ASSOCIATE SSOCIATE EDITOR

This article explores the themes of treason and betrayal which are common motifs of medieval romances, speci fically those featuring the Arthurian knight Sir Gawain. Because loyalty to one’s lord, nation, or family unit was critical for survival in the Middle Ages, the problem of treachery by close companions is often a recurring subject in romances from this period. Such themes revealed to their audience the fragility of these relationships and cautioned against overconfidence in the bonds of loyalty. Romances featuring Gawain, like the Middle English Awntyrs off Arthur and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, conclude with the young hero learning to understand the dangers of duplicity. Positioning these messages about treason against the competing tradition of Gawain’s own role in Arthur’s betrayal, however, exposes a broader lesson about finding comfort in loyalty. Only by reading the lessons of the Gawain romances through the wider lens of those traditions surrounding the fall of Arthur’s kingdom can we gain a full appreciation of the medieval warnings against treason and betrayal included in these romances. Treason and betrayal both play significant roles in the literature of the Middle Ages. As Richard Firth Green points out in The Crisis of Truth, just like “truth,” “treason” is a crit ical and enigmatic concept for the late medieval English world.1 One does not need to look extensively within medieval romance texts to encounter numerous examples of treasonous behavior in the sources of both the British Isles and the Continent. From the infamous betrayal of Ganelon in the French Chanson de Roland to the myriad Arthurian stories chronicling the usurpation of the throne by the wicked and treacherous Mordred, subversion and infidelity are themes that stretch across the boundaries of nation, language, and even concepts of genre to occupy a momentous place in the corpus of medieval literature.2 Within the romances of the Middle Ages, however, treason and betrayal become particularly important motifs employed by poets in order to deprive the protagonist of his or her rightful inheri1 Richard Firth Green, The Crisis of Truth (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 207. 2 As Charles Dunn and Edward Byrnes point out, the classification of medieval texts into genre groups is “not entirely unambiguous,” as a modern concept of genre does not translate completely into a medieval context. However, the term is frequently applied to medieval writing in order to assist in grouping texts with similar characters, values, and subjects together. I use this word here because treason does appear outside of one particular group of medieval texts. Charles Dunn and Edward Byrnes, “ Introduction,” Middle English Literature (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), 6. For more on the concept of genre, see also Ralph Cohen, “History and Genre,” New Literary History 17 (1986): 20318. 2 The Hilltop Review, Fall 2009 tance, to divide him or her from a true love, or to challenge the bonds of loyalty to others. Despite a wide variety of subjects, protagonists, and themes that problematize efforts to draw broad conclusions regarding the romance genre, it is possible to glean what would have been a common understanding of acceptable and objectionable social behavior from among the many medieval romance narratives. As Corinne Saunders points out, “Despite their variety. the romances of the Middle Ages are linked by the motifs that echo throughout the genre: exile and return, love, quest and adventure, family, name and identity, the opposition between pagan and Christian. ”3 If these common plot configurations create mutual consensus, the frequency of behavior labeled as “treasonous” within these texts suggests that questions of loyalty occupy an equally important position as all other conventional motifs of this genre. Moreover, medieval romances are unmistakably products of their cultural milieu, reflecting those principal social values drawn from the environment of their creation.4 The later medieval period witnessed significant transformations to the conceptualization of “truth,” and Green’s extensive study proves that personal promises, loyalty, and faith are integral to the legal, ethical, and even theological organization of late medieval England.5 Such a strong dependence on the reliability of “truth” demonstrates that a growing apprehension of the exploitable nature of language dominates the consciousness of this t ime. Because words do not absolutely necessitate behavior, actions based upon the trust of language and the credibility of the speaker are endangered by the mistaken credibility of false statements. According to J. L. Austin’s description of those obstacles to accepted speech, impediments to truth arise because of two main complications: either the speech is prevented from adhering to accepted forms, for example, deviating from the formalized conventions, or else the speech is given an undeserved level of credibility despite the fact that its speaker lacks sincerity.6 Treasonous behavior concerns itself with the latter model because the audience believes that the statements are realized and accurate, despite the disingenuous intentions of the speaker. The effects of treasonous behavior within romance plots indicate an awareness on the part of the poet of the unique threat of betrayal, by word if not by deed, to the stability of medieval society. The Middle English Dictionary defines treason as, first and foremost, a “disloyalty, faithlessness, or culpable indifference to sacred obligations or allegiance” which manifests itself through a betrayal of one’s governing body, either against one’s king or country.7 This meaning clearly evokes the feudal structure of owed loyalty, created by the relationship between lord and retainer, designed to ensure a secure and organized government. Green identifies “treason” as the antonym of the equally imposing and wide-ranging word “truth. ”8 Because treason works to undermine the 3 Treason and Betrayal in the Middle English Romances of Sir Gawain The Hilltop Review, Fall 2009 3 Corinne Saunders, “ Introduction,” A Companion to Romance from Classical to Contemporary (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 3. 4 Stephen Knight, “ The Social Function of the Middle English Romance,” Medieval Literature (New York, St. Martins Press, 1986), 99. 5 Richard Firth Green, 9. 6 J.L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), 16. 7 “ Treisoun,” The Middle English Dictionary, 28 Nov. 2007 < http://quod.lib. umich.edu/m/med/> 8 Richard Firth Green, 207. bonds holding social order together through a destabilization of trust between lord and retainer, it prompts questions regarding the dependability of the feudal oath of loyalty. Just as the meaning of “truth” in The Middle English Dictionary begins with the importance of honesty in a legal and institutional sense, this understanding has the greatest social impact when it is violated.9 In addition to the conventional understanding of treason’s damage to legal government, undermining the system of truth also represents a danger that has the potential to destroy bonds of kinship and religion. Such acts of treason involve major transgressions of the system of oaths that bring together government, family, and church, thus challenging the dependability of language involved in the expression of feudal service, promises offered during the marriage ceremony, and the faithful observation of religious vows. Betrayal represents the ultimate threat to each of these important pillars of medieval society, marking it as a serious offense against both the individual and the wider community and thus meriting particular attention. In addition to the representation of treason as a felonious offense, The Middle English Dictionary also defines the term as any betrayal involving deception, as well as any “unseemly behavior, wickedness, or evildoing. ”10 Unlike the initial focus on a betrayal with an impact on a society-wide level, this secondary meaning draws the word down to the level of personal relationships, where ethical judgment regarding the morality of an individual’s action is most crit ical. Moreover, in defining all deceptive activities as treason, the focus shifts away from societal reaction toward private responsibility to uphold “truth. ” Thus, treason is distinguishable in a medieval sense within two discrete categories, “ institutional treason” against the wider communal organization and “personal treason” against private relationships.11 Although each of these acts of disloyalty differs in its effect, one universalized and one localized, they are both founded on an identical breach in the system of truth that governs interpersonal relationships. In countless medieval romances, those characters who occupy a position near the hero or heroine typically perform the acts of treason. The consistency of the traitor’s social position in the retinue of close friends or the advisors of the king suggests that a certain level of credibility is necessary in order to facilitate the commission of a treasonous act. The familiarity of the traitor to the hero serves to heighten the act of treachery by counterbalancing the trust of the hero with the abuse of that trust by the traitor. As Anna Reuters suggests, the “close personal relationship” of these treacherous characters allows them to upset the bonds of trust crit ical to the hero. ”12 King Horn’s Fikenhild, Havelok the Dane’s Godard and Godrich, and Athelston’s Wymound are just a few examples of characters who betray their friendships with the heroes of their respective romances.13 In all of these stories, however, the narrative voice makes explicitly clear to the audience how secretly deceptive, envious, or faithGregory L. Laing 4 The Hilltop Review, Fall 2009 9 “ Treuth,” The Middle English Dictionary, 28 Nov. 2007 < http://quod.lib. umich.edu/m/med/> 10 “Treisoun,” The Middl