Saturday 30 November 2013

Back to the Green Chapel, Part 10




Sir Gawain and Queen Esther                         



Even under the bitterest days of Roman oppression, when Jerusalem lay in ruins and the land was filled with bodies of the fallen, the rabbis continued to preach Mordechai’s message of disobedience, arguing that power and rule on earth, no matter how vast, cannot grant sovereignty, the right to command—a right which ultimately rests only with the individual (or the state) when guided by truth.[i]


As Jose Faur has pointed out many times, at the heart of anti-Semitism lies not a religious argument or a racial prejudice, but a political impasse: the Jews see the world as a place where Justice and Truth should be the goal of a horizontal society not one based on hierarchical power.  When Jews are forced by circumstances to live in the middle of other peoples who think of power as always coming from above and thus where the ideas of truth and justice are determined by those who wield such hierarchical power, well, these Jews become rebels and revolutionaries: they refuse to buckle under, to submit passively to the dictates from above, to believe that something is right because of the might behind it—and if they have to give in for a while, they only pretend to agree, and bide their time waiting for an opportunity to get out from under and set up a state in which society can be horizontal, where the people in positions of power and decision-making are not right simply because they are there and believe it is their right to be there.  While living in exile from their own land and during the time when they are dispersed, weak and disenfranchised, they operate through indirection, speak ironically, and try to make the best of a bad thing. As Yoram Hazony puts it, “Judaism is a rebellion against the authority of the ruler to establish moral valuation according to the weight of his interests and the perversity of his whims.”[ii]  The key biblical text for Jews living in the Galut, the exile and dispersion, especially for those living under the cover of conformity or conversion, is the Book of Esther.  The special holiday associated with this celebration of the two ways of rebellion, that of Mordechai and of Esther, is the Festival of Lots, Purim, with its masquerades, drunkenness and noisemaking to drown out the name of the oppressor, as well as the time for duplicity, subversion and wheeling-and-dealing. 

 As we have noted, Gawain is not aware of what the games are he really plays nor of the implications of his discomfort and need to dissimulate.  Though he plays out a number of roles appropriate to Crypto-Jews in the mid- to late fourteenth century, he himself never doubts his own Christian identity, no more than he does his place in the court at Camelot or in the controlling paradigms of romantic literature and refined love: but never and no more than in his case allow for a fair bit of wiggle room.  The author of the poem, however, plays a very cautious and subtle game when he puts Gawain into situations where the essentials of chivalry, refined love, feudal loyalty and Christian faith are concerned.  This author—individual or collective, one never knows in terms of the alliterative tradition that became fashionable in the mid-1300s in England with its predilection for complaint, satire and ironic themes in general and strange toying with biblical themes and images.  Due to the catastrophic riots, massacres and dispersals of Jews in France, Germany and elsewhere in the first two Crusades, with the invention of new slurs against Jews and Judaism, such as the slander of infanticide, host desecration, blood libel, there were probably more troubled souls seeking hiding places in out of the way, remote and eccentric places in Europe, including the British Isles.  These would include what we call Marranos, as well as Crypto-Jews who had some inkling of the beliefs and customs they sought to disguise under the masks of conversion and conformity; the Marranos were more undecided, confused, and cynical, that is, they could keep shifting their public identities as well as their inner faith to match external circumstances and conditions, and yet were already so separated from the institutions and traditions of Judaism that they were never sure of what they could, should or really believed and therefore depended as much as gossip, rumor and Christian lies and libels to know what constituted Jewish laws; and since what they could recall from their own or their family memories about the failure of the Jewish community to protect its members from harm and the often harsh rejection of refugees wanting to return but lacking the intellectual knowledge and emotional skills to fit in—who were deemed likely traitors, spies, and liabilities—they had little desire to return to whatever it was they could construct in their minds as Judaism.  They would know from other refugees, remnants and befuddled souls that Jews had a new emphasis on martyrdom, including self-murder, and a set of customs and beliefs that appeared very odd indeed viewed through the filter of Christian normality all around them.

And yet that Christian normality seemed bizarre and repugnant in itself.  From this perspective, mostly as outsiders but superficially as insiders, they looked at the fundamentals of Christian belief and thought, as written in the Nizzahon Vetus:

…how could this man be God, for he entered a woman with a stomach full of feces who frequently sat him down in a privy during nine months, and when he was born he came out dirty and filthy, wrapped in a placenta and defiled by the blood of childbirth and impure issue.[iii]

Even the manger where little baby Jesus was born, worshipped by the angels, adored by his parents and the shepherds and the three kings, was “a place of dirt, filth, stench and refuse”.[iv]  So much for the glorious mystery of Christmas and the Incarnation.  Throughout his life, Jesus was seen as a heretic, a consorter with tax-collectors, prostitutes, Roman soldiers, and other persons unworthy of an educated rabbi, let alone a priest or prophet; and when he died, this same Jesus “became worthless and turned to worms,”[v] and so a slimy rotting corpse on the cross.  There goes respect for Easter.  The whole of the Nizzahan Vetus is crammed with such vituperative aspersions cast on Christ, Christians, Christianity and Christian society, a most unpleasant book to read, but understandable as a long pent-up rage and hatred of the persecuting, condescending and murderous mob who generation after generation reviled and mocked Jews, Judaism and Jewish civilization.  But it was extremely rare for any Jew to write down such feelings, rare for Jews to speak amongst themselves of such matters and in such words, and, for all we know—which is very little because there are so few personal remarks recorded, letters, diaries, poems, jokes, at least outside of Sephardic archives, like the Cairo Geniza—for Jews to think in the silent darkness of their own souls.

Generations later, in Iberia in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth centuries, in Spain and Portugal and their territories elsewhere in Europe and in the New Worlds beyond, when the pogroms began, the Inquisition was established, and persecutions institutionalized leading up to mass conversions, expulsions and executions, Jews once again suffered these outrageous iniquities throughout their lives and in most of the lands where they could flee: once again they attempted to outrun the agents of the Holy Office, outwit its familiars, dissimulate before the malsains who spied for pay, hide their true beliefs and history from neighbors, relatives, siblings, spouses, children until they could be proved trustworthy and mature enough to handle the complicated web of deceit that had to be maintained and constantly adjusted to changing political and social circumstances. 

That these attitudes existed and that people whispered their hopes, fears and fears into the darkened cellars where they gathered is hinted at only.  In paragraph 243 of the Nizzahan Vetus, we read:

The fear of our God and his holy Torah must not be changed for any other, for he has given us a true Torah that will stand till the final generation, as it is written, “Listen, my people, to my Torah; incline your ears to the words of my mouth.  I shall open my mouth in a parable; I shall utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.  We shall not hide them from their children, telling the last generation the praises of the Lord and his strength and the wonderful works that he has done” [Ps. 78:1-4].  Thus, there is a tradition passed down from the fathers and sons to be firm and guard your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, etc.” [Deut. 4:9] ….[vi]

Only in the ought of such extended, pervasive and persistent persecutions can we understand the trauma that almost every Jew not born safely within a fairly stable community would feel free enough to express themselves—in a place where normative Jewish child-rearing practices prevailed and infants grew up in love and security, their personalities formed with the protection and guidance of families that were warm and close and provided constant education to confirm them in the beliefs based on the covenant of Truth and Justice; elsewhere, especially after the waves of persecution would break up the stable communities, spread the families into hostile environments, and thus children would grow up suspected and suspicious of everyone around them, the need for cautious ironies was felt and the panic appear very near the surface if not already evident in nervousness, hesitant speech, and awkward behavior. 

The story of Queen Esther and her uncle Mordechai stands as a lens through which to examine Sir Gawain and the Knight of the Green Chapel still further.  Though he stands high in the eyes of the Emperor of Persia in Shushan the capital city, Mordechai the Jew knows he must deal delicately and with caution with a mad drunken fool, whose ignorance, anger and outbursts of rage can hardly be contained.  Ahasverosh wields all the power in the state but he does not realize what he does, its implications, its consequences for himself or his people.  His other advisers are also stupid, vile and untrustworthy, at are always looking to take advantage of the situation.  His first wife, Vashti, in attempting to stand up for herself and avoid the degradation the emperor’s egotism would inflict on her, is cast out—and the first minister, Mordechai, notes how dangerous and naïve it is for anyone to cross the inebriated ruler.  He also knows it is important to have a trusted, intelligent, sensitive, mature person as close to the king and the centers of power as possible to act as informant and agent.  Mordechai seizes opportunity by the forelock and puts his own step-niece in as a candidate to be the new consort of Ahasveroth.  Hadasseh, renamed for the purposes, Esther receives careful counselling from her uncle on how to behave and control herself during the months of preparations and choosing of the new queen.  Hadasseh (meaning myrtle, as in the hodesh of the twisted candles that interweave their light to indicate the passage in and out of profanity of the ordinary week to the sacredness of Shabbat, that time out of time, that foretaste of Paradise) becomes known as Esther (pointing towards Ashterah, the Persian Venus, star of the east, of the sea, of the powers of erotic and reproductive femaleness) and is eventually chosen to be the new consort.  She is in herself, then, the doublet of the hidden Jewish agency of justice according to divine Law and human intelligence and reason and of the outwardly seen allurement and fertility of womanhood and maternity, a shadowy allusion, too, to the doubled females in the Gawain poem, the young and seductive Lady Bertilak and the ugly, stiff old crone who is revealed as Morgan Le Fée.  But like the havdalah candle, with its two stems interwoven and its double wick, Hadasseh-Esther embodies the sacred interface of the unseeable and purely divine and the shadowed presence in the world of the Shekhina.  The lady and the crone in Hautdesert both have negative, threatening and polluting qualities about them, and the green girdle handed over to Gawain, which he conceals on his person, seems to grant life in the face of imminent death but only gives a temporary release from death through sterility in the profane literature of Arthurian romance. 

In due course, as expected, the evil forces of history show themselves in the person of Haman.  Progeny of Israel’s age-old enemies, this snake-in-the-grass once promoted to a key position in Ahashervosh’s court does not bide his time for very long before striking.  Taking as an excuse Mordechai’s refusal to bow before his authority in public, he whispers in the king’s ears slanders against the Jews—the traditional calumnies: there is a people in this land who don’t belong, who cannot be trusted to be loyal, who plot against you, and who must be gotten rid of.  Unable to think for himself, the emperor accedes to his henchman’s advice and the plans are set in motion for annihilation of the Jews throughout the empire.  Mordechai cannot on his own act, except to tear his garments, throw ashes on himself, and mourn outside the palace gates.  That, at least, brings him to Esther’s attention and he is able to whisper new advice to her on how to act in order by subtle and indirect means to reverse the decrees of the tyrant.  Playing on her beauty and sexual allure and pretending to be silly wife, she is able to wheedle herself into a position where she breaks protocol without rousing the king’s immediate anger, and thus, step by step, to lure both the emperor and Haman into her trap.  At an appropriate moment, without open rebellion, insulting charges, or anything but the arrogance of Haman himself, she makes the king know that if all the Jews in Persia are murdered, she too will be one of the victims in this plot, and that would be not good for the king’s prestige or honor.  She also is able to bring Mordechai in on the negotiations on how to undo the royal decrees which are otherwise irreversible and absolute, and thus able to shift the target from the entire immigrant Jewish community throughout the Empire to all those implicated in Haman’s plot.  The price for this rescue of her people, however, is that Esther has to remain within the imperial household as the queen consort, with all the debilities of female oppression that implies, must not show herself openly as a Jew, and must avoid bearing any children who would then from this unkosher marriage be nothing but mamzerim, unclean bastards.  Though the actual plot of the Book of Esther is more complicated than that sketched out here, the basic lines are evident enough.  

As Hazony puts it “Esther’s stratagem, her arousal of the king’s jealousy and suspicions, has therefore brought appearances into line with the truth: Has in fact sought to take the queen with the king in the palace—not sexually, but, similarly enough, because of his inability to tell that which is his to lay his hands on from that which is not.”[vii]  As with King Arthur and Lord Bertilak, the Persian Emperor always thinks he is in charge, but drunkenness, ignorance, and egotism blind them to the fact that they are pushed around by others and by circumstances.  They are creatures of time and place, seasonal puppets, as it were.  Gawain, on the other hand, though he cannot free himself from these same worldly constraints, can play the game a little differently, can take up opportunities to wiggle about within the larger paradigms of the pre-set romance tradition and generic requirements, and find inside himself a degree of self-doubt, shame, awkwardness, hesitation and cynicism to operate as an individual—not a happy or satisfied man by any means.  He knows what he knows and, though he cannot tell anyone else, or act differently than they expect, he can realize the shallowness and hypocritical nature of the game itself.  Others dream of perfection, he realizes has lacked a little.  They believe everything has turned out just as it ought to have and they sport the green sash of victory; he knows the result was a muddle, and he hides the green girdle’s meaning as a badge of shame to remind him of the difference between what is true and what is not, what is just and what is not.  But at least he has not lost his head.



[i] Yoram Hazony, The Dawn: Political teachings of the book of Esther (Jerusalem: Genesis Jerusalem Press, 1995) p. 82.
[ii] Hazony, The Dawn, p. 83.
[iii] David Berger, ed. and trans, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus (Northvale, NJ and London: Jason Aronson, 1996 p. 44.
[iv] Nizzahon Vetus, p. 164.
[v] Nizzahon Vetus, p. 134.
[vi] Nizzahon Vetus, pp. 228-229.
[vii] Hazony, The Dawn p. 167.

Friday 29 November 2013

Back to the Green Chapel, Part 9

Hannuakah at the Green Chapel


What is a Green Girdle?  In the most immediate sense of the poem, it is the belt that Lady Bertilak wears around her middle as a sash.  Such a garment—or if it does not show outwardly, such an undergarment—is associated with the centre of the female body, and hence it is a ceinture, metonymically, it is a the woman’s middle, her belly, her womb, her gender-defining being; and the garment protects that area of her body and expresses its powers of procreation.  Hence, in many medieval churches, women who wished to become pregnant or were having difficulty during their pregnancy—that is, who are enceinte—came to pray to a relic that was or reproduced symbolically the girdle that the Virgin Mary wore while she was bearing the infant Jesus.

To wear a girdle in such a symbolic universe is to see in it embodying an apotropaic, a power of warding off evils, such as curses, illnesses, and violence.  When Lady Bertilak convinces Sir Gawain to accept this gift from her and to keep it without offering it in the exchange game he is playing with the Host, Bertilak de Hautdesert, the object is described as having apotropaic powers: it will keep away the lethal, destructive and negative potencies of the Green Knight’s axe blows.  Rather than trusting in his own prowess and bravery, having faith in the Virgin Mary and Christ, whose images he bears on the inside and outside of his shield—and symbolized by the interlocking pentangular star of Solomon shown to the world—Gawain lapses into superstition and puts his hopes for survival in a material object.  He trusts in the magical efficacy of the girdle that the Lady takes from her own middle and gives to him to wear secretly under his own armor.  The  magic that he purportedly would gain through this transference from her female body to his masculine self, with the displacement also from her womb and genitals to his masculine neck, veers away from the traditional Christian sense of protection and intercession by Mary on behalf of her worshipers in two ways: on the one hand, the whole function of the girdle now is supposed to work in a military situation to keep Gawain alive after receiving mortal blows in combat with his monstrous adversary; and on the other, much more radical in its symbolic transformations, the magic becomes part of the Jewish ritual of circumcision, not just the medical operation of removing the head of the penis for the sake of hygiene, but the elaborate ceremony of making the removal of that part of his body a sign of belonging to the People of Israel, being placed under the protection and obligations of the Law, and establishing the physical, moral, spiritual and social basis for a marriage that will produce more children of Israel within the covenant of the brit

Without Gawain being at first consciously aware of what happens to him, this acceptance of the girdle puts him in the position of having to depend on a mortal woman, to place his trust in an idolatrous, pagan object, and to break two fundamental social (feudal and chivalric) vows he had taken, one to meet the Green Knight at the Green Chapel to fulfil the bargain of the beheading game without any other protection than his own faith and courage and the other to exchange all gifts received during the three days between the end of Christmas and the New Year while the Host goes hunting and Gawain rests in bed: when he realizes what he has done after the game is over, he understands the girdle to be a badge of shame, a token of the ignominy he has brought upon himself by this weakness, anxiety and lack of faith.  The other shift in meanings through the creation of an alternative symbolic universe in which his actions and appearances are to be measured, however, lies outside of his intellectual awareness and moral compass: he is a secret Jew, a status secret to himself. 

What is this like? How do we come to an understanding through midrashic analysis, recontextualization, comparisons and unpacking of the figures and words that constitute the textual object?

Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth, spoke the profound meanings of Hannukah in a sermon published for the holiday in 2013.[i]  Rabbi Sacks looked at the Talmudic rulings on whether or not, should a person have only one candle to light on a Friday evening for the first night of Hannukah whether he or she should use the candle for the Sabbath ritual or of the annual holiday since it is not permitted to use the same candle for both occasions.  Maimonides had also ruled that if a person did not have sufficient funds to purchase even one candle, he or she is required to sell something in the house in order to fulfil the mitzvah; but still that leaves open the question of which purpose the light will serve, that of the Sabbath or of the Hannukah celebration.  How did Maimonides rule?  On the one hand, there is the memorial celebration of the greatest military victory in Jewish history, the defeat by the poor, outnumbered, poorly armed Hasmonean army of the Seleucid Greeks, part of the greatest military force in the world at that time. Hannukah celebrates the rededication of the Temple after it had been desecrated by the placement of an idol of Zeus in the Holy of Holies and the entire structure had been ransacked and destroyed during the fighting.  Under Judas Maccabeus and his sons, the nation of Israel was reborn and regained its independence and autonomy.  Though the Temple would be destroyed again in 19 CE and the independence and autonomy of the state extinguished, leading to exile and dispersion for the next two thousand years, the candles of Hannukah are reminders of the hope in Israel that there will be a restoration and the memory itself is the new spiritual core of Jewish national identity.  On the other hand, the lighting of the Sabbath candles stand for shalom bayit, domestic peace, marriage, the harmonious and reproductive powers of family life, respect and nurturance of parenthood, children, and all the virtues of the home as a site for love and education.  Maimonides’ decision was that the Sabbath takes precedence over Hannukah.  Rabbi Sacks cites the Rambam and then explains:

“The Sabbath light takes priority because it symbolizes shalom bayit, domestic peace.  And great is peace because the entire Torah was given in order to make peace in the world.”

Consider: Channukah commemorates one of the greatest military victories in Jewish history.  Yet Jewish law rules that if he can light one candle—the Shabbat light takes precedence, because to Judaism the greatest military victory takes second place to peace in the home.

It would be best to match the two events and their significance: the military victory shows that Israel does more than wish for peace and freedom, it is willing to fight for them against all odds and whatever the costs.  Peace is not in itself an absolute except in the cosmic sense of world-harmony that is part of the ever-recreating process of the divine light shining forth from the darkness: shalom includes and is defined by justice.  And how is this relevant for Gawain and the Green Girdle?

Jews were the people who valued marriage, the home, and peace between husband and wife, above the highest glory on the battlefield.  In Judaism, the light of peace takes precedence over the light of war.

Gawain, while he sought to shield himself, his body and soul, from the seductions of Lady Bertilak, because he compromised with his ideals, came to be the knight of seductions and erotic adventure in Arthurian tradition; he failed himself and the court at Camelot.  Nevertheless, by internalizing his shame, brooding on his guilt, and allowing the green girdle to stand for the soon to be invisible nick on the neck, he carries on his body the sign of the covenant—affirmed even as they are broken; what he lacks enhances his status as an adherent of the secret covenant.  Unlike the other knights and ladies within the romantic tales of high adventure and courtly love, Gawain knows how self-blinded they are, how deluded by their own egotistical desires, and how foolish are the games they play amongst themselves.  In Judaism, shalom, peace, means reciprocal and fair distribution, exchange, of values, not a perfect geometrical balance—a golden mean between extremes—but a humane and fluid adjustment of circumstance, intention and consequence.  Because he is unaware of these principles, Gawain comes to stand for what he cannot in himself achieve.  Between the strict interlocking virtues of the pentangle on the outside of his shield and the emotional and sentimental love emblematized on the inside by the image of the Virgin Mary and her infant son, there is this other medium—a middle position, in a sense, but much more a peaceful reconciliation and reciprocation between what is possible in the world and what is envisioned only in heavenly perfection.  There are just wars to be fought—not only battles undertaken out of pride, greed and duty; but those conflicts fought to repel evil, to rescue the weak and the poor, and to ensure national independence in which the Law may be applied without external interference...and if these wars are lost, the victory of tyrants is only temporary, for a limited time, while hope remains and the losing party carries on as best it can, even in exile, even in dispersion, even under the cover of conformity. 

And why is the girdle green? For the same reason as the Host assumes the shape of the Green Giant who challenges King Arthur and his court at Christmastime; for the same reason as the ancillary, supplemental, and seemingly disassociated cave or tumulus near the Castle of Hautdesert is a Green Chapel.  Green is the color of youth, both the yep, the wild, unruly, spontaneous children who are the knights of Camelot; and the innocent and naïve children who perform in the Festival of Fools of New Year’s Day, when as the old year turns into or is replaced by the new year, the world is turned upside down; and of vigorous new growth and the evergreen of life that lies dormant through the cold dark winter as well as the green of rot, decay and dissolution, as in the unrisen corpse left hanging on the cross or moulding in the cave where it was buried until its rot melts away, leaving only a green slime.  Green stands for envy and jealousy, the green-eyed monster; and for faith, the glow of expectation through the shadows of doubt and despair. 

Thus green (g-r-n)  is the grain (g-r-n) of renewed life lying fallow in the ground, the seed of words on the tongue to be spoken as speech and uttered into textual life, the small Eucharistic wafer, the crumb of anticipation, as in Chaucer’s Prioress’ Tale about the young boy supposedly murdered by the evil Jews and yet reborn to holiness when the g-r-n is removed from his mouth. Yet Gawain, though he tried to recount to the courtiers what really happened at the Green Chapel, finds his language misunderstood, his words shattered and broken, so that he must keep his silence, hold within himself the truth he cannot speak. 

On the other hand, the green of the shining armor worn by the Knight of the Green Chapel when he comes to Camelot is the green of gold, a form of bright yellow, harmonious with the blood red adornments in his crest and shield.  This is gold not perfectly refined when the fires of the forge do not attain sufficient intensity of heat. 

Isn’t hard to move away from the ingrained habit of reading the poem as though it had to be unquestionably a Christian text? Any other interpretation must be ipso facto a forgery.                                     



[i] Jonathan Sacks, « 8 Short Thoughts for 8 Chanukah Nights,” The Algemeiner (29 November 2013) online at http//:www.algemeiner.com/2-13/11/29/9-short-thoughts-for-8-chanukah-lights

Thursday 28 November 2013

Back to the Green Chapel, Part 8



The Knight of the Green Slime


The young maidens, the brides, and the bridegrooms looked out through the windows and cried out in a great voice: “Look and behold, O Lord, what we are doing to sanctify Thy Great Name, in order not to exchange You for a crucified scion who is despised, abominated, and held in contempt in his own generation, a bastard son conceived by a menstruating and wanton mother.”[i]

It is not hard to understand why persecuted Jews, those being massacred in great numbers during the First and Second Crusades, in the Rhennish cities, in northern France, and elsewhere in Europe, spoke out with such vehemence against the God of the Christians, seeing in Jesus a bastard conceived by a polluted woman, a mangled and slimy green body hanging on the cross in every church and woven into the banners carried by the violent mobs that broke into their homes and killed their families—and from whom they sought to “Sanctify the Name” through acts of self-sacrifice.  One only wonders how they managed to bite their tongues and remain silent at all other times.  In my Sir Gawain and the Knight of the Green Chapel and in other works[ii] I have gathered together the evidence of these imprecations and aspersions of the murdered and martyred victims of this seemingly endless pogrom by the Church and its military orders.

During the First and Second Crusades, as the great armies marched through Europe towards the Holy Land, and then later during the wave of persecutions at the end of the fourteenth century in Spain, Jews, who found themselves in the impossible position of either accepting baptism or being killed, would seek to break the impasse by doing what was seen as horrible and unclean to an extreme. Killing their wives and children and then delegating one among the remaining men to slay all the others, and eventually the last man standing committing suicide.  Though Kiddush ha-Shem was an honourable last resort in times of crisis, this Sanctification of the Name was understood to mean accepting passively, when all else failed—bribing the enemy, fighting back, running away, hiding for long periods—the death that was inevitable.  During the periods mentioned—and apparently once previously, amongst the Zealots besieged by the Romans on Masada in Herod’s palace—the Jewish community chose to kill themselves rather than face the alternative.  In so doing, not only did they also attempt two other goals—in one, taking over from the Christian majority the moral and spiritual high ground accorded to Christ in the iconography of the Passion, in the other transforming the sacramental Catholic discourses into mockery turned against the Church and the Crusaders who played the role of tormentors, false judges, and executioners of the now Christ-like Jews.  The twisted and mangled corpse of Jesus on the cross and brought down to be buried in Joseph of Aramithea’s cave-tomb was seen in these defiant rabbinical texts after the fact as an abomination, ”the crucified bastard”, with baptism called “evil water” and the church “an edifice of idolatry.”[iii]   The body of Christ, rather than being cleansed and taken into heaven to be further purified so as to sit in heaven next to God, in these Jewish visions of vengeance was a “putrid corpse,”[iv] green and slimy as it rots away to poison the beliefs of the people who delude themselves into thinking he is God.

Or if not being seen as Christ-like, then the Jews see themselves, at least, as contemporary piyyutim (historical hymns) and midrashim in the chronicles and memory books of the lost and scattered communities, depict them as the cast of characters in the Akeda, the Binding of Isaac, wherein, on the one side, Abraham refuses to accept the stopping of his sacrifice on Mount Moriah and substitution of his son by a ram or goat, instead trying again and again to cut the human victim’s throat, even after God intervened to bring the beloved son back to life; and on the other side, Isaac, unlike the quiet and dignified Jesus nailed to the cross and scorned by his tormentors, eagerly seeks to have a reluctant and then an ineffective father bring on the bloody climax of the ritual. 

Through these midrashic techniques of rewriting history and transforming the implications of the violent events so as save the honor of all those men, women and children brought to shameful ends—for that is how a Jewish perspective would have halachically viewed these acts of self-murder and infanticide; to absolve the persons who performed these deeds or who after so many killings had no nerve left to commit suicide and accepted baptism for themselves; to resolve so many contradictions and unknown aspects to the disappearance of whole urban communities of Jews, whether through death, baptism or running away and losing faith, known as “those who separated themselves” thereafter from Jewish life and wandered about in a no-man’s land of intense ambiguity and hopelessness—the writers in subsequent generations tried to put the best light on the events: they claimed all those who died or disappeared had done so with pious intentions, and that those who eventually drifted back, troubled, confused and insane, were holy survivors of the holocaust.  The language used in these texts did not just draw on Scripture and Talmudic narratives: they also grasped the symbols of oppression and tried to make them their own, turning badges of shame into tokens of trawth.  Goldin says, using somewhat anachronistic terms to describe the process:

The symbols that were used were not only specifically Jewish symbols those that competed, opposed, and disputed Christian symbols.  The slogans that were recited were not just traditional mantras, hut had rather taken on new meanings to befit the contemporary situation.[v]

The New Year’s Day in the Gawain poem is also the Feast of the Circumcision, and the circumcision, as we have argued previously, has been displaced to beheading-game and the nick on the neck.  This displacement reminds one of the way in which Secret Jews, hiding from the Inquisition in Latin America, displaced the circumcision from the penis to the back or shoulder.  

The whole ceremony combines a rite of naming, baptism, bar mitzvah—becoming an identifiable individual outside the range of public group-names, a sanctification within the secret group, a marking of acceptance of obligations and responsibility, and also, as indicated in various liturgical formulae, poetic metonyms, and coded terms, a marriage, a funeral and a memorial service.  The celebration of Jesus’ brit was understood as the first shedding of his blood, anticipating the second in the crucifixion, and symbolizing the real presence of that blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist.  It further indicated his anointed status as the messianic successor to David and Solomon, the emergence of the promised symbol into the physical textures of history, and the anticipated reappearance in the broken flesh of the wafer during the Mass.  For the Christian, this last efficacious and valid circumcision of their Savior also marked his marriage to the Church, his bride and mother, in this world and the next, and thus the removal of the ring that binds him to this life.  

For Sir Gawain, however, the beheading-game marks an incomplete and unequal exchange of gifts, blows, and promises.  The nick on the neck, like the green girdle, remains hidden and known only to the bearer, whereas the supposed successful decapitation and restoration to life exists only in an empty Christmas game and the memory of a false achievement of the quest.  Gawain only seems to be the celebrated hero of the Arthurian romances: his prowess is not tested properly, his courage and bravery shown to be unacceptable, and his qualities of a lover reduced to childish erotic teasing.



[i] Chronicles of the Crusades, cited by Simha Goldin, The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom, trans. Yigal Levin and trans ed. C. Michael Copeland (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2008) p. 97.
[ii] Norman Simms, “The Unspeakable Agony of Kiddush ha-Shem: Forced Jewish Infanticide during the First and Second Crusades” The Medieval History Journal 3:2 (2000) 337-362; and “A Meditation on Possible Images of Jewish Jesus in the Pre-Modern Period” in Zev Garber, ed., The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (Perdue University Press, April 2011), a special supplement of Shofar, pp.  204-227.
[iii]Goldin, The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom, pp. 114-115.
[iv] Goldin, The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom, p. 122.
[v] Goldin, The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom. P. 167.

Wednesday 27 November 2013

Back to the Green Chapel, Part 7



Green Chapel:
Mountain of the Lord


…the Temple Mount as an architectonic unit from its establishment through its several incarnations….[i]

We have to come back to the Castle of Hautdesert and its relationship to the Green Chapel and see that they are, in a sense, mutually reflective names for the same place as seen through different cultural lenses.  Eliav, for instance, points out cogently in his study of God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory, that when talk about this place at the heart of Jerusalem, you are discussing at the same time a geographical feature, a historically-constructed site, the sequence of occupation and the memory of the buildings constructed on it by different people, the officiants who conducted rituals associated with and the worshippers who travelled on pilgrimages to visit the site and take part in the rituals, the meanings, implications and functions of these rituals in various periods of history and as articulated and interpreted in written texts and oral traditions, many of which are contradictory and mutually exclusive.  Unfortunately, Eliav reliance on a form of critical deconstructionism lacks dynamic historical depth and psychohistorical nuances.   Nor does he understand the essentials of Aby Warburg’s version of art history, especially the concepts of Nachleben and Pathosformeln.  The afterlife of an image or idea refers to its dynamic, multi-layered continued existence throughout history, its influences, traces and auras.  The forms of passion that trigger the resurfacing of repressed, supressed and displaced images and ideas keep transforming the intensity and range of influences the original stimuli exert on later and superficially distinct events.  The closest Eliav comes to these notions is in his phrase “emerging conceptualities,” explained in part in this way

When a people encounter a reality bathed in unfamiliar glamour, they often turn to their foundation texts, those literary cornerstones that fuel their existence, in search of prescriptions and vocabulary that will define this new experience.[ii]

This is what happens in Sir Gawain and the Knight of the Green Chapel, given the differences between the actual holy sites in Jerusalem that Eliav is discussing and the complex conceits the alliterative poet explores in his poem.  There is no way that the characters inside the narrative or the singer-of-the-tale could know the features of successive constructions discovered around the Temple grounds by archaeology nor even have access to most of the ancient and medieval texts used to coordinate the scholar’s insights, but it is likely that a Crypto-Jew living secretly in a dark corner of England in the mid-fourteenth century, would have a sense of the complications and multiple layers of meaning to be disclosed by midrashic exegesis, thanks to his family background, the residual traditions of the academies of notarikon and rabbinic philology that had flourished in London prior to the expulsions two or three generations earlier, and the chance meetings with Jewish visitors from German-or French-speaking lands, France or Iberia or commercial journeys undertaken on the Continent.  He would not be put off by anachronisms, contradictions or far-fetched analogies, and might see in the fragmented memories of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, mingled as they are with Mid-Eastern and Hellenistic mythologies, room for poetic enhancements, a place, that is, for his longing for a protected region of linguistic ambiguity in which to feel safe expressing his pains and anxieties.  If there is a comparison  to be made between what Eliav describes as occurring historically on the physical grounds of the Temple Mount and what Gawain experiences poetically on behalf of the poet, then it might be found in such a statement as this:

…I propose that it is rather the availability of the Temple Mount enclosure within the new spatial organization of Aelia that allowed, and perhaps attracted, Jews and early Christians to interact with it and formulate their manifold conceptualizations about sacred space.[iii]

In one sense, since Sir Gawain is going to meet what he and his fellow Round Table knights consider to be an inevitable death caused by the return blow of the beheading game initiated by the Green Knight in Camelot, it is a place of sacrifice or murder, a Golgotha, a hill of skulls, such as that found outside of Jerusalem where the Romans crucified Jesus.  Gawain fully assumes that at the end of the game he plays in the Green Chapel his head will be separated from his body and will fall into the abyss where probably there are many other skulls from previous encounters.  That the young knight rides down into the valley of death to find the ancient tumulus (grave mound) or cave (cripta) where the encounter will take place, this journey of descent is a voyage into hell, hades or sheol, and the downward ride mirrors in reverse and in an inverted direction the upward flight of souls that are separated from their earthly bodies to ascend into heaven or at least to that highest point on earth before beginning the Himmelfahrt into the sky: and hence the name of Hautdesert, the high desert.

 In Hebrew tradition, there are two hills or mountains that  become assimilated to one another, Moriah where Abraham goes with Isaac to perform the sacrifice commanded by the Lord, an act that prefigures in its incompleteness—the staying of the father’s hand and the substitution of a ram for the youth—the sacrifice of Jesus at Golgotha, and Zion, the sacred mountain at the centre of Jerusalem and of the world, at the entrance to whose heart in the Holy of Holies stands the altar where priests slay the offerings of the people.  But annually on the Day of Atonement, Yom ha-Kippurim, the High Priest and his fellow cohannim and Levites perform a different ritual in which one of two designated goats are chosen, both alike in purity, the one to be slain on the altar as a sin offering on behalf of the nation, and the other, different only when so chosen, to be chased out of the Temple precincts, mocked by the crowds as it passes through the labyrinthine streets and alleys of the Holy City, and eventually forced out into the wilderness where finally it will be thrown down a deep declivity and its body broken on the sharp rocks—this is the famed scapegoat. 

There is, in addition, another sacred mountain, but one similarly doubled in tradition, and that is the place where Moses received the Tablets of the Law, the luach ha-brit, and this is usually taken to be Mount Sinai in the midst of the peninsula that bears the same name, or it is on Mount Horeb, either the same place with a different name, or a different place where the same event occurs.  One of the usual etymologies for Sinai s-n-h (סנח) comes from either sin, the moon or bush or “to fend off an attack”, and for horeb or chorev ch-r-v (חרב) bright sun or sword or “utter desolation after a mighty battle.”  Thus the contrast between moon and sun, avoidance of a fight or the aftermath of a lost struggle, a bush such as the burning bush and a sword that defends or fails in its purpose.  These verbal roots enrich and ambiguate the relationship between the inverted hill of the Green Chapel and the high desert which is Hautdesert, in the first Gawain receives the expected blow promised at Camelot but delayed by the unexpected other tests in Hautdesert, the parrying of words with the Lady of ther Castle and the exchange of gifts after the Host’s three morning hunts.



[i] Yaron Z. Eliav, God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005) p. xix
[ii] Elkiav, God’s Mountain, p. 32.
[iii] Elkiav, God’s Mountain, p. 124.

Tuesday 26 November 2013

Back to the Green Chapel, Part 6


From Paradox to Paradise and Back


…the adjective paradoxos is regularly used by the writers of the time to convey something positive even specifically miraculous…[i]

The usual definition of a paradox is of a kind of truth that on first examination seems illogical, a contradiction in terms, and yet from the perspective of faith the logic is dissolved and the two elements that would other cancel one another out stand not only vindicated as manifest truths in themselves but that the tensions between them are taken as part of ther wondrous and miraculous nature of this higher reality beyond logic.  Thus in philosophical terms, something can be and not be at the same time, in religious belief a god may die and live again, and in romantic conceit a hero may love and hate in the same moment of passion.  In poetry, too, something may be historical and at the very same moment it may be a constructed fiction, in that historia can mean, as we have pointed out many times before, much more and other than what we normally consider to be historical, that is, belonging to the natural and physical laws of time and space within a reality that everywhere and always the same in substance and form.  This is because historia, which yields other terms such as histrionics, considers historians to be actors, players, or imitators, masters of a convincing and vivid rhetoric, or thus lawyers who in a court of law speak a constructed truth so powerful that it replaces the narrative with all its details expounded by an opposing lawyer or witness; it is more than the energia, the energy or intensity of the performance, but the enargia, the overwhelming power of the light emitted, the blinding vividness of the words and gestures, the allusiveness and the boundary-marking of the concepts projected into the minds of the spectators and audience, that transforms and replaces the previous memories of experience.  Hence, the paradoxa erga, the wondrous works and wondrous deeds of heroes, saints and gods in epic tales and tragic dramas; taken out of context, put back into ordinary discourses, spoken in the cold light of day, thought about in ordinary common sense terms, these legendary “acts,” “gestures” and “achievements” are impossible to believe.  They are empty and exaggerated, tall stories, fairy tales, or as is said of the so-called historical documents of the Christian  faith, they are “pious frauds”.  Earl Doherty expands on this idea:

Considering early Christianity’s known history of forgery, of pseudonymous letters that misrepresent themselves, of interpolations and the doctoring of documents, including canonical ones, the wholesale invention of fraudulent Acts of this or that apostle, letters between Paul and Seneca, missives to the emperor on the part of Pilate recounting the career and trial of Jesus, and so on in vast measure, there is certainly no impediment to allowing such indulgences to Eusibius in his construction of the history of his religion from scattered and incomplete sources.[ii]
Out of this kind of matrix of foundational confusion and the traditional dispersal of critical thinking associated with it, the medieval poets inherited a rather lax attitude towards truth, logic and historical coherency.  Everything pointed to, as Doherty further says, ‘the irrational mindset and utter unreliability of anything in the early Christian record.”

The basic dogma of their religion would not stand up to close scrutiny and the spill-over into Arthurian history was similarly treated in a cavalier manner.  It is also to be remembered that from the very beginning of the emergence of an alternative religion which came to draw on Hebrew customs, traditions, texts and modes of argumentation, but used them to argue that they were a New Israel whose messianic founder had already appeared—lived and died and thereafter was resurrected, and who waits in an anticipated Second Coming at any moment to complete the task of annihilating this fallen world—and who had fulfilled all the prophecies granted to the Chosen People, triumphed over them so as to leave them as an abject remnant doomed to serve as a constant reminder of their faithlessness and pig-headedness in rejecting the words and crucifying the bearer of that krygma, and so to doomed to blindness, ignorance and hopelessness.  Jews, from within their own civilization, based on their own concept of Law, and experiencing history in a very different way, observed with a certain detachment often crossing over into mingled disdain and dread, the self-deluded majority around them.  They could see otherwise intelligent, imaginative and educated men and women confounding their own sense of what is truthful, historical and natural with a litany of lies, errors and insane pronouncements.  As a beleaguered tiny minority in this vast sea of stupidity and absurdity, they usually learned to internalize their attitudes, treat the powerful forces with the scorn and irony they deserved, and keep hoping against hope that the final days would arrive when a true messiah would arrive to bring them home to their own land, restore the Temple in the senses it had come to signify after so long a Diaspora and Exile as a nation in exile—certainly not a palce for endless sacrificing of little birds and the spilling of the blood of sheep and oxen on the altar near the Holy of Holies, but a place of natural and rational justice, of good governance, and of domestic peace.  Until then, alas, eironia was the order of the day.  If paradise was lost, then paradoxos would have to do...

Hence it is that Sir Gawain, wearing the badge of shame that others call the emblem of trawth, the Green Girdle, observes with increasing cynicism the development of his own legendary history and that of Arthur and the Court at Camelot—the romance tradition whose values he had believed he was a primary agent of when he was tested by the Lady Bertilak for three days running, when she inquired if he  were truly the knight everyone spoke of, the man who could combine at once the high ideals of chivalric love in all its fantastic and paradoxical minutiae and the laws of chivalry with its strange combination of selfless courage, ruthless strength, and fearless and suicidal valor.  Could he be at once humble and proud, loyal and ambitious, patient and spontaneous?  The Green Monster had made these irrational and contradictory terms part of his initial challenge before the Round Table and then the Lady Bertilak had wheedled and insinuated them into her inquisition of Gawain’s character.  Rather than proving in combat, in the receiving of the ax-blows of the Green Knight without flinching or rancor, Gawain’s performance is a farce, a masquerade, a great joke, to which his own humiliations and frustration are treated as a matter of laughter both by the Lord Bertilak and by Arthur and his knights when the young man comes back to report his failure. 

Arthur’s version of the quest and its accomplishment, his chanson de gestes, his Acts of the Knights Errant, is true because Arthur is king, the leader of courtiers and warriors, rex bellorum, and Gawain’s version one of vntrawth because he is merely a young cousin, a man without authority, thus without the author’s gift to inscribe his own adventures in courtly romance.  That tradition, as has been said, already exists, which is why the Green Knight and the Lady Bertilak, can challenge and test the denizens of Camelot to see if they actually fit the roles they are purported to have played out on the stage of memory.  As individuals, as historical persons, as psychologically true men, they all fall below the required level of action; they are hypocrites, histriones, liars—and well could Hamlet ask what is Arthur or Gawain to the foolish player mouthing those lines in the old play and awkwardly posturing the noble gesture.  The difference between Gawain and Arthur is that the young knight knows he has failed and is unworthy of the plaudits he receives, and he comes to go through all the motions with a bittersweet pleasure in the awards.  In Malory’s Morte D’Arthur, Gawain is the knight whose affairs and whisperings bring down the whole pack of Arthurian cards, yet he lacks the sad self-awareness and struggle against fate that would make him properly a figure of tragedy.  The Gawain-poet, the anonymous alliterative singer-of-tales, has deeper understanding, that of the Crypto-Jewish outsider.  How else to articulate his own paradoxical plight than through the circumcised hero who is and is not the hero everyone recognizes and wants him to be?  As Doherty says in another place, discussing the Slavonic version of Josephus:

One can see how the overall tone of these insertions could be doubted as Christian.  A general grounding in the Gospel seems evident, yet there is also ignorance of some Gospel features, and perplexingly, the crucifixion itself is assigned to the Jews with Pilate’s permission, a responsibility which bears some similarity to the Talmudic tradition which invariably present the Jews as carrying out Jesus’ execution with no involvement by the Romans.  If the formulator of these passages was a fairly knowledgeable and friendly Jew, the motive of his work and what readership it was intended to serve nevertheless remains murky.[iii]

Putting side the specifics of what Doherty is analyzing, we can take the existence of several subversive traditions running through ancient and medieval Christian literature as some kind of justification for the reading we are giving to the Gawain poem.  There is a suspicion that the primary, canonical Gospel version of events may be inaccurate and deliberately falsified, for whatever reasons hidden in history and psychology.  Someone, the outsider, the suspicious insider, may read the New Testament and know it well, but still deliberately or inadvertently misread it so as to undercut the purported mysterious revelations it contains, not because of ignorance or faulty transmission of facts, but in order to destabilize the presentation with all its accumulated authority, energy and vividness.   If it shows some knowledge of rabbinical traditions taking on responsibility for the killing of Jesus—the historical man (the rebel and traitor, the blaspheming prophet) and not the god—the context has been shifted: the sages of Israel who inscribed these hyperbolic versions of history are making a joke or dreaming of wished for vengeance, and unfortunately when such statements are put into the public domain, which is one of hostility and hatred, they prove most dangerous.

Somehow for those few—they may have been less than a hundred—Jews who remained in England after the formal Expulsion in 1290, and some may have gone into the Domus Conversorum (the house of converts, where they would be given some minimal comfort, and thus it was usually men and women who had otherwise remained hidden who in their old age entered voluntarily as the only way to survive), but more usually existed in very groups or as individuals, as musicians, dancing teachers, hermits…they sought a way to speak out to relieve the great frustration of painful silence without being recognized.  They had to speak out indirectly, obliquely, in falsified tones, in masks, setting their own complaints and cries for help into the characters who were permitted to speak the truth in satire, farce, demonic dances, idiotic and infantile babbling…



[i] Earl Doherty, “Josephus on the Rocks”, Supplementary Article No. 16 in The Jesus Puzzle: Was there no Historical Jesus?”  online at http//:jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16
[ii] Doherty, “Josephus on the Rocks.”
[iii] Doherty, “Josephus on the Rocks.”

Monday 25 November 2013

Back to the Green Chapel, Part 5

'Tis the Season to be Jolly


When the young Prince Agrippa I, invested by Caligula with the Kingship of Judea, passed through Alexandria, the natives of that town resolved to insult him by a piece of buffoonery.  They were not fond of the Jews... [1}

There are two long Christmas seasons in Sir Gawain and the Knight of the Green Chapel.  Each season is a place, a time, a set of resident persons and temporary guests gathered for the festival, a space in which transformative actions and games are played out appropriate to the defining celebration. 

The first, in Camelot with King Arthur, his queen-wife Gwenor, and the Knights of the Round Table, is clearly a festive occasion: it is marked by a specific time and place, a gathering of many guests, celebratory words and actions, grand banquets and entertainments, not least of which is the unexpected but unsurprising arrival of the Green Man on a Green Horse.  He and the challenge he proffers are seen in the poem as Christmas gomens, games of masquerade and metamorphosis. 

The second, after a few months of profane time, is Gawain’s sudden arrival at the unexpected courtly festivities of Betilak de Hautdesert, his queen-wife Lady Betilak, the gnarled old woman later identified as Morgan le Fé, and Host’s entourage of guest, retainers, guests and servants: the celebratory events include the three morning hunts between the departure of the main party of guests after Christmas Day and the coming of New Year, and the exchange of gifts in the banqueting hall between Bertilak and Gawain.  What forms a background to these festivities at the Castle Hautdesert are the secretive visits by the Lady of the Castle to Gawain bedroom, their conversations and the granting of the green girdle which is then not made part of the stipulated exchange with the Host. 

Each of these Christmas events has a sequel: outside of but close to Betilak’s castle, Gawain meets the Green Knight for the agree-upon second part of the beheading game, in a place called the Green Chapel—but as we have indicated it is neither green nor a chapel except in very coded and complex extensions of both terms.  This third venue, which is actually the second, since it was the one Gawain set out to discover on his travels through the wilderness of Wyral and Wales, has a strange relationship also to the Castle he did find and which seems a bizarre mirroring of Camelot (qa milot: like a word) .

The coordination of Green Chapel to Hautdesert seems at first a quirk, a mere play on words.  The deserted chapel that Gawain descends into, seen as a part of the natural wasteland, then as an old tumulus, and lastly apparently as the devil’s oratory stands on a scale that mirrors, darkly and ambiguously, as the primeval fortress that rises up out of the winter mists made of twisted boughs and heavy stumps, then as a late medieval castle full of towers and crenulations, and finally as a delicate and artificial decoration presented during an interlude between courses of a large ceremonial banquet.  But there are other aspects to these many-layered images of things experienced in the trance-like state of a festival: first, the old cave with a stream pouring out of it, encumbered with a gnarled ancient tree, has aspects and words that point towards something sexual and reproductive, as well as archaic in the formation of consciousness, the frightful infant’s memories of emerging through the birth canal, squeezed, pushed, deprived of oxygen, covered in slime and knotted hair; then the reminiscences triggered by fragments of experience in sound, smell and taste of the heavy breathing and frenetic shivers of coitus, the release of primal energies, and the threat of the huge battle-ax and the nick on the neck (cervix) and the tell-tale drop of blood, and thus also of the whole ritual of brit ha-ot, pulling back of the foreskin, cutting off of the encumbering hood, using a flint knife, and the blood to be sucked away, revealing the naked eye of the male organ so that it looks and bleeds like a female’s body.  What is cut away from the natural organ is now marked with the sign of divine relationship, the covenant of the Law, the signs or words written on two tablets of stone, luach ha brit (read: brt-i-lak)—“Rock of ages cleft for me.”

The other sequel to the successful or unsuccessful outcome of the Christmas game undertaken by Gawain on behalf of his king and his fellow knights is his return to Camelot: superficially, it is, of course, the same place and it is experienced a year later by all as the continuation and completion of the first. Looked at closely and its constituent words, gestures and resonances examined as particles of a different kind of celebration altogether, the household and literary reputation of the occupants of seats around the Round Table has changed dramatically.  Whilst they all take Gawain’s return intact, his head still attached to his body, as proof positive of his success, and hence of their guarantee of trawth as honor and fame as noble upholders of feudal, chivalric and refined love values—to the point of sporting their own versions of the green girdle as emblems of this victory—Gawain sadly knows within himself that the success is a shame: he was not beheaded and therefore restored to one piece, either in fact as an act of real magic or in illusion as part of a prestidigitation trick that is acceptable in season mumming performances.  He knows that he and all the other knights and ladies of Camelot will henceforward live a lie, whether they realize it or not, and that insofar as their present existence is an idealized backformation of the literary texts that sing of their adventures in the various languages of western Europe, all is a sham, a hoax.  At best, they are self-deluded, at worst, like Gawain, tragic players in a charade of honesty and trawth in all its manifold senses.  Despite the reassurances of the Green Knight and his alter ego Bertilak de Hautdesert that Gawain did as well as could be expected as a fallible, sin-born human being, this kind of “good enough” status does not fit with what they believe about themselves and which is chanted in their songs of fame.  There is something that makes any possible fit between the annual celebrations of Christmas and New Year as courtly festivals of self-praise, the faith they have in Arthur’s or Gawain’s or their own abilities and ideals that the games imitate, celebrate and perfect, and the lengthy tradition of romances, lyrics and prose tales based on the legends, myths and dreams of poets and audiences. 

The impossibility of a clear and meaningful fit between the illusions, delusions and allusions inherent in Arthurian tradition would hardly be able to undermine the entertainment value of these romantic characters and actions, as only a childish fool or an idiot would take them seriously—and most great poets always have their tongues in their cheeks and many in the Renaissance grant to their favored characters a degree of self-mockery or scepticism as to keep these archaic stories going for a few more hundred years, as the world turns more cynical, secular and materialistic.  In the fourteenth century, as the currents of realism and reform, begin to run through England, France, Italy and other lands of the West, it is still mostly felt that the Arthurian past can stand as a metaphor through which the present can be clarified, seen more accurately and measured for its own social, political and psychological successes.  Yet neither Chaucer or Malory, for instance, attain to the degree of inwardness manifest in the alliterative poem we have been examining, and this poem in itself—as opposed to various scenes or characters which appear elsewhere in literature—has no subsequent resonance: it is not seen for what it is, even in a slight way, until modern editions begin to appear at the end of the nineteenth century. 


The entire manuscript in which it comes down to us is unique in many ways: it is not a presentation copy, it is very small, the script and illuminations are mediocre, and the language is awkward and archaic.  The inwardness of its characters, especially Gawain, are not matched in the other romances, tales or homiletic material contained in the whole of Cotton Nero A.x.  Moreover, it lacks a Christian perspective, although there are, to be sure, some references to persons and events in the New testament.  Its main themes is not so much about a quest that fails or almost fails to achieve what the great men and women in the narrative think it does; than about the ambiguities of personal achievement, identification, and will to carry on in an imperfect world and with fallible ideals.  

[1] Philo, cited by  M.J. Lagrange, Notes on the 'Orpheus' of M. Salomon Reinach, trans. C .C. Martindale (Oxford: B.H. Blackwell and London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co,m 1910) p. 29.