Men in Nature and Nature in Men in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

The poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight reveals the complexity of the medieval

man’s relationship with nature, both in terms of out-of doors environment and man’s own

untamed desires. Closer examination of Sir Gawain’s and Bertilak’s experiences with nature

shows that life in the medieval society depends on the accord and interdependence of human and

the natural world. Moreover, the experiences of the above mentioned characters represent

divergent views on man’s relationship with the non-human environment. In other words, the

Pearl-poet presents multiple perspectives on the binary pair: culture/nature. While Sir Gawain

views uncultivated nature as hostile and in need of subjugation to men, Bertilak, the Green

Knight’s alter ego, exemplifies a conflation of wilderness and man-controlled environment, thus

asserting the possibility of harmony between the two. Moreover, the poem offers an alternative

view on the status of a hero, suggesting that a hero is not necessarily the one who measures his

success through conquering the wilderness around him but possibly the one who is capable to

enter into some kind of partnership with the natural world.

The opening scene of the poem, without any delay, depicts the confrontation between the

medieval civilization represented by King Arthur and his court and the rugged outdoors signified

by the Green Knight. King Arthur’s court is portrayed as a safe, comfortable and joyful place

where lavish celebrations with music and dancing occurred on a daily basis:

Dere dyn vpon day, daunsyng on ny3tes-

Al watz hap vpon he3e in hallez and chambrez

With lorded and ladies, as leuest him po3t (47-49)

Moreover, the knights of Camelot are described as “gentyle kniztes” (42) as well as “most kyd
kniztes vnder Krystes Seluen” (51). Like other dwellers of the court, Sir Gawain possesses these
virtues of sophistication, kindness, and nobleness. The poem’s author shows that Sir Gawain’s

1
noble upbringing, his sense of duty and loyalty to his uncle, King Arthur, prompts him to accept
the Green Knight’s challenge. Sir Gawain presents to the intruder the following reason:
I am þe wakkest, I wot, and of wyt feblest,
And lest lur of my lyf, quo laytes þe soþe.
Bot for as much as ȝe ar myn em I am only to prayse,
No bounté bot your blod I in my bodé knowe;
And syþen þis note is so nys þat noȝt hit yow falles,
And I haue frayned hit at yow fyrst, foldez hit to me. (354-359)

In fact, Gawain’s first challenge is overcoming his own nature. In his brief speech

addressed to the king he characterizes himself as “wakkest,” yet his royal origin, “bounté bot

your blod I in my bodé,” prompts him to accept the challenge. On the one hand, Gawain’s

reasoning is predicated upon the principles of King Arthur’s chivalric code. By preventing his

uncle from accepting the Green Knight’s challenge Gawain exhibits loyalty to his king, courage,

and humility-the qualities that are cultivated in Arthurian code of conduct. On the other hand,

Gawain confronts his own nature and attempts to transcend his alleged weakness, which, in

traditional terms, qualifies him as a candidate for the status of a hero.

Sir Gawain’s refined image and behavior is in opposition to the Green Knight’s appearance

and demeanor. The uninvited visitor is described as exceptionally strong, mighty, and large;

surprisingly, his greenness only enhances the image of a healthy giant so different from the

knights in attendance: “Thus this rare man was richly arrayed in bright green.

And þe here of his hed of his hors swete:”(179-180). Moreover, the Green Knight comes to

Camelot unprotected by a “hauberghe” and a “helme” (268). He is equipped with his natural

strength, the sharp axe, and the desire to challenge those who barred themselves from the world

he represents. The Green Knight is not concerned with Arthurian code of conduct when, in the

presence of King Arthur, unceremoniously, he makes fun of the knights who fail to accept his

2
challenge: “ For al dares for dread withoute dint schewed!” (315). Obviously, his code of

behavior differs from the one accepted at King Arthur’s court.

This initial opposition between the cultivated environment of the court and the

uncultivated Otherness of the unexpected visitor sets the stage for the opposing attitudes toward

civilization and wilderness in the poem. Sir Gawain’s sojourn in the wilderness is a multi-faceted

experience that corroborates the view that a medieval hero is supposed to overcome both

physical and psychological challenges presented by nonhuman nature not only by means of his

own resourcefulness but also with the help of his deep religious beliefs. The poet describes Sir

Gawain’s encounter with nature in the following lines:

Mony klyf he ouerclambe in contrayez straunge,

Fer floten fro his frendez, fremedly he rydez.

At vche warþe oþer water þer þe wy3e passed

He fonde a foo hym byfore bot ferly hit were,

And þat so foule and so felle þat fe3t hym byhode. (713-717)

The wild nature is a “foreign realm” for Sir Gawain, and its elements, for instance, wild beasts

and inclement weather, are his “foes.” The harsh conditions described in this passage are meant

to trigger sympathy for the hero who has to conquer both physical and emotional

discomfort.While examining the changing views on wilderness from the Biblical times until

today William Cronon in his article “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the

Wrong Nature” claims that “to be a wilderness then was to be ‘deserted’,’savage’, ‘barren’…Its

connotations were anything but positive, and the emotion one was most likely to feel in its

presence was ‘bewilderment’-or terror” (70). Wilderness in the medieval world, as Cronon

suggests, is not only a physical realm, but it is also a deep layer buried in the human psyche that

3
represents a person’s raw state of being and harbors fear of the Otherness of untamed

environment around and within a human being.

Thus, Gawain’s battle with wilderness is also his encounter with his own insecurities,

fear, and confusion. Not only is it marked with the conquest of the uncontrolled nature he

confronts, but it is also the journey inward, into the natural realm within himself. By accepting

the Green Knight’s challenge, Sir Gawain challenges his own fear of the unknown, sublime,

unpredictable, thus testing if his manliness has not been compromised by the civilized existence.

Gawain overcomes his inner “weakness” because his raw selfhood unmasked in the setting of

wilderness that surrounds him is counterbalanced by his belief in God. The Pearl-poet unveils the

paradoxical belief of the members of the medieval civilized society that God does not dwell in

the setting of wilderness but rather in the civilized settings controlled by men.

Moreover, when Sir Gawain puts his spirituality to the test of “wyldrenesse”

within himself, on this inward journey he is not victorious. In fact, he is hunted down by the

Lady who reveals her intentions in the following lines:

3e schal not rise of your bedde, I rych yow better,

`I schal happe yow here pat oper half als,

and sypen karp with my kny3t pat I ka3t haue; (1223-1225)

Despite his own protestations highly cultured, courtly Gawain turns into an impulsive,

uncontrollable man when he succumbs to his seductress. This transformation shows that

Gawain’s position toward wilderness is rather limited. Even the most civilized man still exists in

nature represented not only by the outer uncultivated landscapes but also by the very raw,

elemental nature within himself.

4
 It is also possible that Sir Gawain’s firm belief in the culturally constructed form of

behavior makes him less alert and more vulnerable when he is forced to confront his own

wilderness. In fact, in his initial interaction with Bertilak’s wife he tries to present himself as “þat

fyne fader of nurture” (“the cultured begetter of civilised standards”) (927), hence at first

rejecting the Lady’s sexual advances. Armed with this belief in his own chivalry as well as with

his loyalty to the Virgin who is even portrayed on his shield, Gawain attempts to oppose the

seductress. However, Gawain’s defenses are rather low because Hautdesert is even more

sophisticated than Camelot with its abundance of provision, so Gawain feels rather secure in this

civilized setting. Thus, he eventually surrenders to the advances of Bertilak’s wife because he

overestimates his cultural upbringing and underestimates his natural impulses.

Gawain’s failure to maintain the status of a hero is not only shown through his

unsuccessful attempts to control his “uncivilized” masculine drive but also through his surrender

to the woman who, in the medieval worldview is inseparable from nature, or, to be more exact, is

nature itself. There is nothing new in affiliating women with nature, presenting both as attractive

yet mysterious and treacherous. As Kate Soper claims in her book What is Nature?, “the

downgrading of nature has equally been perpetuated through its representation as

‘female’.” Soper also asserts that nature is seen as both “a powerful maternal force, the womb of

all human production, [and] as the site of sexual enticement and ultimate seduction…"

(110). Gawain’s weakness that might disqualify him from the status of a hero is shown through

his inability to resist nature in its external and internal representations.

This transgression, however, fails to undo Gawain as a hero of the chivalric poem, for it

is counterbalanced by his spiritual beliefs deeply rooted in his cultural upbringing. Despite few

details of Gawain’s journey into the wilderness, the poet provides the interpretation of

5
“wyldrenesse” by stating that Gawain journeyed "In þe wyldrenesse of Wyrale; wonde þer bot

lyte / Þat auþer God oþer gome wyth goud heart louied” (701-702). By characterizing wilderness

as the place where such attributes of the civilized society as belief in God and “good heart” are

hard to come by, the poet sets it apart from Camelot where a fifteen day celebration (44) is

taking place in the opening lines of the poem. Moreover, Gawain does not simply fight “wyth

wormez” (serpents), “wolues ” (wolves), “wodwos” (trolls), “bullez and berez” (bulls and bears)

(720-723), but he “werrez” (720), wages war on his nonhuman opponents.

Gawain’s hostility toward the non-human world is produced by the belief that this

untamed world is not governed by God and by the laws of the human society. He, Sir Gawain, is

driven by the desire to conquer this godless, hostile realm, and he succeeds because, unlike his

adversaries, he is a believer in God. It is not accidental that only after he prayed and crossed

himself three times, Hautdesert appeared, signifying the idea that the only way for a civilized

human to heroically survive the uncultivated nature is to remain faithful. Thus, in conventional

terms, what characterizes Gawain as the poem’s hero is that he hasn’t only overcome the natural

obstacles but also has remained loyal to his Christian beliefs.

This conventional view is challenged by the poem’s unconventional character, the

Green Knight. In contrast to Sir Gawain, The Green Knight who is actually green, rides a green

horse, and dwells at the Green Chapel is the organic, inseparable part of the natural environment.

The poet expresses the mixture of surprise and admiration while describing this character:

And alle his fetures fol3ande, in forme þat he hade,

ful clene;

For wonder of his hwe men hade,

Set in his semblaunt sene;

6
 He ferde as freke were fade,

And oueral enker-grene. (145-150)

Yet, although the Green Knight is depicted as the otherworldly figure, he is also distinctly

human. The poem zeroes in on the elegance and fine craftsmanship of his attire:///”A strayt cote

ful stre3t, pat stek on his sides” (152) and the elaborate hairstyles worn not only by the Green

Knight but by his horse as well: “pe mane of pat mayn hors much to hit lyke,/ Wel cresped and

cemmed” (187-188). Even though the latter reference suggests some kind of commonality with

animals, the poet emphasizes the Green Knight’s superb humanity: "Bot mon most I algate mynn

hym to bene [But the greatest man at any rate I think him to have been]" (141).

The Green Knight is a hybrid of nature and civilization, and, in my view, his visit to

Camelot is to subvert the notion that the culturally constructed form of existence is in opposition

to the natural one. The uninvited guest forces King Arthur’s court to come face to face with the

idea that the natural world exists in the close proximity to the man-controlled world, that the line

between the two is rather indistinct at times, and that an attempt at respectful coexistence should

be made.

The Pearl-poet describes the feast that takes place at Camelot: “With rych reuel orȝt and

rechles merþes [With fittingly splendid revelry and care-free mirth]” (40). The court is presented

as the carefree place filled with joyous celebrations. Such an artificial environment is too

unnatural, too alien to the natural world that surrounds it. As a result, it poorly prepares its

dwellers to properly interact with the natural world that exists outside its boundaries. The Green

Knight’s intrusion is an attempt to alert King Arthur’s court to this problem and to create the

awareness of the side-by-side existence of man-made and natural settings.

7
 In this respect the medieval hunting expedition that opens Part III of the poem illustrates

Bertilak’s attempts to bridge the divide between natural and human. In general, the human

activity of hunting represents both the essential need to extract the gifts of nature to support

human existence in the medieval society as well as the need to assert human dominance over it,

yet the hunting scenes in the poem transcend this simplified notion. For instance, that is how the

initiation of the hunt is described in the poem:

By pat any dayly3t lemed vpon erpe,

He with his hapleles on hy3e horses weren.

Vnclosed pe kenel dore and calde hem peroute,

Blwe dygly in buglez pre bare mote.

Braches bayed perfore and breme noyse maked;

And pay chastysed and charred on chasing pat went, (1137-1144)

On the one hand, the hunt is presented as a highly organized, almost ritualistic activity that

presupposes human dominance over animals, thus disobedient hounds were immediately

disciplined. On the other hand, the scene shows the importance of “houndez” to the very success

of the hunt; in fact, the huntsmen depend both on their horses and the hounds as they pursue their

prey. In other words, the scene implies that the existence of the medieval man, both in terms of

his sustenance and entertainment, is predicated upon the interaction between humans and

domesticated animals and then, in turn, between the domesticated and wild animals. The scene

symbolically denotes the interrelation between the domesticated realm and the realm of the

wilderness.

In the poet’s description of Bertilak’s hunts, Bertilak, just like Gawain, stalks and kills

his prey, taking them from their natural habitat into his castle. Yet, there is a profound difference

8
between the two characters’ attitudes to the beasts they confront. For Gawain these beasts are

just frightening foes to be conquered while for Bertilak these wild creatures possess their

individuality and, therefore, deserve respect. For instance, while describing the fox hunt the poet

personifies the fox by mentioning his name “Reniarde” (1728). Since the poem is not a

traditional fable, naming the fox along with calling him “schrewe” [villain] (1896) can be seen as

an attempt to characterize this wild animal, which in itself signals a respectful (human) attitude

toward the non-human being.

Bertilak’s quest for harmony between human civilization and the uncultivated nature is

made obvious in the deer hunt. Bertilak manages the hunting event by decreeing that only the

does, the female deer, are hunted, "For þe fre lorde hade defende in fermysoun tyme / Þat þer

schulde no mon meue to þe male dere" [“For the noble lord had forbidden in close-season time /

That there should no man interfere with the male deer”] (1156-57). While this prohibition could

be related to Bertilak’s patriarchal philosophy, it still represents an attempt to express the idea of

the benign, non-antagonistic relationship with nature. The deer hunt is anything but

indiscriminate with the prey to be hunted; rather, it is orderly and selective, protecting the male

deer and killing the female deer to be offered as food at the future feast.

Bertilak’s success in managing the natural resources is contrasted with Gawain’s

leisurely relaxation away from the natural landscape. He “lys in his bedde, / Gawayn, grayþely at

home in gerez ful ryche / Of hewe” (1469-71). The poet juxtaposes Bertilak as an expert,

knowledgeable hunter and Sir Gawain as a gracious, sophisticated prey of Bertilak’s wife’s

sexual hunting game, thus paving the way for a new alternative concept of the poem’s hero.

After all, Gawain does not benefit from this juxtaposition and does not look heroic at all. At the

same time, Bertilak, the Green Knight’s alter ego, is presented as a strong, decisive character

9
who possesses a strong ability to integrate with the natural world around him and to benefit from

it.

In essence, the scene shows that human existence can be comfortable only if people

change their perception of uncultivated nature as entirely hostile and threatening. In this sense

Gawain fails to maintain his heroic role in the poem because he tries to impose his courtly

culture on the natural world by asserting his alleged superiority over nature. Even when Gawain

interacts with the nonhuman environment, he still exists in the mode of an Arthurian warrior,

violently killing and destroying the elements of this environment.

On the other hand, Bertilak passes the ecological test with flying colors. His ability to

incorporate the natural environment into his rather civilized existence, his productive relationship

with nonhuman nature translated into a careful command of its resources elevates him to the

status of the poem’s hero. Bertilak’s mode of existence underscores the notion that the natural

world should be recognized as essential to human civilization, for it provides the means of

sustenance, entertainment, and self-knowledge. It is rather a partner than an enemy in the task of

human existence. Through the portrayal of how Sir Gawain and Bertilak influence and are

influenced by the natural world, the poem offers an opportunity to assess each character’s

relationship with the natural world. The extent to which Sir Gawain and Bertilak adapt to its laws

that are no less important than the laws of the civilized society serves as an alternative criterion

for determining the true hero of the poem.

By redefining the concept of a medieval hero as not necessarily the one who asserts his

superiority over his human or nonhuman opponents but rather as the one who attempts to coexist

with them, the Pearl-poet illuminates the idea that Sir Gawain as well as King Arthur’s court at

large are dangerously out of touch not only with the natural habitat around them but with their

10
own inner selves. To be truly victorious the members of Arthurian court need to reconsider their

way of life and embrace nature outside and within themselves.

Works Cited

Cronon, William. "The Trouble with Wilderness; Or, Getting Back to the Wrong

Nature.” Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York/ London: W.W.

Norton, 1995. 69-90. Print.

Finch, Casey, Malcolm Andrew, Ronald Waldron, and Clifford Peterson.The Complete Works of

the Pearl Poet. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. Print.

Soper, Kate. What Is Nature? Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.

11
12