LBST 302 - S9701 John Black From Gawain to Conkers: Is Chivalry Dead? A. Introduction: Is chivalry dead? Should chivalry be dead? What exactly is chivalry? I want to discuss the nature, transmission and appropriateness of chivalric values, using the text as an example which will illuminate all three questions. Note that what I find in the text may in many ways be conditioned by my own situation - as an English male brought up in an atmosphere which was redolent of those values, albeit in somewhat diluted form. I am not suggesting that a Canadian woman, for example, would find the same features interesting or noteworthy. Before looking at the three main topics, let's talk about the text itself: its main narrative features, its precursors and its uniqueness. B. Narrative Features: The poem is written in the context of what is called Mediaeval Romance: a story written to demonstrate the superiority of chivalric over warrior values (Larry Benson). Its precise relation to this tradition I shall examine later. A combination of two traditional motifs: the Beheading Game and the Temptation. We give these precedence because they occur many times throughout precursive literature. I shall concentrate on the Beheading Game. Precursors: The Temptation of the Hero goes back as far as the story of Potiphar's Wife in the Bible (pointed out by Bob Lane as a characteristic of hero stories). Its more immediate source (for SGGK) is believed to be "Yder," an Anglo-Norman Romance written probably towards the end of the 11th century. The Temptation is a role-reversal of the ideal of Courtly Love, where the man is supposed to "lay siege" to the heart of the Lady of one of his superiors. [Read from Duby's article, History of Women Vol. II, pp. 250-2, if time.] The Beheading Game occurs in 11 surviving precursor texts (Kittredge), most notably the Irish "Fled Bricend" (circa 1100) and the French "Caradoc" (12th century). The game is different in each of these texts. In most of the earliest, the order of blows is reversed: the Hero escapes because the Challenger misses, then kills the Challenger. In one of the two versions in "Fled Bricend," the Challenger offers this reversed order, but is talked down by the Hero who accepts the Challenge (Irish Jokes?). The offer made in SGGK, of course, has the feature that the Hero expects to make it impossible for the Challenger to reply. The QUEST FOR CERTAINTY here is subtly converted, however, from an attempt at bravado to a journey towards doom. Uniqueness: SGGK is unique, in relation to its precursors, in the following ways: 1) the two main narrative features are organically interwoven to form a more complex plot: the Temptation is not something which just happens to Gawain on his way to the Green Chapel - it is the real test and determines the outcome of the Challenge; the relationship between the two is underlined by the interweaving of a third game, that of the Exchange of Winnings. 2) the Challenger does not remain a monster/demon and is not overcome - there is a reconciliation and recognition of the Challenger's humanity; 3) Gawain is not an utterly blameless hero - he reveals flaws: in his morality (lying about the girdle) and in his physical courage (flinching); 4) the chivalric values expressed are represented as in conflict with each other - e.g. loyalty to the host and courtesy to his wife: a more sophisticated view of morality than before; 5) because of this, SGGK can be (and by Benson is) seen as a satire against Romance - it distances itself from the virtues and, along with King Arthur, his knights and their ladies at the end of the poem, laughs at Gawain. C. The Values of Chivalry: However equivocal the commitment of the poet to chivalric values, these can be identified as such virtues as: Courage (Willingness to Take Risks) Fortitude (Sticking to the Consequences of a Risk Gone Sour) Fidelity (Truth to One's Word and Contract) Honesty Loyalty (to Individuals) Hospitality and Respect for Hospitality Continence Chastity Courtesy Diplomacy Some of these (courage, hospitality, respect for hospitality) are traditional warrior values (cf. Homer); others are Christian additions, aiming for the ideal of a noble, gentlemanly warrior. The values as represented in the text are clearly male-focused, though some of them may in reality have broader, human relevance. SGGK admits they can come into conflict, that the grafting of Christian values onto warrior ideals is difficult and may be impossible. The dilemmas into which these conflicts thrust Gawain are portrayed as psychologically deep - his identity is questioned by both the Green Knight and the Nameless Lady when he does not display the appropriate virtue (fortitude & courtesy respectively). Hence the CONSTITUTION OF THE SELF is represented as relying upon virtue, or at least renown. Despite the uncertainty about the extent to which the work is satirical, it might be argued that in SGGK it is the "gentlemanly" virtues, of continence, chastity, restraint which win out in the cases of conflict. D. The Transmission of Chivalric Values: The line of argument I am following represents SGGK as the vehicle of transmission of a certain set of values; this is so whether or not it wishes to satirise some of the values identified as chivalric. This is conceived of, during the Middle Ages, as an important function of literature. In my own childhood experience, stories like that of Gawain, and of King Arthur and the other Knights of the Round Table, played the same role. There are other mechanisms of transmission: Games: Among the most powerful for me were playground games; examples: Knuckles Lollysticks (proxy duelling) Soldiers (ribwort plantains) Conkers (cumulative value of a winner) Flat Jack (alternate buffets to head; Iona & Peter Opie: p.223) [Explain Each] Children's Games in Street and Playground 1969 These games all are analogues of the Beheading Game. Sometimes the analogy is surprisingly close: Lollysticks, Soldiers and Conkers all have the feature that a successful blow dealt can destroy the capability for a return blow; Soldiers is reported by the Opies as having the feature that "the loser feels no loss; another stalk is quickly produced - this is the pleasure of the game - and a new duel commences": cf. the Green Knight surviving the first blow. Some of them are very old (Soldiers mentioned 1219); they are derived from the notion of duelling by alternation. The games are usually (not exclusively) played by boys. Duelling by Alternation was very common in the Dark and Middle Ages (perhaps when weapons were less efficient?), and there were survivals as long as duelling was a common practice. (Cf. Thomas Mann: The Magic Mountain.) Not surprising that the modern analogues are games (ritual combats), since duelling by alternation is itself a ritualisation of combat. Cf. fighting in general and Western-style showdown, or simultaneous duelling: these involve traditional warrior virtues, but not the willingness to suffer a setback involved in the alternating duels. Hence the latter involved fortitude as well as courage, fidelity rather than cunning. The games themselves are tightly constrained by "moral" rules: one never lies about the value of one's conker; one must allow the return of a blow given; the one who flinches, refuses is a coward etc.. They are tests of moral virtue (in a rather restricted sense, admittedly) - notion that rule-governed behaviour (habit), in order to be learned, requires testing. Lack of a role for adults in the transmission of these games, hence of the virtues they inculcate. What is operating is a folkmechanism, not under the control of any set of people. The transmission of a folk-memory. In this sense, then, chivalry is not dead. E. The Value of Chivalry: The last question was: "Should chivalry be dead?" Is there any value in this set of values? And despite my having been brought up on such values, I must face the question, since, as Aristotle argues, my moral development after childhood is in my own hands. The tendency to reject chivalry comes from two sources, I think: 1) its attitude towards women; the assumption that women are to be protected and specially helped, because weak; SGGK, however deals very little, if at all, with this particular aspect, though it says a lot of other strange and objectionable things about women; 2) the context - namely war and fighting, or in more modern times games and sports - in which chivalric virtues are customarily expressed; we tend to reject the values because we reject the activities where they are manifest. However, it is important to bear in mind the advance, small though it may be, made by chivalric values over previous warrior ethics (restraint may be preferable to brutality), and also the fact that the same or similar virtues may be appropriate in some other contexts. For example, the fidelity to one's word and willingness to suffer setbacks recommended by the Beheading Game do have a role to play, one might argue, in social and political contexts. Perfect agreement not being always attainable, the negotiation of compromise seems essentially to involve such a willingness to balance one's winnings against one's losses, to put the point once again in gaming terms. Trustworthiness is likewise an essential factor in achieving the mutual acceptance which is distinctive of successfully LIVING IN DIVERSITY. We might note too that both of these virtues are involved in the successful conduct of tutorials, which themselves are also analogues of the Beheading Game. And so the tradition continues . . .