Weiss, Victoria. “The play world and the real world: chivalry in ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’.” Philological Quarterly 72(1993): 403-419.
Victoria Weiss explores the differences and similarities between games and real life in medieval literature. At the beginning of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” Gawain finds himself caught in a life endangering “Cristmasse game.” Everyone in court takes the Green Knight seriously, but at the same time, Arthur makes the situation lighter by acting as if it was merely entertainment. Weiss states that “Arthur’s gambit works because noble men and women understood games or play in both ways: as a serious declaration of their status and worth, and paradoxically, as the kind of diversionary, inconsequential activity that working classes understood play to be.” Therefore, Gawain must decide how seriously he should take this game.
Arthur refuses to eat until he has seen “some ‘uncouthe tale… sum mayn mervayl’ (93-94) or some joust where ‘jopardy’ is involved, where men pit ‘lif for lif, leve uchone other, / As fourtune wolde fulsun hem / the fayrer to have’ (98-99).” Arthur’s two options are quite different in their seriousness. After the strange marvel they have witnessed of Gawain cutting off the Green Knights head, the party returns to its merriment to ignore the strange and grave happenings that have just occurred.
Weiss compares Gawain’s story with “Le Livre de Caradoc.” In this story after the Green Knight type character leaves, the court is angered and distraught at the circumstances. They are worried for the life of their knight, and in no way treat it as a game. The two stories show very different responses. In “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” the court finally seems worried and criticizes the king right before Gawain is about to begin his journey. At this point, it is of consensus that Gawain is under an obligation, and that this is no longer a game.
The initial reference of the “Cristmasse games” suggested to the people short-term amusement, not long-term consequences. Weiss states, “They clearly regard the loss of Gawain as too high a price to pay for a bit of entertainment at a feast of the sort that Arthur’s initial vow seemed to promise.” This confusion between the play aspect and the reality of the game confuses the reader throughout. The confusion between these two worlds was a staple part of chivalry. There is a definite “confusion between the genuine or authentic and the play or postured position (that) reveals the limitations of chivalry as a system which as J.J. Anderson has noted, ‘achieves its brilliance only at the cost of a distortion of natural life’.”
At this time period, play is in direct correlation with your social position and personal identification. If you do not follow through with “play promises,” you are disgraced. Gawain takes this idea very seriously, letting the game define his personal identity, so as to legitimize himself. He “ does not seem to know when he is playing a serious game and when he is playing a momentary, diversionary one.” Making Gawain’s character even more confusing is the basis of chivalry from Christianity. The act of Gawain cutting off the Green Knights head is against Christian morality. The Green Knight shows the reader that “one who fails to abide by the rules of a game is a ‘spoil sport’ but hardly a sinner.”
The element that makes this story unique is Bertilak’s, or the Green Knight’s access to magic. Those with the magical powers control the games that control life and death. Weiss says “When magicians—the ultimate players—begin to manipulate the rules and control the games, the tendency to seek out and celebrate one’s identity through participation in a world of artifice is exposed for the dangerous practice it is.” Chivalry is therefore exposed as a game that is merely a part of public performance. It is unconnected “to a moral code which demands something more than attention to public behavior.”
When Gawain returns to Arthur’s court after his encounter with the Green Knight, the fellow courtiers believe that he has fulfilled his moral obligations by “seeking, finding, and submitting to the Green Knight.” Gawain believes he has failed morally because he fell under temptation and kept the girdle. These two viewpoints are incompatible and the neither of them receives the poets approval.
The poet’s plan was to question “the authenticity of the chivalric soul.” We are than led to question; “To what extent is proper chivalric behavior real, moral behavior as opposed to public posturing? To what extent is the seriousness of aristocratic play a convenient class-distinguishing characteristic to be invoked in public surrounding when it suits one’s purpose?” To Gawain, agreeing to the terms of play is of moral imperative, no matter the treacherous terms.
The poet shows us the historical value of game play in the Middle Ages, by offering a very complex work entangled with ideas of chivalry. At the beginning of the poem, Gawain is merely participating in a game. At the end of the poem, Gawain has gone through serious moral tribulations, far past his first expectations when becoming involved. Weiss states “Gawain finds himself with a set of chivalric values which offer him no help-indeed, merely confuse him—in his quest to discover who he is and what to value.”
Weiss weaves many unique ideas of chivalry and moral attitudes in the middle ages in this article. I felt placed in the medieval mindset, understanding how the readers of the day would have understood the text. The two contrasting viewpoints of a game, whether serious or playful was extremely insightful. This was my favorite article, I felt Weiss was offering wonderful insight into what the Gawain poet wanted his readers to understand about the text.
Cassia Herndon 10/06
