The Knightly Virtue In Sir Gawain: The Ideal Knight

Philosophers and theologists have contemplated morality and its role in the lives of men for centuries. It is hard to define what constitutes a moral life and an amoral life when the very definition of those words are subjective; being moral is often compared to being virtuous or simply “good”. Often what is called moral is what mimics societal standards. This is an issue that has been tackled in a plethora of ways, from the establishment of religion all the way to the bed-time stories repeated to us as children. Defining morality is difficult to do because of the vast range of human action and thought, which also makes it very difficult to decide if people can truly change or develop a new moral code. Stories and tales are often used to describe
After examining Sir Gawain’s story it appears that it is not. In order to live a chivalrous life it seems as if that person must be perfect. As shown by Gawain’s dealings with the Bertilaks, he was trapped between either breaking his chastity with Lady Bertilak or lying to his host by taking the belt. While it may be hard to replicate such a scenario for every knight, the paradox this represents is not totally uncommon. Upholding the knightly virtues is essentially asking for moral perfection in life. Being courteous and chaste are “good” qualities to have and people who do not subscribe to such agendas are not considered moral people. No matter what the specific details are, the underlying issue of perfection remains. Perfection is something that humanity has strived to achieve for centuries, but remains ever elusive. When somebody examines what makes a person perfect they would often list off qualities that we have seen portrayed in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Not only is perfection, moral or not, subjective, but it also appears silly to consider it attainable. The human condition would make it too difficult to maintain moral perfection because of interactions with different cultures: upon encountering a foreigner, the perfect one could be judged imperfect. So truly perfection is a subjective quality that can theoretically be achieved but only if one
This would explain why Gawain is a knight; he belongs to a profession meant to defend a way of life when all other forms of diplomacy have been exhausted. Not every issue can be solved by reason: violence is the ultimate authority from which other forms of authority are derived. Judging by his descriptions, Gawain is a highly skilled combatant with no equal in the land. However, he is defined by human limitations such as exhaustion and death. Despite the Green Knight being characterized as devilish (and thus imperfect due to the subjective quality of what defines a moral person), there is no doubt that he is closer to perfection than Gawain will ever be. The Green Knight appears as the perfect warrior: impervious to damage and more physically defined than any other man. So not only does Gawain have physical (and thus absolute) limitations but he also has moral failures. Lastly, the overlap between Gawain’s profession and moral character raises a question: if Gawain was the perfect negotiator, wouldn’t there be no need for his skills in combat, and vice versa? He could be recognized for his talents in both, but that would be unnecessary. If he was recognized for both then he would have to make a decision on when it would be better to kill someone as opposed to talking to them: under what criteria would he judge the value of someone’s life? I believe perfection simply has too