Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Sides of a Coin Sir Gawain and Robin Hood as Heroic Foils - Literature Essay Samples
Sir Gawain, as an extension of King Arthur, and folk hero Robin Hood, are heroic characters that both figure in the British literary tradition. Their narratives have both contributed to the construction of national history, and have been used to depict British identityââ¬âas literature is wont to do. Their heroism, as manifested in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and History of Robin Hood, respectively, are equal in significance; however, the values on which their heroism is based differ, precisely because they act as foils to each other. This is further supported when reading into their characters in terms of their social standing, their reactions to the directive of their courts, and their respective villains. In literature, the term foil has been used to describe characters that contrast each other in order to accentuate certain characteristics. However, there are also instances in which the characters can be dramatically similar, in order to further emphasize their key differences. Sir Gawain and Robin Hood fall in the latter category of literary foils. For one thing, they are both members of the aristocratic elite. In Roger Lancelyn Greens translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain introduces himself as son of King Lot of Orkney, and nephew to royal Arthur (476) In addition, not only is he a member of Arthurââ¬â¢s lineââ¬âin other legends, the kingââ¬â¢s rightful successorââ¬âhe is also a knight of the Round Table, a collective whose fame and valor has been heard of for their bravery and high virtue (476) The text establishes the knight as royal and well-versed in the ways of the court by virtue of his standingââ¬âGawain is established as favored. Although it is questionable at best and grasping at worst to consider Robin Hoodââ¬â¢s station as in the same level of acclaim as Gawain, it can nevertheless be denied that he belongs to the same social class. In the text, it is said that ââ¬Å"[his] mother was sister to Squire Gamewell, of Gamewell Hallâ⬠(Pyle 463) Through his mother, he is a nobleman, and the presumed heir to his uncleââ¬â¢s estate. However, upon the latterââ¬â¢s death, monks (who were in possession of the title after coercing the dying man into signing it over) ââ¬Å"shut the doors against [Robin Hood] and would give him nothing to support himselfâ⬠(463-64) While he was robbed of his inheritance, his nobility remains intact even as he goes into the woods. Both Gawain and Robin Hood are members of the aristocracy, though perhaps the former is higher up than the outlaw. It is in this similarity that they foil each other, as their responses to their royalty differ despite their station. In the text, Gawain is spurred to his heroism in order to defend the integrity of the court to which he belongs. When Arthur is threatened, his authority endangered, Gawain speaks upââ¬âhe rises to his feet, saying, ââ¬ËMy lord king and noble uncle, grant me a boon! Let this adventure be mine, for still there is my old shame unhealed: still I have to prove my worth as a Knight of your Round Table, still to fit myself to be a champion of Logres.ââ¬â¢ (Green 476) His reaction to a slight on his court is immediate defense. Despite the apprehension shown by the other knights present, Gawain takes up the challenge that Arthur had so hastily responded to, and so upholds his kingââ¬â¢s sovereignty. His response is representative of values of courtly conduct and diplomacyââ¬âtraits for which he will later be known. Robin Hood, on the other hand, responds to the court in the opposite. Instead of rising to its defense, he become its source of antagonism. Though loyal to the king (ââ¬Å"God save him! and confound all his enemies!â⬠[sic] 467) he is nevertheless an outlaw. He lives outside the courtââ¬â¢s rule, and bands together with other young men in a court of their own. He forfeits the benefit of his stature, and so doesnââ¬â¢t have the predilection towards upholding the integrity of his nobility. Unlike Gawain who responds in duty, Robin Hood is more concerned with heroism that brings to the fore his opposition to the dominant power behind the courtââ¬âin Howard Pyleââ¬â¢s iteration, the Catholic church. He responds in dutyââ¬ânot to the court, nor his kingââ¬âbut to the people. His allegiance is to ââ¬Å"women and children, and the poor people around me; it is only from the miserly rich, and those who live upon the labors of others, that [he takes] anythingâ⬠(467) These different responses inform the reading of their respective villains. For Gawain, this is the Green Knight, the Lord Bertilak. The text describes him as almost a monsterââ¬âa sight to behold, yes, but a monstrous one at that. The Green Knight is first introduced as a ââ¬Å"strange and terrible figureâ⬠but the text also goes to great lengths to describe him as ââ¬Å"[riding] as a knight shouldâ⬠(Green 475) This can be read as an Other for whom Gawain can see a representation of that which he strives to protect. Bertilak is different; he is frightening. But he is also bound by the same courtly rules on which Arthur and the knights operate. Thus, Gawain has an instinctive understanding of how to approach him. They are bound by the same values of chivalry; however he strikes the Green Knight, he is to be struck in the same vein. The power plays they engage in later, where the Lady Bertilak comes into the picture, still retain an acknowledgment of an honor code (as in Gawainââ¬â¢s refusal of the Ladyââ¬â¢s invitation to her bed, and his unrelenting honor in providing the Lord with the kisses given him). With Robin Hood, his villain is not separate from the court and so his actions necessarily are separate from its values. In terms of abstract symbolism, he fights against oppression (of the poor, by the church). In the text, this is represented by his mockery of the monks and the rich, his disdain for the ordained (ââ¬Å"[He] heard the bishopââ¬â¢s name who was his great enemyâ⬠465). How he fights against this does not rely on fair play. There is subterfuge involved, perhaps in a deliberate attempt to undermine his enemies, but also because his character requires it (ââ¬Å"Robin Hood, who loved a good joke as well as a good bootyâ⬠464). Because he has moved away from intricacies of courtly mannerââ¬âhas gone against it, in factââ¬âhe is not bound to acting in good faith. That the Church embodies that only serves to portray Robin Hoodââ¬â¢s heroism as in-characterââ¬âand a foil to Gawainââ¬â¢s. Unlike Gawain, an honor code does not apply to him. These similarities and differences portray both Sir Gawain and Robin Hood as nuanced characters who are perhaps more alike than at first glance. They figure into the same narratives of struggle, but foil each other in an attempt to provide a clearer understanding of the two kinds of heroism that have informed British literature and identity. Gawain is a hero of the court; Robin Hood is a hero of the people. Though they differ in the factions of society for which they fought, they are both models of heroism that have contributed to English mythos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)