?

Benson, C. David. Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. London: Academic Division of

Unwin Hyman Ltd., 1990.

In Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, Benson overviews key points of information about Chaucer’s text. Benson discusses that scholars have discovered where Chaucer found his inspiration. He brings up the many similarities and differences between the texts. Chaucer drew from many great authors, but Boccaccio was his greatest inspiration. Benson goes on to discuss the manner in which Chaucer chose to write, and the styles he used. He than offers some history of ancient Troy so Chaucer’s setting can be better understood. Benson follows this with an analysis of the stories main characters. He than tries to discover what kind of love Chaucer meant to portray. Benson than tries to unravel the added complication of the role of fortune within the text. He concludes with discussing the Christianity that is woven throughout the text. Benson covers many topics quite thoroughly in a relatively small book.

The source for Chaucer’s poem was Boccaccio’s, Il Filastrato. Boccaccio can be credited for shaping the story as we know it today. Boccaccio also changed Benoît’s version of the name Briseida, to Criseida. Boccaccio also adds the important character Pandaro, or Pandarus. An idea the was interesting, was that Boccaccio gave Chaucer inspiration to write more passionate, sexual scenes. His other works do not contain this eroticism.

Chaucer uses golden rhetoric in Troilus and Criseyde, by expanding on Boccaccio’s style in Il Filastrato. In the Middle Ages there “were three levels of literary style: an ornate style, an idiomatic low style, and a middle style somewhere between these two extremes” (Benson 40). Chaucer’s text contains all three of these styles. Chaucer allows himself to discuss all sorts of subjects, for example pagan or profane subjects. He knows that his reader understands him. Chaucer believes in his reader to be able to read and understand his text.

In Boccaccio’s Il Filastrato, Troy is merely a location in which a love affair is taking place. Chaucer depicts a realistic backdrop that becomes real to the reader. Chaucer’s Troy has architecture and furnishings from fourteenth century England. Chaucer incorporates the real events of the Trojan War into his text. He shows the trials that the war brings to the characters. Chaucer mixes ancient Troy and modern London to form a unique setting for Troilus and Criseyde.

Chaucer follows Boccaccio’s example and writes a story that focuses more on character instead of plot. He tries to depict real people, with real problems. Each of Chaucer’s characters is unique. They could not be easily changed with a stereotypical character. Pandarus is described as Chaucer’s most superficial character, but at the same time the most entertaining and lively. Benson states “Despite the efforts of some to establish him as the hero of the poem, Troilus is usually slighted by critics” (Benson 95.) Criseyde is the most fascinating character who causes great complexity throughout the plot. The last and often forgotten character, is the narrator. He plays no part in the plot, e only shows emotional involvement. It is often hard to distinguish him from Chaucer himself.

There is a great deal of debate as to what type of love is in Troilus and Criseyde. Benson says, “Some celebrate Troilus as a joyous hymn to human sexuality, others thunder that it is a dire warning of the deadly wages of lust, while most, in the usual academic fashion, adopt some compromise view” (Benson 120.) Benson argues that the poem does not offer one consistent attitude towards Troilus and Criseyde’s romance. Chaucer creates a more complex romance than those before him. Most writers display one consistent view of love, Chaucer does the opposite and offers numerous viewpoints.

Chaucer draws from Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, to bring in the idea of fortune. Benson says, “Fortune appears in many guises in Troilus (serious, comic, decorative, hostile and benign) and is capable of various interpretations” (Benson 149). Boccaccio mentions fortune but does not fully develop the idea. Chaucer expands upon fortune and makes it a significant figure. Although fortune is very important to the text, Chaucer does not follow the Consolation in trying to transcend the earth.

Boccaccio’s tale was completely secular, and did not add a Christian lesson. In most versions, the only moral is that women cannot be trusted. Chaucer makes the story have complex levels of moral and Christian meaning. The story could be viewed as pagan, while the narrator telling the story is Christian. This explains the Christian ending to the text.

Benson’s, Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, covers a great deal of material in a very succinct manner. It was enjoyable to read because he got directly to his point, and did not repeat himself. Benson covered many ideas that I read about in my articles. It was nice to see the ideas from a different viewpoint, that was not judgmental towards others views. I enjoyed some of the articles more because they offered a radical viewpoint and expanded just on one idea. Benson’s book is wonderful in that it covers so many topics, though.

I felt that I learned a great deal about the relationship of Boccaccio’s Il Filastrato, to Chaucer’s later Troilus and Criseyde. Throughout the book Benson showed where Chaucer found inspiration from Boccaccio’s text and where Chaucer deviated. Chaucer was truly a revolutionary author. He drew from previous artists works, but mixed his own modern day viewpoints to create a truly unique story of Troilus and Criseyde.

Cassia Herndon 12/06

Goodman, Jenifer R.. “Nature as destiny in ‘Troilus and Criseyde’.” Style 31(1997): 413

(15).

            In the fourteenth century there were many intellectual complications that are difficult for the modern reader to grasp.  Many of the debates of the day are within Chaucer’s text.  He was very well informed, and had acquired a wide range of old and new ideas.  Our perspective today is quite different from that of Chaucer’s.  In Chaucer’s day one person might agree with liberal ideas and radical ideas at the same time.  Today we are more one minded.  Goodman says, “Whether we consider Chaucer a humanist, an early modern scientist, a feminist or male chauvinist, or a proto-Puritan predestinarian moralist, we misinterpret him by pulling him too far in our direction.”

            Chaucer and his contemporaries had the option to choose which beliefs they had, unlike us who are locked into one side or the other.  They were likewise very free thinkers.  A notion that was important to the day was the tradition of Aristotelian physics.  It emphasized “natural motion and natural place, (which) underlies the structure of Troilus and explains the movement and interaction of the main characters.”  Chaucer believed that the stars were important in understanding the human character, aiding in medical practice, and a manner in which to predict the future.  During this time “‘Nature,’ ‘Fortune,’ ‘Divine Providence,’ and the forces they represented were all still regarded by most thinkers as real and formidable powers, not myths, mental constructs, or conventions.” 

            The modern reader is predisposed to see nature as unkind in Troilus.  We should not confuse the medieval sense of nature with fortune or evil.  Goodman says, “Nature remains a power for good in Chaucer’s universe, an agent of God representing the force of generation and the order of creation.   Nature is seen of a force of God, a power that has purpose and design.  Everything in the world, such as people, stones, sounds, etc. has its own natural destination, or destiny. 

            The nature of Troilus’s tragedy is continually under question.  The main question is whether it is a tragedy of fate or of character.  To an Aristotelian natural philosopher, Troilus’s story is both.  When Troilus realizes that he has lost Criseyde, he realizes that it is his fate for his life to end.  He no longer has purpose on earth, and therefore his natural destiny must occur.  Between Troilus and Criseyde, Criseyde can be viewed as the more tragic character, “if we are determined to find tragedy in a natural world.”  Throughout the text Troilus ascends, while Criseyde descends.  Chaucer describes Criseyde as ‘tendre herted, slydying of corage.’  He is describing her natural motion that is sliding downward. 

            Criseyde slides from one protector to another, constantly looking for security.  At the beginning of the text she turns towards Hector because she has lost her father due to defection.  She eventually turns to Pandarus, then Troilus, and eventually Diomede as protectors.  This is her predestined path that nature has set for her.  In contrast, Troilus sees himself as extremely stable.

            At the beginning of the text Troilus looks down upon love, and sees himself permanently fixed in his place.  He quickly loses his stronghold when he first sees Criseyde.  He can barely think for himself, and therefore requires Pandarus to help him win Criseyde’s love.  When Criseyde is traded for Antenor, Troilus does not know what to do.  He considers following Criseyde, but he must remain in his natural place, Troy, as his name suggests.  Critics view this decision to remain in Troy quite differently.  He is thought of as weak by some, and by others his immobility is seen as admirable. 

            Throughout the text the lovers are continuously pulled together by nature.  Criseyde cannot help but gravitate to Troilus, due to Pandarus pushing her, and her draw towards Troilus’s stability.  Troilus cannot help but feel attracted to Criseyde; her beauty overpowers him.  Criseyde wishes to stay in a constant state, but she is not granted this.  She is continually wavering in all her decisions, especially whether or not to love Troilus.  Criseyde’s changeability has condemned her for all time. Both characters are “a natural entity, a body in motion, irresistibly drawn toward some ‘kyndely stede,’ its ultimate resting place.” 

            Chaucer’s Aristotelian philosophy is at the center of his text.  At the end of the text Troilus is in the eighth sphere, happily looking upon the rest of the world.  Chaucer advises his readers to turn towards God for love, instead of humankind.  Chaucer sees “God as the natural place and ultimate destiny of creatures made in his image.”  Chaucer’s final lesson for the reader is to look towards God.  Even though he consistently used pagan imagery throughout his text, Chaucer was a devoted Christian. 

            The text of Troilus and Criseyde makes more sense once the modern day reader looks back and makes an effort to understand Chaucer’s beliefs.  Troilus and Criseyde’s fates had long been determined, and they are only following their intended path.  The tragedy that befalls them was altogether unavoidable.  In the end, unquestionable trust and true love can only be found in God, and not in a mate on earth.

           Cassia Herndon 12/06

Pugh, Tison. “Queer Pandarus? Silence and sexual ambiguity in Chaucer’s Troilus and

Criseyde.” Philological Quarterly 80(2001): 17(19).

This article, shockingly begins with the phrase, “Is Panderus queer?” The objective of the article is not to prove that Pandarus is homosexual, but to analyze Troilus and Panderus’s relationship. The text never makes it clear that Panderus is not homosexual, which allows for “a queer reading of their friendship.” It is obvious that Pandarus and Troilus never have sex, but their intense affection for each other is made obvious. There has not been a great deal of criticism on the possible homosexual relationship between Troilus and Panderus since Beryl Rowland suggested in 1969 that Pandarus represented a “bisexual pimp.”

Whom or what Pandarus desires is constantly in question. Pandarus never allows anyone to see his private desires. Pugh says, “Pandarus’s silences at key moments in the text compel the reader to participate in the construction of his character.” Pandarus creates staging within scenes so that he will gain sexual satisfaction. Pandarus’s friendship fails Troilus, just as Criseyde’s love turns false.

Homosexual relationships as we now think of them were different in the fourteenth century. They were still a matter of concern, especially with Richard II’s affinity for close male friends. Richard II was “accused of being led astray by ‘obscene intimacies’ with his advisors.” Chaucer would have known of this and could have drawn on their circumstance for the story of a “queer advisor and a young nobleman.”

Throughout the text, Pandarus is continually aiding Troilus in obtaining Criseyde’s love. Pandarus never explains why he has decided to help Troilus’s cause. The question that needs to be discovered is, who does Pandarus desire? Pandarus is always giving hints, but never answers. Pandarus focuses all his attention on Troilus and Criseyde, therefore distracting questions of his personal love problems. Pandarus becomes Troilus’s confidant in love because they mutually have problems in love, but Pandarus never shares his half. Troilus in turn tells Pandarus that he will help him with his matter of love, but Pandarus refuses any aid.

Troilus tries to discover Pandarus’s love interests but he is soon distracted by his personal problems. Pandarus always tries to change the subject to avoid revealing his true interests. Pandarus mentions that his love is someone that Troilus knows, but no name is ever given. When Pandarus states that he will not steal the woman Troilus loves from him, it could mean that he is not interested in women. Throughout the text the idea of Pandarus, having a love seems to be a joke. Criseyde says, ‘Uncle… youre maistresse is nat here.” They both laugh when she says this, likely meaning that they both know that he does not have a mistress.

As Pandarus works to maintain Troilus and Criseyde’s affair, he receives gratification from the experience. Pandarus states, “That all three will be ‘gladed’ by the affair.” Pandarus is constantly reminding Troilus that if it were not for him, Criseyde would never have been his. Pandarus does not want Troilus to forget his important role in his life. Pandarus desires Troilus to rely on him, and feel that he could not do without. Pugh states, “Through Pandarus, Troilus finds sexual satisfaction; the panderer renders himself indispensable to his friend, guaranteeing his place in the young knight’s affections.” Troilus’s love for Criseyde only serves Pandarus.

Not only do Pandarus’s silence and words reveal his desires for Troilus, so does his gaze. Pandarus often “directs how, when, and where Troilus looks.” Pandarus tells Troilus to pay more attention to him that to Criseyde, the person all of his attention should be shown. Pandarus redirects the looks between Troilus and Criseyde upon himself, creating self-gratification. What is significant is that Troilus looks at Criseyde and Pandarus. When Troilus looks upon Pandarus, we discover that Pandarus feels ‘iren hoot.’ Pandarus undoubtedly finds sexual energy from his gaze.

Through Pandarus’s scheming, Troilus becomes extremely reliant on Pandarus. Their intimacy is evident in the scene where they spend the night together. Pandarus is described as having ‘mery chere.’ Troilus and Pandarus spend time together in the garden, supposedly waiting for Criseyde. However, Criseyde never shows and the two men enjoy “the hours together in a blissful garden of love.” This is the only outlet Pandarus has for his affections for Troilus.

Chaucer is known for being extremely slippery in his implications. It is extremely hard to define Pandarus’s leaning, and Chaucer leaves it to the imagination. There was not the strict ideas of the heterosexual and homosexual in Chaucer’s day. Pandarus would not have been living a homosexual lifestyle, but occasionally falling into the temptations.

It is not of the utmost importance to prove that Pandarus is indeed homosexual. The most intriguing fact is that Chaucer leaves Pandarus’s sexual leanings up to the reader’s imagination. He offers silences that we are forced to fill in. Chaucer does not make the story simple, with easy answers. Every relationship is complicated by personal desires and hidden secrets, most of all Pandarus’s.

Cassia Herndon 12/06

Hodges, Laura F.. “Sartorial Signs in Troilus and Criseyde.” The Chaucer Review 35(3):

223-259.

Each of the main characters has a signature garment that is worn at a significant point in the plot. Criseyde’s signature costume is her gleaming widow’s weeds. She is described in this outfit just before Troilus meets her, this helps the reader understand why Troilus falls in love with her. The initial description of Troilus shows him in his armor. This causes Criseyde to speak her famous line, ‘who yaf me drink.’ Other characters also have a signature garment. Ector has weapons, which signify his prowess, Diomede has a coat of armor signifying his lineage, and more importantly Pandarus wears a hood that represents his trickery.

Chaucer describes Criseyde in a ‘widewes habit large of samyt broun.’ There are two normal expectations from the reader of a medieval lady’s costume. She either has exotic or expensive clothing, or wears extremely old and drab clothing. Criseyde does not fall into either of those categories. Although Chaucer sets his story in ancient Troy, they wear clothing modern to the day. Through the phrase ‘widewes habit,” Chaucer makes Criseyde’s vulnerability and loss apparent by her widows garb. Another term important to the phrase is ‘large.’ This means that there is a great deal of fabric in the dress. This shows that Criseyde has wealth. Criseyde’s dress is made out of samyt, or samite, a lustrous silk fabric. In fourteenth century, samite was associated with trade in Asia and the Mediterranean. A great deal of samite of the day had silver or gold threads woven into it. Criseyde’s garment is a black, brown and is therefore simpler and not noticeably flashy.

Chaucer describes Criseyde as ‘aungelik,’ ‘thing immortal,’ and heavenyssh perfit creature.’ She is described as a being associated with celestial beings. Her dark garments show her mortality though, and “plainly mark her as an angel of mourning.” Troilus sees Criseyde in her state of vulnerability, alone and available for him to court her. Pandarus asks Criseyde to remove her widows ‘barbe,’ and allow herself to participate in more pleasurable aspects in life, such as love. The barbe mentioned here was a garment that had fallen out of fashion and, was only worn by nuns, widows, and older women. Pandarus wants Criseyde to rid herself of the many habits of widowhood, including: “modesty, chastity, faithfulness, and especially prudence.”

Chaucer provides no description of Troilus’s costume in the first book, all of the focus is upon Criseyde. Troilus is instead described as a peacock who’s feathers are limed. Hodges says, “The vision of Troilus’s brilliant feathers of peacock further underscores the dark and gleaming nature of Criseyde’s deception. The description of Troilus’s signature costume is described in Book II. Troilus is a portrait of a strong warrior, comparable to the god of battle, Mars. Troilus’s shield and sword signify his strength as a “valiant protector.”

Pandarus is associated with wearing a hood in Book II. Chaucer portrays Pandarus’s playing throughout the book. Chaucer writes, ‘Loke always that ye fynde / Game in myn hood.’ Pandarus plays the type of game that today we would look upon as being hoodwinked. The first mention of a hood is when Panderus tells Troilus to ‘don thyn hood.’ Troilus could be seen as a ‘second head’ under the hood, because he teams up with Pandarus to conquer Criseyde. They are playing a game together, partners in destroying Criseyde’s virtue.

Troilus and Criseyde exchange jewelry, each ring and stone has its own meaning. Criseyde gives Troilus a ring with a blue stone, this signifies chastity. Troilus possibly gives Criseyde his signet ring, set with a ruby. Troilus is associated with this ring throughout the poem, so it is part of his identity. Criseyde wears a brooch that is described as ‘gold and asure, / In which a ruby set was like an herte.’ The red and blue together represent constancy and passion. She gives this brooch to Troilus, signifying the gift of her heart. Troilus accepts the brooch as a symbol of Criseyde’s love. The brooch only foreshadows the despair that is to come.

In Book V, Criseyde no longer wears her widow’s barbe. Instead, her hair is dressed with gold thread and she dances like Pandarus always begged her too. The one problem is that she only takes this new lifestyle on after she begins her love affair with Diomede. Criseyde’s inconstancy is seen by her sudden change in appearance. Criseyde gives Diomede a brooch that Troilus had given her. This shows the ultimate deception. The reader sees her give away her heart twice, both supposedly for the first time since her widowhood. This makes the reader wonder how many times Criseyde has pulled the same trick.

This article got much deeper into detail about the costumes and Chaucer’s word choice during many scenes. Each characters costume helps the reader visualize the identity of the characters. Hodges states, “Costume rhetoric characterizes the players in this romance, interacts with aspects of setting, furthers the plot by highlighting significant moments and actions in the story, and works symbolically and metaphorically to say more than the images literally convey.”

Cassia Herndon 12/06

Wilcockson, Colin. “The woodbind and the nightingale images in Troilus and Criseyde

Book II, lines 918 and book III, lines 1230-1239.” Notes and Queries 49(2002): 320-323.

Colin believes that Marie de France’s lais show great similarities to Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. The lais of Marie de France were translated from Old French into English in the fourteenth century. They were very popular and easily available to a reader in Chaucer’s day. Two of Marie’s lais, Chievrefeuille and Laüstic are very likely referenced in Troilus and Criseyde.

Criseyde sees herself as an individual easily manipulated by romance, by some force she has no control over. She is therefore not responsible for her own actions. When she sees Troilus ride by on his horse, she cannot help falling in love. Wilcockson says, “She becomes a figure in romance, as she appears to align herself with Isolde whose passionate love for Tristan commenced when she unwittingly drank a love potion.” Criseyde exclaims, ‘Who yaf me drynke?’ She is assuming Isolde’s role of love due to outside forces.

There appear to be links between Marie de France’s story of Tristan and Isolde in the Lai du Chievrefeuille and Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. “When Troilus and Criseyde consummate their love, Chaucer compares their entwined limbs with the entwining of woodbind (the alternative name for honeysuckle) with a tree.” There are a number of instances in literature where a vine attached to a tree describes an embrace of two lovers. There is only one instance of honeysuckle, instead of the normally referenced ivy. The Lai du Chievrefeuille literally means ‘The Story of the Honeysuckle.’

In Marie’s story, Tristan is banished from his land so he must leave his love, Isolde. Criseyde likewise must leave her love Troilus because she is banished from her homeland, in Chaucer’s tale. When Criseyde discovers that she must leave Troy, Chaucer uses the imagery of entwinement once again.

As she that hadde hire herte and al hire mynde

On Troilus iset so wonder faste

That al this world ne myghte hire love unbynde

(IV, 673-5)

Criseyde promises to return to Troilus, but quickly forgets him when she falls in love with Diomede. Marie’s Lai du Chievrefeuille “warned that should the honeysuckle be wrenched from the tree, both plants would wither:

But if anyone can wrench them apart

The hazel-tree will swiftly die

And the honeysuckle, too.

(Lai du Chievrefeuille, 74-6)

Chaucer follows the honeysuckle imagery with a stanza about the nightingale. Marie’s lais also moved from a story mentioning honeysuckle to a story about a nightingale. This seems highly coincidental. When Criseyde first hears from Antigone about the wonderful state of being in love, she lies in bed unable to sleep due to the song of the nightingale. Marie writes a similar passage when the lady in Laüstic tells her husband that she cannot sleep due to the nightingale’s song. She is in fact meeting her lover from afar, both looking at each other from their private balconies. She uses the nightingale as an excuse so her husband will hopefully not discover her secret love. Marie and the lady are both in the same state of having fallen in, tragically fated, love.

A nyghtyngale, upon a cedre grene,

Under the chamber wal there as she ley,

Ful loude song ayein the moone shene,

Peraunter in his briddes wise a lay

Ove love, that made hire herte fressh and gay

That herkned she so longe in good entente,

Til at the laste the dede slep hire hente.

(Troilus and Criseyde)

There is no greater joy in the world,

Than to hear the nightingale sing.

Because of that you see me here.

So sweetly is it heard at night

Which seems a great pleasure to me;

So much does it delight me and so much do I wake

That my eyes cannot sleep.

(Laüstic)

The lady in Laüstic does not mention love because that would only make her husband suspicious. Her husband still becomes suspicious, and decides to kill the nightingale. He murders the bird and shows the lady, to distress her. The lady and her lover never meet again, due to the possibility of the husband’s discovery. The lady’s lover carries the bird’s dead body around with him in constant remembrance of his lost love.

Both stories end tragically with the love being lost. I found it extremely intriguing that Chaucer would have read Marie de France and borrowed her imagery. The fact that Chaucer was inspired by Marie de France connects the literature that our class has read this semester. I knew that Chaucer was inspired by Boccaccio, and other Italian authors, but not French author, Marie de France.

Cassia Herndon 12/06

Arthur, Ross G.. Medieval Sign Theory and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.

Medieval Sign Theory and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, by Ross G. Arthur is separated into five main categories; Pure Signification; The Shield of the Truth, The Uses of Sign, Faith and Truth, The Girdle and the Wound, and Gawain as Exemplary Individual. The book is easily read, and does not require previous knowledge besides having read the text itself. Anyone could read this book and gain insight into Gawain’s story. Sign theory is something that I find very interesting, and I know many others do also. Learning about signs and their meanings make the reader feel as if they are solving an exciting mystery, using textual clues.

Throughout the book, Arthur offers examples from many texts that are often in Latin or Medieval English. Arthur always offers the original version, and immediately below a translated version. This is extremely helpful to the beginning scholar, such as myself. At the same time, the Latin or Medieval English scholar will appreciate having the original text on hand. Arthur uses so many examples from other texts though, I sometime felt as if he was straying from the focal point of Gawain.

The first section of the book, entitled Pure Signification: The Shield of Truth deals with the symbolism behind Gawain’s shield. The description of Gawain’s shield is very lengthy, showing the great importance behind it. The pentangle is of utmost importance to the storyline. Arthur states “The pentangle is connected with an idea of endless self-replication in a geometrical as well as an arithmetical fashion…From both an arithmetic and a geometric point of view the pentangle is a figure that keeps coming back to where it started, ‘usque in infinitum’.” This chapter goes on to discuss other infinite symbols, such as the infinite triangle, circle, and line. Nicholas of Cusa states, “By this method, and guided by infinite Truth, we note the difference of expressions used by saintly men and brilliant intellects who gave themselves to the study of figures. St. Anselm, for example, compared Absolute truth to infinite straightness.” Therefore, the pentangle in Sir Gawain’s shield signifies Absolute Truth.

The second section, entitled The Uses of a Sign, discusses the signs throughout Gawain, and some of their possible meanings. Most of them relate to Christian beliefs and have a very complex background. One of the most significant signs in the text is the pentangle. The poet of Gawain offers two arguments for the pentangles meaning. The first is, “It is a sign that Solomon once established as a token of trawp, which it has a right to be, because it is a figure that has five points, and each line overlaps and locks into another, and everywhere it is endless.” Next he states, “Therefore it is suited to this knight and to his bright arms, for, always faithful in five ways and five times in each way, Gawain was known as good and, like refined gold, freed of each villainy and adorned with virtues in the field. Therefore he bore the new pentangle on shield and coat, as a man most true of word.” The poet believes that the pentangle is a sign of Truth, and therefore Gawain is true.

In the following chapter, Faith and Truth, Arthur states, “When Gawain wears the Shield of Faith, he is not doing so simply for its evocative and communicative powers. In addition to declaring that Gawain trusts in the truth and in addition to instructing observers in the nature of truth, the shield labels Gawain as true in a relative sense, that is, faithful. In a proposition about God, either truth or the pentangle may be per se consideratum; but in a proposition concerning Gawain they are restricted in meaning and declare not that truth exists in Gawain but that Gawain exists in truth.” Gawain accepts the pentangle as a sacramental badge; it indicates the spiritual grace he has received for his quest.

In the chapter The Girdle and the Wound, two more symbols are explored. One interesting definition for the girdle is “an appropriate sign for a man’s desire for continued earthly life.” The exact symbolic meaning of the girdle is unclear within the text. Arthur states, “this attempt to make the girdle a sign does not even succeed with Gawain, who is its first intended audience: the girdle cannot be a simple memento for the affair at the Green Chapel, because it is not accepted as a stable sign with such a meaning.” The most obvious meaning is the girdle is a representation of the sin Gawain has committed. The wound is another symbol for the Gawain’s sin. The difference between the two is that the wound will heal while Gawain will always wear the girdle in remembrance.

In conclusion, the final chapter, Gawain as an Exemplary Individual, Arthur says that Gawain shows humankind that we are all sinners since even Gawain was capable of sin. Gawain is another story such as that of Peter, David, or Mary Magdalene. It is to remind us that we are all human and that “Excessive honour for human beings, on the ground that man was created in God’s image, is an indication of a deviation from orthodox distinctions between God and man, especially God and fallen man.” This poem should provoke “the reader to move towards the enjoyment of God for God’s own sake and to the enjoyment of one’s self and one’s neighbor for the sake of God.”

Medieval Sign Theory and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight did not intrigue me as much as I initially thought it would. I felt that Arthur used too many other sources, constantly citing another person and going off on another tangent. There was interesting material in the text, but I felt as though I found out more information from many of the articles, with fewer pages. I expected complex answers to the signs within the text. In the end, Arthur just stated the obvious as his conclusion quite often. The book was interesting, and easily read, but not my favorite text on Sir Gawain.

Cassia Herndon 10/06

Cooke, W.G., and D’A. J. D. Boulton. “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A poem for Henry of Grosmont?.” Medium Aevum 68(1999): 42-55.

This article makes an effort to date “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” as closely as possible due to location, politics, and the person who possibly requested the poem. There is much debate as to whether the poem was created in the mid fourteenth century or the late fourteenth century. The evidence this article points towards shows the poem to be written sometime in the middle of the fourteenth century. It seems impossible to pinpoint a specific author, but we can try to date and place it by finding real life parallels.

One of the first helpful facts is from J.R. Hulbert who pointed out that there was a real-life Green Count, named Amadeus VI of Savoy. He had strong connections with the English Court, with a proposed marriage to the daughter of Edward III, and his niece married his third son. Some years earlier J.R.L. Highfield discovered a real-life Green Squire named Simon Newton. He had a kinsman serving in the household of Edward III’s distant cousin, who was a close companion to Henry of Grosmont, the first Duke of Lancaster. Around 1500, a Humphrey Newton was discovered to be familiar with the story of the Green Knight. Further connections lead them to likely be related. These coincidences show that “two real ‘green’ warriors with English royal connections in the middle of the fourteenth century, one of them with lands in the very part of England that Gawain traversed looking for the Green Knight, and a later man living in the same district bearing the same surname as the Green Squire and displaying an apparent acquaintance with the poem.”

In the 1940’s, Mabel May noticed that the scenery described resembled the country of Derbyshire. She proposed a cave in Wetton mill in Staffordshire as the Green Chapel. Ralph W.V. Elliot made another case, and identified the country around Dieulacres Abbey in northwestern Staffordshire as the location. Elliot’s choice usually wins because he can identify the chapel as a crevice called Ludchurch, which is under the Castle Cliff Rocks, and Bertilak’s castle, which is on Knight’s Low where the Earls of Chester once had a hunting lodge. Linguistically, the borderland of Cheshire and Staffordshire is where the poet likely originated. All of these facts point strongly to some correlation.

Further evidence that the poem could date from the middle of the fourteenth century is by reviewing the “language, and the portrayal of civil costume, armour, and architecture.” The Gawain poet would have to have been moving in very fashionable, modern circles for this to be possible though. When the illustrations for the poem were reviewed, they reflected the fashions of the late fourteenth century. This is not surprising, because the images were created after the text was already complete. In addition, the description of armour in the poem is completely consistent with the armour in the middle of the fourteenth century.

The next step was to try to discover the patron behind the poem. The best candidate would have “considerable interests in the north-west Midlands, known to have spent some time there, and having the right character and outlook to have relished such a poem. There is one outstanding candidate: Henry of Grosmont, first Duke of Lancaster.” Henry was born around 1310 and passed away in 1361. If the poem was written mid-century, Henry would have been alive and flourishing. His largest group of lands contained Staffordshire and Derbyshire, where the poet is likely from. For further evidence, “Henry tried to practice chivalry after the Arthurian pattern.”

There are two significant analogues that tie Henry and the Green Knight together. The first is that Otto of Brunswick challenged Henry for a joust at Christmastide in 1352. At the last moment, Otto decided not to go through with the challenge, “and Henry, like Gawain, returned unscathed to a hero’s welcome at his own king’s court.” The second analogue refers to the girdle Gawain accepts from Lady Bertilak. There are three devices that connect the girdle to Henry’s life. The first was the belt of his almost-sainted Uncle Thomas, which allegedly contained miraculous properties. Gawain’s belt also had held its own magic. The second device is that of the Castilian Order, which Henry could easily have been a member of. Its members wore a band of cloth around their waist, just as Gawain wore his girdle. The third device was a garter, which was worn by the order of Edward III. He most likely got this inspiration from the Castilian Order. Henry would have been the link between the Castilian Order and Edward. Both sexes of gentlefolk began to wear the belt. “Like Gawain’s girdle, then, it is an article of civil dress that became the badge of an order of knighthood; and if tradition is true, both were ladies’ favours either bestowed on or taken by a gentleman.”

There are many interesting connections in this article, such as the association with green in this period with “joy, beauty, youth, strength, and readiness to fight.” I could not include all of them, but the article was indeed interesting. I enjoyed reading an analysis of the article based almost purely on history instead of personal insight. Although the author will probably never be discovered, this article helps the reader better understand how the author would have possibly come to writing the poem.

Cassia Herndon 10/06