Although the character of Sir Gawain is depicted as a noble and virtuous knight, the portrayal of King Arthur is anything but favorable. Indeed, the King Arthur that the reader finds in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is both childish and foolish. Compared to other tales involving King Arthur, this portrayal of the king is not only unusual, but downright strange. In other tales King Arthur is a good king, a king of legend who unifies his people and the knights of his realm. He is a king who brings peace to his land and who is loved by his people. But this is not the King Arthur that a reader sees in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
The Gawain poet makes King Arthur look both childish and foolish. He is a young king in this tale, and the poet even directly calls him “a little boyish” (Part I, line 86) with a “wild” temper (line 89). In addition, he also practices a foolish custom:
And also a point of pride pricked him in heart,
For he nobly had willed, he would never eat
On so high a holiday, till he had heard first
Of some fair feat or fray … (I: 90-93)
In other words, King Arthur is proud, childish, and foolish. He is so immature that he refuses to eat unless he is entertained first.
Later, when the Green Knight makes his challenge and none of the knights respond, Arthur becomes upset:
The blood for sheer shame shot to his face,
And pride.
With rage his face flushed red. (I: 317-19)
The poet’s repetition of the word pride is not casual: it is very purposeful. Pride is also a quality that Gawain possesses, and the poet wants to suggest that too much of this quality is harmful (echoing a sentiment shared by the Anglo-Saxons in earlier centuries). Because of his pride, King Arthur risks his life by accepting the challenge of the Green Knight. The friendly “tap” that Gawain received at the end could have been replaced with a very deadly blow, and Arthur (in place of Gawain) could have been on the receiving end.
At the end of the romance, Gawain comes home with Lady Bercilak’s girdle or belt as a reminder of his shame and as a reminder of his impurity. Arthur, however, changes the significance of the belt. He turns it into a sash and makes copies for each of his lords and ladies so that it instead becomes a symbol or emblem of courage and bravery. Arthur does not learn the lesson that Gawain has learned, and the King just laughs away Gawain’s own feelings and beliefs as to what the belt symbolizes.
In other words, King Arthur is still full of foolish pride at the end of the tale.
There is a very good reason, perhaps, why the Gawain poet depicts King Arthur so negatively. At the time the romance was written, King Edward III was King of England. Not everybody in England thought that Edward III was a good king. Many people living in northern England especially disliked him. King Edward III, though, was a fan of King Arthur. Edward III wanted to be like Arthur so much that he even constructed a huge Round Table for his knights (the Round Table was a concept that originated in the Arthurian tales) and created a special group known as The Knights of the Garter in 1348. These were special knights selected
specifically by Edward III to serve him and England. The Knights of the Garter would wear a garter (or small belt) as a symbol of their belonging to King Edward III’s special organization. That garter is not unlike the belt or sash that is described at the end of Sir Gawain.
The Gawain poet probably disliked King
Edward III enough that he would risk making fun of him indirectly by making fun of King Arthur in his romance since Edward III thought of himself as the new King Arthur. The poet may have been saying, then, that Edward III was an immature king who suffered from foolish pride.