The Fluidity of Monstrous and Chivalrous identities in Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle and the Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle

Öz

This study examines the fluid interplay between chivalrous and monstrous identities in Arthurian romances, using a framework drawn from monster studies, theories of evil and harm, performance studies, and postcolonial studies. Monstrosity is understood as a constructed and composite category. It is not an ontological category someone is but an epistemological category an agent becomes through reiterations of the collection of tangible and intangible signifiers that validate the subject’s coming into being within a particular discursive system. In the Arthurian romances, the discursive normality is framed through the regulating codes of chivalry. Monsters are beings whose performance of transgressive acts inflict various forms of undeserved harm to chivalry, others, or society in general. The article explores this porosity in Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle (c. 1400) and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle (c. 1500). It argues that in these stories, knights and their adversaries exist in a fluid state, constantly shifting between chivalrous and monstrous identities based on their actions in confrontations. These encounters highlight how chivalric and monstrous identities are not fixed but are shaped through performative acts and cultural constructs, leading to conflict within these narratives. Thus, Arthurian knights risk embodying monstrosity when they engage in behaviors that deviate from, threaten, or harm the core values of the chivalric society they uphold.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Monster
• Monster Theory
• Fluidity
• Performance
• Borders

Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle ve the Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame RAgnelle’de Canavar ve Şövalye Kimliklerinin Geçirgenliği

Öz

Bu çalışma, Arthur romanslarında şövalye ve canavar kimlikleri arasındaki geçirgen ilişkiyi, canavar çalışmaları, kötülük ve hasar teorileri, performans çalışmaları ve postkolonyal çalışmalar gibi çeşitli akademik alanlardan yararlanan metodolojik bir çerçeve kullanarak incelemektedir. Canavarlık, inşa edilmiş ve bileşik bir kategori olarak anlaşılmaktadır. Böylece, canavarlık, birinin ontolojik olarak sahip olduğu bir kategori değil, bir failin belirli bir söylemsel sistem içinde varlığının doğrulanmasını sağlayan somut ve soyut göstergelerin tekrarı yoluyla olduğu bir epistemolojik kategoridir. Arthur romanslarında, normallik söylemi şövalyelik düzenini belirleyen kurallarla çerçevelenir. Canavarlar, şövalyeliğe, başkalarına veya genel olarak topluma çeşitli biçimlerde haksız zararlar veren, kurallara aykırı eylemler gerçekleştiren varlıklardır. Makale, bu geçirgenliği Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle (yak. 1400) ve The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle (yak. 1500) eserlerinde incelemektedir. Bu hikayelerde şövalyelerin ve düşmanlarının, karşılaşmaları sırasında davranışlarına göre sürekli olarak şövalye ve canavar kimlikler arasında geçiş yaptığı savunulmaktadır. Bu karşılaşmalar, şövalyelik ve canavar kimliklerin sabit olmadığını, edimsel ve kültürel yapılar aracılığıyla şekillenerek anlatılar içinde çatışmaya yol açtığını vurgulamaktadır. Böylece Arthur şövalyeleri, şövalyelik toplumunun köklü değerlerini tehdit eden veya zarar veren davranışlarda bulunduklarında canavar figürlerine dönüşme riski taşır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Canavar,
• Canavar Teorisi
• Geçirgenlik
• Edimsellik
• Sınırlar

Kaynakça

1. Bartlett, R. (2001). Medieval and modern concepts of race and ethnicity. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 31(1), 39-56. Project Muse.
2. Bartlett, R. (1994). The making of Europe: Conquest, colonization and cultural change 950-1350. London: Penguin.
3. Beamer, C. N. (2020). ‘She was recouered of that that she was defoylyd’: Recuperating Dame Ragnell’s lute. Arthuriana, 30(1), 26-53.
4. Bildhauer, B., & Mills, R. (2003). Blood, Jews, and monsters in medieval culture. In B. Bildhauer (Ed.), The monstrous Middle Ages (pp. 75-97). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
5. Birrell, J. R. (1980). The medieval English forest. Journal of Forest History, 24(2), 78-85. JSTOR.
6. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
7. Bornstein, D. (1983). The lady in the tower: Medieval courtesy literature for women. Hamden: Archon.
8. Brandsen, T. (1997). Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle. Neophilologus, 81, 299-307.

9. Brown, W. (2001). Unjust seizure: Conflict, interest, and authority in an early medieval society. London: Cornell University Press.
10. Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
11. Bynum, C. W. (2005). Metamorphosis and identity. New York: Zone.
12. Campbell, J. (2004). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13. Carroll, N. (2020). Fantastic biologies and the structures of horrific imagery. In J. A. Weinstock (Ed.), A monster theory reader (pp. 136-148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14. Carter, S. (2005). Trying Sir Gawain: The shape-shifting desire of Ragnelle and Bertilak. Reinardus: Yearbook of the International Reynard Society, 18(1), 29-51. JSTOR.
15. Cohen, J. J. (2006). Hybridity, identity, and monstrosity in medieval Britain: On difficult middles. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
16. Crane, S. (2012). The performance of self: Ritual, clothing, and identity during the Hundred Years War. University of Pennsylvania Press.
17. Derrida, J. (1984). Deconstruction and the other: An interview with Jacques Derrida. In R. Kearney (Ed.), Dialogues with contemporary continental thinkers: The phenomenological heritage (pp. 107-126). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
18. Donnelly, C. (1997). Aristocratic veneer and the substance of verbal bonds in The weddynge of Sir Gawen and Dame Ragnell and Gamelyn. Studies in Philology, 94(3), 321-343. JSTOR.
19. Donzel, E. J. van, & Schmidt, A. B. (Eds.). (2009). Gog and Magog in early Syriac and Islamic sources: Sallam’s quest for Alexander’s wall. Brill.
20. Eco, U. (2004). On beauty: A history of a Western idea (A. McEwen, Trans.). Secker & Warburg. Forste-Grupp, S. L. (2002). A woman circumvents the laws of primogeniture in The weddynge of Sir Gawen and Dame Ragnell. Studies in Philology, 99(2), 105-122. JSTOR.
21. Gilmore, D. D. (2012). Monsters evil beings, mythical beasts, and all manner of imaginary terrors. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
22. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of the self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
23. Griffin, C. J. (2010). More-than-human-histories and the failure of grand state schemes: Sylviculture in the New Forest, England. Cultural Geographies, 17(4), 451-472. JSTOR.
24. Hacking, I. (2004). Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: Between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction. Economy and Society, 33(3), 277–302.
25. Haybron, D. M. (2002). Moral monsters and saints. The Monist, 85(2), 260-284.
26. Ingham, P. C., & Warren, M. R. (2003). Introduction. In P. C. Ingham & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Postcolonial moves: Medieval through modern (pp. 1-19). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Jansen, J. E. (2019). Monsters in the Sir Gawain cycle: Reflections of tensions surrounding aristocratic identity in the fifteenth-century Anglo-Scottish borderlands (Master’s thesis). Leiden University.
28. Kearney, R. (2002). Strangers, gods, and monsters: Interpreting otherness. Routledge.
29. Keen, M. (1984). Chivalry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
30. Keen, M. (2003). Nobles, knights and men-at-arms in the Middle Ages. London: Bloomsbury.
31. Kekes, J. (1993). Facing evil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32. Kline, N. R. (2003). Maps, monsters and misericords: From creation to apocalypse. Profane Arts of the Middle Ages, 11, 175-192.
33. Kristeva, J., & Roudiez, L. S. (1984). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection. New York: Columbia University Press.
34. Leech, M. (2007). Why Dame Ragnell had to die: Feminine usurpation of masculine authority in The wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell. In S. E. Passmore & S. Carter (Eds.), The English “Loathly Lady tales”:
35. Boundaries, traditions and motifs (pp. 213-234). Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications.
36. Lindsay, S. (2015). The courteous monster: Chivalry, violence, and social control in The Carl of Carlisle. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 114(3), 401-418. JSTOR.
37. Livia, A., & Hall, K. (1997). Queerly phrased: Language, gender, and sexuality. Oxford University Press.
38. Llull, R. (2015). The book of the order of chivalry - Llibre de l’ordre de cavalleria - Libro de la orden de caballeria (A. Cortijo Ocaña, Ed. & Trans.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39. Macy, G. (2012). Theology of the Eucharist in the Middle Ages. In I. C. Levy (Ed.), A companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages (pp. 365-399). Leiden: Brill.
40. Olsen, K. E., & Houwen, L. A. J. R. (2001). Monsters and the monstrous in medieval northwest Europe. Leuven: Peeters.
41. Pekşen Yakar, A. (2019). Into a wyld forest”: The forest as an ideological space in middle English metrical Arthurian romances. (dissertation).
42. Pollack, S. (2009). Border states: Parody, sovereignty, and hybrid identity in The Carl of Carlisle. Arthuriana, 19(2), 10-26. JSTOR.
43. Radulescu, R. (2019). Extreme emotions: Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle and the danger from within. Arthuriana, 29(4), 57-73. JSTOR.
44. Ramsey, L. C. (1983). Chivalric romances: Popular literature in medieval England. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
45. Robson, M. (2006). Local hero: Gawain and the politics of Arthurianism. In K. Busby & R. Dalrymple (Eds.), Arthurian literature (Vol. 23, pp. 81-94). Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
46. Sandidge, M. L. (2012). Hunting or gardening: Parks and royal rural space. In A. Classen (Ed.), Rural space in the Middle Ages and early modern age: The spatial turn in premodern studies (pp. 389-406). Berlin: De Gruyter.
47. Sir Gawain and the Carle of Carlisle. (1995). In T. Hahn (Ed.), Sir Gawain: Eleven romances and tales (pp. 81-113). Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications.
48. Soller, C. D. (2010). Beauty, evolution, and medieval literature. Philosophy and Literature, 34(1), 95-111.
49. Strickland, D. H. (2003). Saracens, demons and Jews: Making monsters in medieval art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
50. Taylor, J. (2017). Arthurian biopolitics: Sovereignty and ecology in Sir Gawain and the Carl of Carlisle. Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 59(2), 182-208. JSTOR.
51. Uebel, M. (2005). Ecstatic transformation: On the uses of alterity in the Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
52. Uebel, M. (1996). Unthinking the monster: Twelfth-century responses to Saracen alterity. In J. J. Cohen (Ed.), Monster theory: Reading culture (pp. 264-292). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
53. Weisl, A. (1995). The persistence of medievalism: Narrative adventures in contemporary culture. New York: Routledge.
54. Williams, D. (1996). Deformed discourse: The function of the monster in Medieval thought and literature. University of Exeter Press.
55. Williams, D. (2019). The courtly life of monsters: The ‘chivalric’ rituals and reputations of human and nonhuman beings in The wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell and The Carl of Carlisle. Studies in Philology, 116(4), 569-596. JSTOR.
56. Williams, M. H. (2003). Icons of Irishness from the middle ages to the modern world. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
57. Wright, G. (2001). Churl’s courtesy: Rauf Coilȝear and its English analogues. Neophilologus, 85(4), 647– 662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-001-0146-6
58. Wolfthal, D. (1999). Images of rape: The “heroic” tradition and its alternatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.