Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Front matter

fi

Oxford University Press LondonEdinburghGlasgowCopenhagen New YorkTorontoMelbourneCape Town BombayCalcuttaMadrasShanghai Humphrey Milford Publisher to the University

Printed in England

Preface

The first endeavour of this edition has been to provide the student with a text which, treating the unique manuscript with all due respect, is yet pleasant for the modern reader to look at, and is free (as are few Middle English texts) from a litter of italics, asterisks, and brackets, the trail of the passing editor. The second has been to provide a sufficient apparatus for reading this remarkable poem with an appreciation as far as possible of the sort which its author may be supposed to have desired. Much of the literature that begins to gather about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, though not without interest, has little bearing on this object, and many of the theories held, or questions asked, about the poem have here been passed over or lightly handled—the nature and significance of the ‘test’; the sources, near and remote, of the story’s elements and details; the identity, character, life, and other writings of the author (who remains unknown); his immediate motive in writing this romance; and so on.

On the other hand, the more linguistic part of the apparatus, which is principally directed towards determining, as precisely as possible, the meaning of the author’s actual words (in so far as the manuscript is fair to him), is in proportion more extensive. The glossary, for instance, bulks unusually large. But to a certain extent the author has made this inevitable. While a full glossary is still essential for students of any Middle English text that merits a close and scholarly attention, the vocabulary and idiom of Sir Gawain deserve as much as even Chaucer’s best work (which has not received it) a full and careful analysis—one even fuller and more careful than has here been possible. The language is idiomatic, and the vocabulary rich. There are approximately as many distinct individual words as there are lines in the poem: a new word for every line.

Our thanks are due to Mr. J. F. Sharpe for his kindness in answering questions concerning the geography of lines ; to Mr. C. T. Onions for his help on several points, and for his constant interest; to Mr., K. Sisam for personal advice and help; to Sir Walter Napier for the loan of the late Professor Napier’s notes. The general debt of a pupil, still freshly remembering Napier’s skill in the elucidation of the difficult language of the poems of this manuscript, is thus greatly increased. Though not much of the present edition is derived directly from this source, it is noteworthy that many of the suggestions made independently by others are there found anticipated but unpublished.

J. R. R. T. E. V. G. -

Errata

Errata

Page

. | for Baltimore,

note to . for ui read iu

note to , for tweyen read twegen

note to . for Byrhtfierð's read Byrhtferð's

Glossary, th line of headnote. delete leþe

s.v. breue. for OE. brētan read OE. brēfan

s.v. cheke. for cheee read cheke

s.v. fode. for OE. jōda read OE. fōda

s.v. ȝe, pron., th line. for lykəȝ read lykeȝ

Gordon: Sir Gawain

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

The Manuscript.

The manuscript is a small quarto on vellum in the Cotton Collection in the British Museum—MS. Nero A. x. It contains three other poems, known as Pearl, Purity (or Cleanness), and Patience. They are all written in the small sharp hand which has been dated about . The ink has faded considerably, and some lines were blotted against the opposite page when the manuscript was written, so that it is not easy to read. The first transcribers deserve great credit for their care and accuracy, as evidenced in Madden's Syr Gawayne and Morris's Early English Alliterative Poems.

It was discovered by Mr. J. P. Gilson of the British Museum that this manuscript appears in a catalogue of the library of Henry Savile of Banke, Yorkshire, whence no doubt Sir Robert Cotton obtained it. It is now bound with two Latin tracts which are distinct manuscripts; when in Savile's possession it does not seem to have been bound with any other manuscript, and the present binding was probably executed for Sir Robert Cotton.

The four poems are crudely illustrated in colour, but the illustrations are somewhat rubbed and indistinct. There are four illustrations to Pearl, two to Purity, two to Patience, and four to Sir Gawain. The first of the illustrations to Sir Gawain shows Gawain taking the axe from King Arthur, and also the beheading scene before the dais, with the Green Knight holding up his severed head; all this is combined in one picture. The second (Which is the clearest, and is reproduced as frontispiece) shows the lady's stealthy visit to Sir Gawain; above the picture is written (in a different hand from that of the copyist)

Mi minde is mukul on on Þat wil me noȝt amende Sum time was trewe as ston & fro scham couþe hir defende.

These lines have no relevance to the situation in the poem. The third illustration shows Sir Gawain and the Green Knight at the Green Chapel; it is very indistinct. The fourth pictures Gawain’s return to Arthur.

The four main divisions of the poem are indicated by large ornamental coloured capitals. Smaller coloured capitals without ornament occur at the beginning of lines

It is not known where the manuscript was written, but as the Lancashire character of the language is perfectly preserved, it is likely that the copying as well as the composition belongs to Lancashire.

The Story.

A summary of the story of Sir Gawain at this point may be a convenience:

King Arthur held court at Camelot in Christmas season. On New Year’s Day he kept his vow not to begin the feast on such a high day before he had seen a marvel. As he waited, a horseman came riding into the hall, a Green Knight on a green horse; even the knight's hair and skin were green. Without fi dismounting, the Green Knight issued a challenge, that any of Arthur’s knights should strike him a blow with the huge axe which he carried, and receive from him a blow in return in a year’s time. The court was astounded and silent, and the Green Knight laughed aloud. In anger then Arthur seized the axe and was about to strike, when Gawain arose and asked that the adventure might be his. With a single stroke Gawain sent the green head rolling on the floor; but the knight lifted it up, and it opened its eyes and moved its lips, adjuring Gawain to meet the knight in a year’s time at the Green Chapel. With that the headless knight leaped on his horse and rushed out of the hall.

After the autumn court on All Saints’ Day, Gawain set out from Camelot to search for the Green Chapel. He rode north through Wales and over the Dee, and still his quest was not achieved. On Christmas Eve he came upon a castle in the midst of a wild forest, and there got lodging. The lord of the castle entertained him nobly. He was entertained also by the ladies of the castle, the lord’s fair wife, who was more beautiful than Guinevere, Gawain thought, and an ancient dame as hideous as the other was fair. Gawain stayed over St. John’s day (Dec. 27), and then would have departed to continue his quest, but the lord assured him that the Green Chapel was not two miles away, and bade him stay till New Year’s morning.

On each of the intervening three days the lord proposed a merry bargain, that they should exchange in the evening whatever fortune they achieved during the day. The lord went forth at daybreak to the chase, while Gawain lay late abed to rest. Now Gawain was visited secretly by the lady; who made offers of her love, but Gawain protested his unworthiness and evaded her offers without the discourtesy of a direct refusal. At each visit she kissed him three times, and the kisses he rendered faithfully to the lord, who each evening presented his kill to Gawain.

On the third day the lady offered him love-tokens. Her girdle of green silk, she said, had such virtue that none could be wounded who wore it. Gawain thought of the Green Knight’s axe, to be wielded on the morrow, and when she pressed the girdle on him he yielded, and promised to conceal it from her lord.

In the morning he rode over the hills to a wild valley where he found the Green Chapel—no ordinary chapel, but a hollow green mound. There came the Green Knight with an axe even bigger than before. Gawain made ready to take the blow, but shrank a little as he saw the blade descend; the knight withheld his axe and reproached him. Again the knight made a feint with the axe; but at the third time he let it wound Gawain’s neck slightly. Gawain sprang up more than a spear length, and made ready to defend himself, but the Green Knight leaned upon his axe and spoke merrily to him. He knew all about the temptations of the lady; he was no other than the lord of the castle. He had made two feints at Gawain for the two days he had resisted temptations and faithfully paid up the kisses. He had nicked Gawain's neck at the third stroke because he had not been perfect in troth, but had concealed the girdle. The name of the Green Knight was Bercilak de Hautdesert, the ancient dame at his castle was Morgan la Fay, who had wrought the whole enchantment to frighten Guinevere and shame Arthur’s court. Gawain’s virtue had defeated her purpose.

Though praised by the Green Knight, Gawain felt himself greatly shamed. The green girdle he kept and wore as a baldric in token of his fault. Now he took his way back to Arthur’s court, where he was comforted; the lords and ladies of the Round Table ever after wore a green baldric in honour of Gawain’s great loyalty.

This is a story shaped with a sense of narrative unity not often found in Arthurian romance. Most of the Arthurian romances, even the greatest of them, such as the French Perlesvaus, or Malory’s Morte Darthure (which is much better than knit than its French originals), are rambling and incoherent. It is a weakness inherited from the older Celtic forms, as we may see in the Welsh Maginogion, stories told with even greater magic of style and even less coherence than the French and English compilations. Instead of the usual multitude of adventures Sir Gawain has only two, and they are neatly linked by making the outcome of the beheading game dependent on the result of the temptation. The motive for the peculiar challenge and enchantment has been thought insufficient: but Morgan’s hatred for the Round Table is quite enough to account for the Green Knight’s quest. We may imagine that she could do no more than put Arthur’s knights to the test, in spite of all her magic, the powers of evil being unable to harm them while they remained virtuous. The beheading game was a way of drawing a knight to her castle and disposing of him if he failed in the test of loyalty and chastity; she hoped also that the sight of the beheading would frighten Guinevere. There was a more vital reason for it in other stories of beheading—it was usually a means of disenchantment—but the reasons for its presence in this story are good enough.

The story is an excellent one for the purposes of the romancer. It has all the traditional elements which medieval authors had learned to excel in treating—marvellous adventure, courtly life, knightly love-making. It was, moreover, a story to call forth all that humanity which was the greatest virtue of the medieval romancer—a virtue which is usually overlooked. Sir Gawain is as human as Chaucer or Shakespeare or any modern romance. In spite of this humanity, it must not be forgotten that magic is a fundamental element in the plot. The same power protects the Green Knight in Arthur’s hall and his lady in the castle.

The History of the Legend.

The story of Sir Gawain consists of two main adventures, the first (occupying the first and fourth divisions of the poem) of the Green Knight’s challenge and the ensuing beheading match, the second (in the second and third divisions) of the temptation of Sir Gawain at the castle. These two adventures are found separately in other romances, in forms recognizably similar; they exist in the combined form only in Sir Gawain and two later English poems which are closely related to it. Both adventures derive ultimately from Celtic legend.

The Celtic form of the adventure of the challenge is exemplified in The Champion’s Bargain, an episode in the Middle Irish romance Bricriu’s Feast, preserved in a manuscript dating from about . The story itself must be at least a century older. In the Irish version the challenge has already a developed literary form and contains all the essential details of the later versions. An interesting feature which only the Irish story and Sir Gawain have in common is that three blows are aimed at the hero when it is the challenger’s turn to strike.

From a Celtic version of the story of the challenge passed into French, but through what channel is impossible to discover. There is nothing to show whether the immediate Celtic source was Welsh, Cornish, or Breton.

The existing French versions of the challenge are these:

(C) Le Livre de Caradoc, forming part of the first continuation (by Wauchier de Denain) of the unfinished Perceval of Chrestien de Troyes. It has been edited by Potvin in Perceval le Gallois, Mons, , vol. iii, pp. ff. There is a prose version also in the Old French prose Perceval, printed at Paris in

(M) La Mule sanz Frain, by Paien de Maisieres, ed. Orlowski, La Demoiselle à la Mule, Paris, ; and by R. T. Hill, Baltimore,

(P) In Perlesvaus, a prose romance, ed. Potvin, vol. i.

(H) Gawain et Humbaut, ed. Stürzinger and Breuer, Dresden, , Gesellschaft für romanische Literatur, xxxv.

These romances all date from the thirteenth century. Only in M and H is Gawain the hero. They resemble the English Sir Gawain closely, especially C, but none of them is the immediate source. Professor Kittredge has assumed that the English poet found the story in a related French romance, now lost. The existence of such an original cannot be proved, and has been questioned: the Celtic legend might have passed into currency in the north-west of England without the assistance of a French version. But it was evident that the author of Sir Gawain was in some degree dependent on French romance; his insistence on the courtliness of his characters belongs to French tradition; the influence of French idiom as in the expressions cros kryst , for alle lufeȝ ; further, the correspondence with the French analogues is often detailed. On the whole, Kittredge’s assumption of a French original (which we may call g) seems justified.

It is to be observed that no one of the French versions is derived from another, and at least two more lost romances linking their tradition must be assumed. One of these (O) is the work of the poet who first put the story into French, the other (R) was a retelling of O.

The nearest analogue to the adventure of the temptation is the English Carl of Carlisle, composed in the fifteenth century. A parallel episode in the French romance Le Chevalier a l’Epee (E) shows that the Carl too is based on a French original, which was very near to the version of the temptation in g, in which (it is assumed) the two adventures were first combined.

There are two later English versions of the combined plot, namely, The Turk and Gawain (T) and The Green Knight (K). Both are preserved in the Percy Folio Manuscript (written c. ). T is probably a debased form of another romance derived from g. The story of K is almost identical with that of Sir Gawain; the very wording of passages in Sir Gawain is echoed, and details are reproduced which were probably not in the French original (g). K is therefore a condensed form of the English Sir Gawain.

The reconstruction of such literary relations is necessarily uncertain, but if our analyses and assump- and has elaborated the whole setting with the richness of detail unusual in French romance. He handles the story with a moral sensitiveness not to be matched in any of the analogues. His work indeed is not mere reproduction: it is a fresh creation.

There are many passages which, in addition to being unparalleled in the existing French versions, and specially characteristic of the English poet and may almost certainly be taken as new matter introduced by him. Among these passages are: The beginning connecting the story with the legendary founding of Britain by Brutus, and the ending on the same note; the two stanzas on the changing seasons at the beginning of the second division of the poem; the arming of Sir Gawain, with the allegorical account of the pentangle of his shield; Gawain’s itinerary, and the description of Bercilak's castle; the descriptions of the three hunts; the winter weather and landscape in the last division of the poem.

It is doubtful how much of Bercilak’s explanation of his quest as the Green Knight is due to the English poet; probably the figure of the enchantress who was responsible for the whole plot is old, but her identification with Morgan la Fay the invention of the English poet.

Though the story is taken from a French source, in style the poem is a culmination of Middle English alliterative tradition; the poet draws freely on the traditional stock of words and phrases. He does not appear to be indebted to any particular alliterative poem which is still extant. The parallels with the work of other poets are merely conventional or fortuitous. He has, however, made use of phrases and descriptive details from poems that appear to be earlier productions of his own, notably in his description of Arthur’s New Year’s Feast (), which resembles closely the description of Belshazzar’s feast in Purity (), and in the description of Bercilak’s castle, where he repeats phrases used in Purity to describe the ’aþel vessel’ brought into Belshazzar’s feast.

The Author and his Work.

The identity of the author of Sir Gawain is unknown. There is no good evidence for ascribing the poem to Huchown, or to Strode (whom Sir I. Gollancz suggested as its author), and a priori probability is strongly against either of them

Sir Gawain is closely related in language and

style to the other three poems in the same manuscript. As has been noted (p. xvii), there are descriptive passages of some length in Sir Gawain and Purity of striking similarity, containing whole lines that are almost identical. Sir Gawain is most closely connected with Purity, but there are many links with the other two poems also. It is usually assumed from the unity of dialect, the numerous verbal and stylistic parallels found in these poems, and from their being copied together in one manuscript, that they are all by one author. The arguments are not conclusive, but the assumption withstands all tests so well that most of those who have worked over the poems in detail have been convinced that they are all by one author.

It has been suggested that St. Erkenwald also is by this poet, and there is, undeniably, a strong similarity between its workmanship and that of the four poems in MS. Cotton Nero A. x. The similarity is not so close as between the four poems themselves, however, and the ascription of St. Erkenwald to the same poet must be regarded as very dubious.

The other poems show a considerable variety of form and subject. Patience relates in a lively manner the story of Jonah and how he learned his lesson of patience. The poet’s descriptive talent is not even baffled by the interior of the whale: it is as picturesque as the landscapes of Sir Gawain. Purity retells three more biblical stories illustrating the value of chastity and God’s punishment of impurity—the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Deluge, and the fall of Belshazzar. Purity is inferior to Patience and Sir Gawain in narrative art, but the poet was not the man to miss the descriptive opportunities of the flood and Belshazzar’s feast. Patience and Purity are written in alliterative lines arranged in quatrains, though the quatrain system here and there breaks down. Pearl is an elegy on the poet’s little daughter, who died in her second year. One day he fell asleep by her grave and his ’spirit sprang in space’ to Elysian fields. By the bank of a celestial stream he met his daughter, now a queen of heaven. She told him of the heavenly bliss and showed him the vision of the heavenly city. Written in stanzas of twelve four-stress lines (which fall into quatrains within the stanzas), Pearl is swifter and more lyrical in movement than any other of the poet’s work. He is here more personal and impassioned than in the other poems, both in sorrow for the loss of his daughter and in the fire of his religious feeling. he does not always maintain complete mastery over the difficult combination of alliteration with a complicated rhyme-scheme, yet in spite of its inequality the poem is as fine of its kind as Sir Gawain

There are indications that Patience and Purity were composed before Sir Gawain. It is further noteworthy that the quatrain arrangement which runs through Patience and Purity is found also in Pearl, but not in Sir Gawain; this may be taken as indication that the other three poems were produced in sequence, and Sir Gawain last, but it is certainly nothing more than an indication.

The homiletic character of Patience and Purity, the theology of Pearl, the moral earnestness of Sir Gawain, all suggest that the author might have been a priest. Certainly he had an ecclesiastical education, but his familiarity with courtly life, and his delight in it, make it doubtful whether he was a priest. We know from Pearl that he had a daughter, but that does not settle the question, as certain of the clergy were allowed to marry. The poet was well informed of the worldly life of noblemen, and if he was a priest, might well have been chaplain in a nobleman’s household, or himself of noble birth and polite education. In Sir Gawain he shows detailed and even technical knowledge of hunting; of the service of a nobleman's household; of the latest castle architecture of the time; of the armour and gear of a knight. In Patience he uses readily enough the right terms for the parts of a ship. He has plenty of book learning too: we know that we read the Latin of the Vulgate, in Purity he cites Clopingel’s Roman de la Rose, and has clearly availed himself of the French text of Mandeville’s Travels. Sir Gawain illustrates further his reading of French. Perhaps the only safe conclusion to be drawn about the poet from his poems is that he was a man of learning and genius.

Date.

Sir Gawain cannot be dated precisely. An attempt has been made to date it from a supposed connexion with the Order of the Garter; but such a connexion is very doubtful, and even if it were admitted it would prove only that the poem was composed after , the probably date of the Order’s foundation. Costume, armour, and architecture described in the poem point to a date towards the end of the fourteenth century. They show the love of elaborate decoration which marks the later Middle Ages—the end of the fourteenth and the fifteenth century. More precisely the details which indicate such a date are: the ornamental peitrel of the Green Knight’s horse, hung with pendants ; and that the Gringolet ; the square-toed sabatounȝ worn by Gawain ; the fret worn by the lady ; the numerous pinnacles of the castle . See the notes of these passages.

The only feature of the language of the poem which gives any indication of the date of composition is the pronunciation of final unaccented -e. The rhymes show an inconsistent pronunciation. In to þe: soþe, waþe : ta þe, the final -e of soþe (dat.) and of waþe (ON. váði) was certainly pronounced, and from the regularity of rhymes of words in -e throughout the poem it appears that -e of the infinitive, of the indic. and subj. pl., of the pa. t. of weak verbs, and of the pl. of adjectives was usually pronounced. On the other hand there are rhymes showing that final -e was sometimes dropped; for example:

payne (infin.) rhyming with Gawayn;

fayn (adj. pl.) : Gawayn;

to graunte : seruaunt;

myȝt (pa. t.) : lyȝt.

Evidently final -e was in process of being dropped; but as verse usage is more conservative than colloquial speech, final -e in the poet’s spoken dialect may have been comparatively rare. The chronology of the loss of final unaccented -e is not known certainly, but the process seems to have been complete by c. , to judge from the spelling of the Ireland MS. and the metre of The Destruction of Troy.

The criteria, such as they are, point to a date in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, the latest possible date being determined by that of the manuscript, c.. The most definite indication that the poem cannot be earlier than the last quarter of the century is in the sabatounȝ which Gawain wore. Even in the last quarter of the century they were not yet in ordinary use.

Dialect.

Morris, in his second edition of the Early English Alliterative Poems in , expressed the opinion that the dialect of these poems and of Sir Gawain was that of Cheshire or Lancashire. Such indications of dialect as can be discovered tend to confirm Morris’s opinion. The language of the poems as preserved closely resembles that of the romances in the Ireland MS., which there is reason to believe was written at Hale in south-west Lancashire, not many year earlier than . This resemblance, however, only goes to show that the dialect of the copyist was of Lancashire. As evidence of the dialect of the original form of the poem we have:

() The local knowledge shown by the author. In of Sir Gawain he seems to show detailed knowledge of the geography of North Wales and Wirral. As the places he mentions cannot be identified, his knowledge is not certain, but undoubtedly he speaks of the natural features of these parts as if they were familiar to him. See the note on .

() The evidence of vocabulary, which is slight. A large number of words used in the poem are characteristic of northern and north Midland dialects, but very few can be localized in a limited area. There are, however, two words of which the localization is significant: kay , found only in Lancashire and Cheshire dialects; misy , modern mizzy, restricted to south Lancashire dialects.

() The alliteration: it is notable that in Sir Gawain wh (= OE. hw) alliterates with original w, in contrast to such a poem as The Destruction of Troy, in which wh (= OE. hw) alliterates with qu (= OE. cw). Yet The Destruction of Troy is probably north-west Midland: the general character of its language in the extant copy is confirmed by the occurrence of the west Midland form hom, ’them’, in alliteration. The alliteration of wh and w in Sir Gawain indicates that it was composed further south than The Destruction of Troy. The line between the different developments of OE. hw which made possible these different types of alliteration seems to have been roughly the valley of the Ribble. Thus local names originally beginning with hw- written down in Cockersand or Furness are spelt qu-, whereas such local names written in Lancashire, Whalley, and elsewhere south of the Ribble are spelt wh-, w-. This difference may be followed in the selection of medieval spellings of place-names in Ekwall’s Place-Names of Lancashire, if care is taken to distinguish the place where the forms were written down.

() The rhymes. The general character of the dialect forms, as proved by rhymes, is Midland, with an intermixture of northern forms, such as might be expected of a Midland dialect bordering on the northern dialect area. The following forms are characteristically northern or north Midland:

Imper. sg. and pres. indic. sg. in -es, -eȝ, as in slokes , cnokeȝ , rhyming with he strokes.

Pres. indic. pl. in -es: þay hyȝes , rhyming with þyȝes. Pres. part. in -ande: laȝande , rhyming with in blande, hande.

OE. ā remains: hame , rhyming with game; and , rhyming with name, tame; waþe, , rhyming with scaþe.

There are also forms proved by rhyme which are specially characteristic of the north-west Midlands, namely:

(i) ó + ng pronounced as [ung]: stronge , longe , rhyming with tonge. (N. W. Mid. and West Riding.)

(ii) OE. āw remains aw, and does not become ow, as elsewhere in the Midlands: knowe rhyming with lawe and drowe (with scribal ow for etymological aw).

(iii) Shortened forms of take: ta þe , rhyming with waþe; including a form with ǭ: tone (rhyming with grone) which is not found in Northern or the other Midland dialects.

On the whole the evidence points to south Lancashire rather than Cheshire as the home of the dialect.