, ELN 2 (1962), 250-52.

26. Several commentators have noted Arthur's courtesy, including Benson, Art and Tradition, p. 97, Burrow, A Reading, p. 29, and Spearing, Gawain-poet, pp. 175-77, 182-83.

27. Benson, Art and Tradition, p. 216 sees Arthur becoming churlish, but I do not see Arthur's reaction as a complete breakdown of his courtesy, only as a momentary relinquishment of his regal authority.

28. Gawain's speech has been well analysed by Anthony C. Spearing, Criticism and Medieval Poetry, 2nd ed. (London, 1972), pp. 43-47.

29. A Reading, p. 58, referring to Wiliam A. Nitze, and collaborators, ed., Le Haut Livre du Graal, Perlesvaus, II: Commentary and Notes (Chicago, 1937), pp. 241-42, n. to 1492, and Whiting, ‘Gawain’, p. 196, n. 25.

30. Gerbert de Montreuil, Continuation de Perceval, ed. Mary Williams, (III, ed. Marguerite Oswald), 3 vols. CFMA 28, 50, 101 (Paris, 1922-25-75), 1132-37.

31. Passages such as this lie behind the ‘curious piece of advice’ (Burrow, A Reading, p. 60) given to Perceval by his mother in Chrétien's romance (557-62) when she advises him to ask a stranger for his name at meeting. …

32. Cf. Facetus: ‘cum nihil utilius’, 197-98, L'Apprise de Nurture, 115, Urbanitatis, 87, SPAM: Lydgate, 69-70, and Babees Book, 75-77.

33. See the articles by Francis P. Magoun, Jr., ‘Sir Gawain and Medieval Football’, English Studies 19 (1937), 208-09, and ‘Football in Medieval England and in Middle English Literature’, American Historical Review 35 (1929-30), 33-45.

34. Cf. the examples cited by Roy J. Pearcy, ‘Chaucer's Franklin and the Literary Vavasour’, Ch. Rev. 8 (1973), 32-59; some of these are also cited by Scattergood, ‘Sir Gawain’, pp. 350-51. Hakan Ringbom, Studies in the Narrative Technique of Beowulf and Lawman's Brut, Acta Academiae Åboensis, Ser. A. Humaniora 36, 2 (Åbo, 1968) shows how typical arrivals are in heroic poetry. He counts (p. 99) sixty-two arrivals with spoken salutation in the Brut.

35. Facetus: ‘cum nihil utilius’, 255-56, and cf. Robert de Blois, Chastoiement des Dames, 487-90. For the passage from the Sloane Courtesy Book (5-14), see Chapter Six [Nicholls, The Matter of Courtesy].

36. Cf. Albert B. Friedman & Norman T. Harrington, eds., Ywain and Gawain, EETS 254 (London, 1964), in which Ywain, on coming to a ‘fayre castell’, (2712) calls out (2713) whereupon a porter soon appears who welcomes him; and Sir Degrevant, Lincoln MS, 389-400 when Degrevant going to the Earl's castle, dismounts and asks the porter to be his messenger to the Earl.

37. Alexander Treichel, ‘Sir Cleges, eine mittelenglische Romanze’, Englische Studien 22 (1896), 345-89, II. 259-70.

38. For further examples, apart from those adduced below, see Dupin, La Courtoisie, pp. 18-35.

39. In Piers Plowman, Dame Study criticises the custom, X, 98-101, and the ninth of Robert Grosseteste's Household Statutes (ME version) advises the reader to make his/her household sit together in the hall at mealtimes. For other references critical of the habit of eating alone, see Jill Mann, Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire (Cambridge, 1973), p. 157, n. 38. Criticism of the custom may have had its origins in the association, in some romances, of private meals and scenes of love. See Sir Degrevant, for example, 1393-1440 and the editor's note on this passage.

40. Cf. the episode from the Continuation de Perceval, 1125, Guy de Warwick, 6850, and Sir Degrevant, 1408.

41. This is the view too of Burrow, A Reading, p. 57, although Scattergood ‘Sir Gawain’, p. 355 sees the episode as one in which ‘overindulgence would be easy’, and Wilson, Gawain-poet, p. 124 finds the meal ‘disturbing’.

42. Scattergood, ‘Sir Gawain’, p. 350 also sees this as a sign of Gawain's eventual moral failure, but Burrow, A Reading, pp. 57-58 is not too critical of Gawain here.

43. Ed. Sidney J. H. Herrtage, The English Charlemagne Romances VI, EETS ES 29 (London, 1882), II. 227-42. Unlike Burrow, A Reading, p. 58, I cannot detect ‘a sinister touch of cunning in the attendant's behaviour’ here.

44. For further discussion of the ‘game of love’ and its place in courtly discussion, see John E. Stevens, Music and Poetry in the Early Tudor Court (London, 1961), pp. 159-64, and Green, Poets and Princepleasers, pp. 101-34.

45. Pandarus's smirk when Criseyde asks him whether Troilus ‘kan wel speke of love’ (TC, [Troilus and Cressida] II, 503) indicates the thin line that separated speaking about love, and love-making. Like the lady, Pandarus hopes to exploit the subtle distinction.

46. To lead someone by the ‘lappe’ can imply both intimacy and control. Two uses by Chaucer illustrate this, the first from the Second Nun's Prologue, when the nun says that until a man be seized ‘by the lappe’ he is not aware that the devil ‘hathe hym in honde’ (CT, VIII, 12-13), and the second from TC when Pandarus leads Criseyde to Troilus's bed: ‘And Pandarus, that ledde hire by the lappe, / Com ner, and gan in at the curtyn pyke’. (III, 59-60)

47. Some critics, notably Scattergood, ‘Sir Gawain’, wish to argue that Gawain is guilty of sloth in staying in bed and not hunting with Bertilak. Although the point is well-argued, it takes no account of the obligations Gawain must feel to Bertilak. Benson, too, Art and Tradition, p. 108 thinks that it is dangerous to stay in bed, even if he finds it not entirely inappropriate for Gawain.

48. As Burrow points out in his edition of SGGK, Penguin English Poets (Harmondsworth, 1972), n. to 947, this line shows that Morgan is not a guest at the castle. If she were a guest, then the position of the two ladies would be reversed, Morgan having the position of honour. (We know already that the younger women is Bertilak's wife.) As it is, Morgan shows herself to be in the dominant role, and possibly of greater rank in the castle, because she is able to give an honoured position, rather than to take it.

49. Apart from the previously mentioned examples, see Dietmar Peil, Die Gebärde bei Chrétien, Harmann und Wolfram, Medium Aevum: Philologische Studien 28 (Munich, 1975), pp. 307, 309, for a list of its occurrences in the texts he examines. The prevalence of the gesture in England was amusingly recorded by Erasmus in a letter to Fausto Andrelini. See The Correspondence, Letters 1 to 141, trans. Roger A. B. Mynors & Douglas F. S. Thomson, Vol. I of Collected Works, gen. ed. Wallace K. Ferguson (Toronto, 1974), Letter 103, p. 193. Also see Kristoffer Nyrop, The Kiss and its History, trans. William F. Harvey (London, 1901), and Nicolas J. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane (Berkeley, 1969), although this last work does not concern itself much with the gesture of greeting or farewell.

50. The examples are taken from Peil, Die Gebärde, pp. 63-68, and George F. Jones, ‘The Kiss in Middle High German Literature’, Studia Neophilologica 38 (1966), pp. 201-03.

51. Ed. Karl Bartsch, 10th ed. Helmut de Boor (Lepzig, 1940), 1348.

52. Ed. Karl Lachmann, 7th ed. Eduard Hartl (Berlin, 1952), I: 22, II. 15-16; 306, 1. 5.

53. Trans. Kenneth G. T. Webster & Robert S. Loomis, Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies 47 (New York, 1951), p. 33.

54. It is useful to compare the ritual of greeting as I have described it from essentially English sources, with what Peil, Die Gebärde, pp. 31-72 (esp. pp. 36-44) finds in his European texts.

55. CT, Summoner's Tale, III, 1802-05. See Alfred L. Kellog, ‘The Fraternal Kiss in Chaucer's Summoner's Tale’, Scriptorium 7 (1953), 115 on this scene. A more serious example of the literary exploitation of the hazy distinction between social and sexual kisses can be found in a ‘rounde’ of Charles d'Orléans when he contrasts the private kisses given to him by his mistress with the ones she gives everyone in the normal conduct of social intercourse. Ed. Robert Steele, I, EETS 215 (London, 1941), No. 37.

56. An analogous situation occurs in Malory's Morte d'Arthur. When Lancelot is imprisoned by Mellyagaunce, a lady comes to him every day, tempting him with deliverance if he will make love to her. She eventually narrows her demands to a kiss, to which Lancelot accedes, adding that he may do that and ‘lese no worshyp’. He makes it clear that if there were any dishonour in the act, he would not do it. See Works, ed. Eugène Vinaver, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1967), III, p. 1136.

57. Apart from the studies by Burrow, Spearing, and Benson, of particular interest are the articles by Davis Mills, ‘An Analysis of the Temptation Scenes in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’. JEGP 67 (1968), 612-30, Christopher Dean, ‘The Temptation Scenes in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, Leeds Studies in English n.s. 5 (1971), 1-12, Gallagher, ‘“Trawþe” and “Luf-Talkyng”’, and Myra Stokes, ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Fitt III as Debate’, Nottingham Medieval Studies 25 (1981), 35-51.

58. This theme of identity has been well-expressed by Benson, Art and Tradition, pp. 218-26, and Spearing, Gawain-poet, pp. 198-99 also discusses Gawain's traditional reputation as a philanderer.

59. It is difficult to accept Benson's comment, Art and Tradition, p. 54, that ‘she, like the Green Knight, is an attractive but essentially uncourtly character, the antithesis of the perfect gentleman whom she woos’. Were the lady as blunt as the temptress in Yder (see Brewer, Cuchulainn, pp. 47-51), Gawain could act in a similar way as the hero of that romance when he kicks her in the stomach. Because courtesy is never established by either side, the restraints of polite society do not apply.

60. It is worth noting that Gawain's gesture of crossing himself does not resonate with fears of moral danger, as it is all part of his dumb-show pretence of waking. At least one courtesy book recommends that the reader should cross himself when first waking. See Young Children, 11-12, and cf. Castrianus, 122, and Caxton's Book of Courtesy, 23-24.

61. As, for example, Davis's note on these lines, and Burrow, A Reading, pp. 80-82.

62. Particularly by Dean, ‘Temptation Scenes’, pp. 4-5, and Gallagher, ‘“Trawþe” and “Luf-Talkyng”’, pp. 365-66. Kiteley, ‘De Arte Honeste Amandi’, p. 10 sees the offer as an appeal to the senses and contrary to the tenets of courtly love, and Benson, Art and Tradition, pp. 49-50, also sees it as a breach of courtly love.

63. I follow Gollancz's emendation of the passage which eschews the ugly repetition of ‘welde’ in 835 and 837.