Arthurian Literature

[Wilde woman]

Okay, a couple of points before I dive back in. First, I admit I'm not sure what to make of the Green Knight. I'm not sure if he is and has always been some sort of magical creature who can survive a beheading or if Morgan enchanted him for the sole purpose of challenging Gawain. And if so, is this a spell she can activate and deactivate at will? If Gawain had tried to behead Bertilak at his castle, when he wasn't in the guise of the GK, would he have succeeded? Or would Bertilak still be invincible?

I've always argued on the side that Bertilak is or was once human and was only recently enchanted by Morgan. That is why I think the ending of SGGK is out of character for him...in that he spares Gawain. I think he breaks from Morgan's plan by not taking Gawain's head off. I think it's a human failing...because he feels pity for Gawain because he's familiar with Lady Bertilak's games. Of course, the poet is able to frame it all as a lesson in faith for Gawain. But I think my opinion dissents somewhat from the accepted interpretation.

To me, Bertilak - not Morgan - is the key. We have no idea who he is what he is or where he comes from. And I've always found it intriguing that nobody has every found an acceptable etymology for his name. It's unprecedented...but, then again, so was the Pearl poet.

Back to our discussion....

Why not? Fey, Sorceress, not unreasonable that she could have known this.

Not necessarily. Even Merlin doesn't have unlimited prescience. I could accept that she might be able to foresee some of the adventure...maybe that Gawain would be the one to accept the challenge, but not all the other events that fall into place. Sorry, that's one place we'll have to agree to disagree. What happens to Gawain is, to me, much too detailed and sometimes even contradictory for anyone to foresee.

Gawain being the most loyal knight to his king is the obvious taker of the challenge. IMO.

In the Arthurian tradition, there are any number of knights that could be called the "most loyal" to Arthur. It's only because of the title of the poem that we know Gawain will be the one to take the GK's challenge, not out of any all-encompassing title that he's Arthur's most loyal knight.

As I see it the use of faith is the major theme.

Okay, agreed. Christian faith is one of the big themes of the work. But, again, I don't think Morgan could've foreseen this, considering that she usually is portrayed as the exact opposite of the Christian model; she's usually pagan. Fey, witch, sorceress...it's all just a Christian way of saying OTHER is big capital letters. It doesn't make sense to me that Gawain would pray three times to God and bam! he would find Morgan la Fey's enchanted (pagan) castle. Which is one of the reasons I have a hard time accepting your interpretation that Morgan is "not evil" (evil usually being synonymous with "pagan", especially in a Christian work). She is generally allied with the pagan; what would be her motive for helping Gawain perfect his Christian faith?

Again what I do claim is that Morgaine played her role with the foresight of how events would play out attempting to progress Britain's spirituality via Gawain.

Again, why? What interest does Morgan have in seeing Arthur's knights gain prestige?

Look, I'm not adverse to classifying Morgan in general as "not evil". I think there are certainly pieces of Arthurian literature out there that show her in more or less sympathetic lights (Mists of Avalon, for one). And even in the works where she is most definitely evil (Malory), she is given just cause for turning against Arthur. She's never something as simple as a cackling witch bending over a boiling cauldron, which is one of the beauties of Arthurian literature. But IMO there isn't much evidence for labeling her a good character in SGGK.

[mystery_spell]

I really enjoyed The Once and Future King by T.H. White. I have not yet read The Mists of Avalon, but I certainly intend to.

[TalmadgeMonroe]

So we've touched on a fair amount of stuff here and it seems that Morgaines motivation/purpose is the big question. We've looked at some details but maybe I should zoom out and give a larger picture of my take on this. In the begining of SGGK the knights and ladies are all frolicking around the castle with not a care in the world. This is a problem. Growth does not happen without adversity. Arthur's court claims to be Christian, but they are young, spiritually, they need guidance. Now in rides this big green scary hulking symbol of Paganism. This represents where they came from. And the journey, figurative and literal, begins. So Gawain wanders around in liminal space for almost a year. He "finds" LB's castle which represents the end of his journey physically as well as ideally. And so the game begins in which Gawain plays well showing that he/Arthur's court are are decent folk but it is not good enough. This is shown in the accepting of the green belt, representing Paganism, and Gawain hoping it will save his life. So the GK taunts him, showing him his folly with the third swing of the ax. He is saying to Gawain, "Dude, I sooo could have taken your head off!" but a dead knight can't learn and teach a lesson. So Gawain keeps the green belt as a reminder that his old way of thinking and doing things are not going to keep him alive physically or spiritually. He must continue on the path he is on, there is no going back, if your not progressing your regressing, he not busy being born is busy dying, if you forget where you came from you're doomed to return........... So. Now the question of the orchestrator. Good/Evil Right/Wrong Christian/Pagan...these things matter not. What matters is progress. Morgaine knows this. She doesn't care about the chosen faith of Arthur's court, but she knows that any chosen faith will be better than that pride driven notion of chivalry that those childish knights keep prattling on about. Morgaine cares about the future of the people, Arthur cares about himself. So we all seem to have this notion of what side of the fence is a given character on, what side of the fence are WE on? but the reality is, there is no fence.

Ok,Ok., I know this is not the "popular" or standard take on SGGK, but what fun is that?

[Basil Valentine]

I don't have much to add to the discussion, other than to say that I really like Malory. I asked a question some time ago on this board, but got no answers - does anyone know if there is (or has ever been) an affordable unexpurgated copy of the Winchester Manuscript available? I've read the Caxton version and have always been intrigued by the thought of the Winchester version.

The only other Arthurian things I've read are Wolfram Von Eschenbach's 'Parzival', which I found very hard going indeed, and Simon Armitage's version of 'The Green Knight', which I liked. I think someone also mentioned Cervantes - who I wouldn't really describe as Arthurian - I read 'Don Quixote' about a year ago, and loved it.

[Wilde woman]

I really enjoyed The Once and Future King by T.H. White.

Hi mystery spell! The Once and Future King is my all-time favorite book. I've read it several times and I just love it. I think it's one of the few quality books written in the past century that makes the Arthur legend accessible to the average reader. Of course, White does take quite a few liberties with the legend. What's your favorite part? One of mine is definitely the end of Book 3, where Lancelot miraculously cures Sir Urr and regains his faith.

Talmadge - that's an interesting take on SGGK. I agree with most of what you say - paganism vs. Christianity, questioning traditional notions of chivalry - but I just don't agree with you about Morgan. *shrug* Out of curiosity, have you written about SGGK? I wrote a paper about four key colors in the text, focusing on how the colors come to symbolize different things at different times - how their meaning is not stable.

I asked a question some time ago on this board, but got no answers - does anyone know if there is (or has ever been) an affordable unexpurgated copy of the Winchester Manuscript available?

That is a good question. My version, too, is Caxton's, though the editor gives the bibliographic information for the 1967 edition of the Winchester manuscript. I'll PM it to you. I have no idea of whether a copy would be affordable or not.

Simon Armitage's version of 'The Green Knight'

That's the new translation, isn't it? I've seen it at bookstores and have been tempted to pick it up, but I don't like paying retail price for books. Would you say it's a good translation? My Middle English professor offered a copy as a prize for an optional assignment, but I chose not to do the work.

Since Malory has been mentioned, anybody want to suggest a topic of discussion on him? I'm still working my way through Malory, but I'm about halfway through.