The Rash Boon in Medieval Literature
Medieval literature abounds in promises. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Green Knight, after picking up his own decapitated head, reminds Sir Gawain, “forget not to go as agreed, / and cease not to seek till me, sir, you find, / As you promised in the presence of these proud knights” (Borroff 25).1 Carol Pulham examines Chaucer’s Franklin’s Tale, specifically Dorigen’s promise to Aurelius to be his lover provided he makes the rocks in the ocean disappear, and the subsequent dilemma that Dorigen finds herself when Aurelious, it seems, has made them disappear (Pulham 77). Although Pulham never uses the term, other scholars have termed Dorigen’s promise and others like it a “rash promise”. Alan Gaylord, for example, refers to it as “her rash promise” (Gaylord 348). Then there is the rash boon, which is that kind of promise that does not offer anything specific, but rather leaves it up to the person being promised. Quite early on in Chrétien’s Lancelot, or The Knight of the Cart, we encounter what Kibler refers to as “the most famous example of a rash boon in Chrétien’s romances” (Chrétien 512).2 It is here that the seneschal Kay promises the queen that he will remain at court only if the king and queen will “grant in advance what he was about to request” (Chrétien 209). The queen is delighted at this and she brings Kay before the king where she happily announces that she has persuaded Kay to stay, but further declares that he will stay provided “that you will do whatever he is about to ask” (Chrétien 209). The king is delighted at this development and quickly promises “to grant Kay’s request, no matter what he might demand” (Chrétien 209). We can compare this rash boon with a similar rash boon offered by the king a bit earlier in the story, namely King Arthur’s statement to Kay that “there’s nothing I have in all this world that I’d not give you at once to keep you here” (Chrétien 208). This boon is not all-encompassing as is the later one, for King Arthur is limiting it to only his material wealth. And, in fact, Kay makes clear that no amount of material wealth will keep him. His reply to the king is that, “For each day’s stay I wouldn’t take a measure of purest gold” (Chrétien 208). It seems that King Arthur is offering any measure of wealth to Kay. Chrétien perhaps wanted to impress upon the reader that Kay’s motives were not materialistic. Perhaps Kay is desirous of more than simply being a seneschal, which consists of duties such as arranging court affairs and planning tasks for the servants; perhaps he also wants to prove himself a brave and worthy knight. There is evidence of this in the beginning of the story when the unknown knight offers his challenge to the king. It is here that Kay overhears the challenge: “Many there in the palace heard this, and all the court was in turmoil. Kay, who was eating with the servants, also heard this challenge” (Chrétien 208). It is that well-placed phrase “who was eating with the servants” that is strategically tucked in for effect and seems to offer proof of Kay’s dissatisfaction with his current station and foreshadows his desire and intent to engage in an activity that will earn him fame and glory.
The second, even rasher rash boon, if you will, now serves to highlight the inadequacy of the first rash boon, which is limited only to wealth or material goods. There is also a certain period of time that elapses between the first rash boon and the second, and this is significant also. Why doesn’t Kay, immediately after his rejection of King Arthur’s first rash boon and his statement that no amount of gold could keep him, simply say what he eventually says anyway, which is that he wants to bring the queen into the forest and defeat the knight? To answer this question, we must look at the events in between the first rash boon and the second. It is here that the king and queen attempt, in a quite melodramatic fashion, to find out how they can keep Kay. The king acts as if Kay’s leaving would bring him unending misery. King Arthur implores the queen to “beg him” […] “pray him”, […] “fall at his feet if necessary, for I would never again be happy if I were to lose his company” (Chrétien 208). And the queen, in fact, does all this, including falling at Kay’s feet. Condren argues that the king’s behavior in the opening passages, specifically the king’s reaction to Kay’s trickery and the king’s weak response to the knight Meleagant, indicates and brings to the reader’s attention the ineffectual leadership of the king (Condren 446). I would certainly agree with Condren, and would quickly add that it makes the king and queen look rather foolish and thereby injects a good measure of comedy into the whole affair. Thus, by not having Kay immediately come out and state his request to the king, the reader is better informed of various traits of each of the characters as well as entertained.
It is this idea of comedy, or entertainment, that also seems to apply specifically to the rash boon, for it seems a rather ridiculous offering that surely can’t be taken seriously. In short, is it not simply a figure of speech? Isn’t the rash boon, generally speaking, meant to convey deep desire and earnestness, and not meant to be taken literally? If you had two tickets to the World Series, for example, and I told you that I would do anything if only you would take me, you would no doubt be clued in to my level of desire. You would not, however, actually think that you could request anything of me. Rather, you would take my “rash boon” only as a starting point for negotiations: “Anything?” you might say. And then you would no doubt test the level of my desire by offering possible scenarios: “Would you give me your car?” In turn, I would have a chance for counter offers. “Give you my car! No way. But you can use it one month out of the year for as long as I own it.” Such a conversation is noticeably absent, however, in the rash boon of medieval literature. Thus, it seems that King Arthur knows that there will be no testing of the waters in regard to his boon… that, in fact, he will have to fulfill, without question, whatever it is Kay asks of him. The rash boon in this case then seems to serve the purpose of informing the reader that King Arthur is ineffectual and rather somewhat of a moron besides.
But it is not always the case that the rash boon is used to make someone look foolish and ineffectual. In The Wife of Bath, for example, we have the rapist knight agreeing to do anything the old woman asks of him if she will tell him what it is that women desire. Not much is known about the knight and we are given but few details. We know, for example, that he is a “lusty bacheler”, that he hails from King Arthur’s court, and that he is brought before the queen for having raped a maiden (Norton 273).3 Admittedly, the circumstances surrounding the rash boon in this story are markedly different than the circumstances surrounding the rash boon in The Knight of the Cart, but nonetheless, the boon in The Wife of Bath does not make the knight look foolish or ineffectual. The knight in The Wife of Bath is in danger of losing his life if he cannot come before the queen with a satisfactory answer to her question. When the old lady tells the knight to “’Plight me thy trouthe here in myn hand … / The nexte thing that I requere thee, / Thou shalt it do, if it lie in thy might…’”, the knight, with nothing to lose, quickly agrees to the terms offered by the old lady (Norton 276). It is difficult, given the circumstances, not to argue that the knight, in fact, had no choice or, indeed, made a wise choice by offering the boon to the old lady. Because of this, can we say that the boon offered by the knight was not rash at all? It is difficult to say. At first glance it appears that, compared to King Arthur’s boon and given the circumstances, it was not rash at all but quite prudent. We must keep in mind, however, that the knight agreed to the boon readily. Like King Arthur, he did not engage in any kind of bartering to narrow the focus of the boon. We can ask why the knight did not become his own advocate. Why not reply with a counter offer? Why not come out and ask what it is that the old lady wants in an effort to secure his advantage or strengthen his position? In this case, the knight may have counter offered with a suggestion that was more palatable. We might ask what would have happened if the old lady simply came out and told him that she would tell him the answer if only he would marry her. If the knight in this case counter offers but the old lady refuses to back down, then perhaps nothing changes, for the knight may realize that in order to save his life he must do it. Supposing this latter situation to be the case, then how is the story affected? In terms of plot, nothing really changes — the knight appears before the queen, his life is spared, he marries the old lady, and he commences to complain about it, although we might argue that he begins to complain a little earlier! Nonetheless, the point is that the sequence of events in the story is left largely unaffected and Chaucer’s story still maintains its most important arrangement, which is the fact that the knight marries the old lady. Perhaps the greatest change, however, is the element of suspense. In our revised version, suspense is completely eliminated whereas in the original version suspense is obviously created at the point the rash boon is made and ended at the point where the queen grants his life and the old lady demands he keep his pledge. The suspense, of course, arises from the fact that we do not know what the old lady is going to demand of the knight until that very moment when the queen spares his life.
What all this questioning amounts to is really testimony to the rather incongruous nature of the rash boon. In other words, the rash boon is so contrary to the rational faculty of human nature, so ludicrous, that its appearance always makes us question why it is there. Rather than pointing to any legitimate personality trait of the person offering the boon, its appearance instead forces us to dismiss the actual person as being central to the story and look outside the person to the area of symbol or allegory. When we are confronted with the rash boon, we are not invited to look at why this particular person would make such an outlandish offer, but rather invited to look at what greater truth the story is trying to convey. It is not that the only way to convey these greater truths is through the rash boon, but certainly the rash boon, when encountered, sends up a red flag telling the reader that the story, in fact, is operating on a level beyond the merely psychologically clinical or physical. In the case of the knight in The Wife of Bath, for example, it is easy to see that the old lady mirrors in many ways the Wife of Bath herself. The relationship between the old lady and the knight becomes a representation of the values that the Wife of Bath believes are important in a relationship, values that she expressed in her prologue. Applying this to The Knight of the Cart, we might say that the rash boon suggested by Kay and agreed to by King Arthur forces us to look at this part of the story, at least, as a representation; in this case, we might say that the exchange between King Arthur and Kay represents Chrétien’s belief that aspiring to the chivalric code is an impossible, and often suicidal, task. And in the case of King Arthur’s melodramatic behavior, we could argue that this is Chrétien having a little laugh by poking fun at what he sees as the overinflated status of knights in general in medieval society.
Bearing in mind the allegorical mode that the rash boon signals or helps to confirm, it is also interesting to note the influence of the fairy tale in the two stories discussed so far. In The Wife of Bath, for example, the tale opens with an account of fairies that inhabited the land many years ago:
In th’ olde dayes of the King Arthour,
Of which that Britouns speken greet honour,
Al was this land fulfild of faïrye:
The elf-queene with hir joly compaignye
Daunced ful ofte in many a greene mede — (Norton 272)
It may seem rather odd that the Wife of Bath opens her story with these lines until we realize that her story may, loosely speaking, be regarded as a fairy tale. Likewise, The Knight of the Cart may loosely be classified as a fairy tale. Not only do we have the rash boon, for example, but we have rather fanciful elements such as “The Underwater Bridge” and “The Sword Bridge” (Chrétien 215).
Borroff, in her introduction to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, also comments on the influence of folklore: “The main story elements of which the plot of Gawain is composed derive ultimately from folklore, but the poet himself probably encountered them in French or Latin literary versions … ” (Borroff 4). We may note that her comments not only speak to the influence of the folklore on medieval literature, but also to its venerable age. Gaylord also comments on the roots of the rash boon itself and also of its relevance to the characters involved: “The foolish-boon-granted is a familiar motif in romance and folk literature, to be sure, yet we must notice that the behavior of the boon grantor is rarely held up as exemplary…” (Gaylord 358). It is no surprise then, given its folktale ancestry, that Gawain contains fanciful elements including the rash boon, which we encounter at the end of scene II.
“And Gawain,” said the good host, “agree now to this:
Whatever I win in the woods I will give you at eve,
And all you have earned you must offer to me;
Sweat now, sweet friend, to swap as I say,
Whether hands, in the end, be empty or better.”
“By God,” said Sir Gawain, “I grant it forthwith! … ” (Borroff 41)
This rash boon differs slightly than the first two we have covered in several respects. First, it is a mutual rash boon, for each man must offer up whatever unknown gift or gifts he will obtain during the day. True, one might argue, that since the lord is hunting each day, he is most likely to obtain a gift of meat, but given the folkloric influence, it is not unreasonable to expect a different sort of gift awaiting him in the woods.(After all, this is a story that opens with an unknown knight picking up his own head and then speaking.) The second difference is that the rash boon does not center around an open-ended request; unlike the previous two examples, Gawain is not promising the lord to do anything he wants, but rather to give to him whatever he earned at the end of each day, but because Kay does not know what he will earn, I consider this a rash boon. It is problematic to say, however, that it is a rash boon on both sides, for complicating the matter is the fact that Gawain is being set up by the lord and the lady, and so we may be correct in assuming that the rash boon does not apply to the lord since he is clearly orchestrating a deception toward Gawain. The third difference is the fact that Gawain does not follow through on his rash boon — for rather than giving up the sash to the lord, he hides it from him. Thus, the rash boon is utilized differently in this story than it is in the other two. In The Wife of Bath, for example, we know that the knight must marry the old lady due to the rash boon. Likewise, in The Knight of the Cart, we know that the King must allow Kay to accompany the queen into the forest due to his rash boon. In Gawain, however, we have a complication. Central to the story is Gawain’s acceptance of the sash, but this acceptance places him in an untenable position. We do not have an untenable position in the other two stories. Due to the lady’s request in Gawain, an untenable position is set up. The lady, after giving Gawain the sash, “besought him for her sake to conceal it well, / Lest the noble lord should know…” (Borroff 59). Unlike the other two rash boons we have covered, therefore, Gawain’s acceptance of the sash forces him to decide between honoring the lady’s request and honoring his rash boon to the lord. So, the rash boon in Gawain is not utilized to conveniently move the story along to its next chapter, but rather to stall the story and highlight the shortcomings of Gawain, who is loathe to lose possession of the sash that will save his neck; therefore, he is willing to place himself in a position that he knows will result in his concealing of the sash from the lord, which is an obvious breach of his rash boon.
In either case, whether the rash boon is implemented to move the story along or stall it in order to draw attention to something, can we say that there is any basis in everyday medieval reality for the rash boon? Did people actually offer a rash boon with an intention of honoring whatever request might result from it? Could failure to honor a rash boon in the medieval period be the basis for legal action? I would argue no, that this is obviously absurd(in any time period), and that the rash boon is first and foremost a literary device. I take my lead from Gaylord who argues in a similar vein in regard to The Franklin’s Tale, where he makes his point quite humorously: “It was intriguing inquiring what basis for an action Aurelius might have had and what remedy he might discover if he sued Dorigen for breach of contract (i.e., failure to commit adultery) in civil or ecclesiastical courts, but I have since concluded that such research provides more recreation than relevance” (Gaylord 357).
We find the rash boon not only in the medieval period but in prior periods as well. It has already been noted, for example, that the rash boon is very likely a literary device borrowed from folk literature. In the medieval period, moreover, it is imbued with the courtly behavior of knights. Speaking of the “ladies’ clause” in medieval chivalry, Ackerman states that “Malory scholars often take it to include adherence to the so-called “rash boon” tradition, where a lady asks for a ‘gift,’ and a knight is expected to grant her request before even knowing what her gift will turn out to be” (Ackerman 7). Thus, the rash boon has been co-opted by medieval writers as a device to be used in the service of chivalry and courtly romance.
Looking back even further into the literature, we have the story of the beheading of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew. Herod, obviously enraptured by the dance of Herodias’ daughter, offers a rash boon to her. He swears “to give her whatever she might ask for.” And it is here that she asks for the head of John the Baptist on a platter, and “The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and the guests who were present, he ordered that it be given…” (NAB Mat 14:3-12). Herod does not question his obligation; he is bound to follow through on his rash boon not only because he made it, but because of “guests who were present.” Thus, there is this sense that the guests are witnesses to his promise and, like King Arthur who must follow the chivalric code, he must keep to his word.
Note
1 Marie Borroff, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Patience, Pearl: Verse Translations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001). All parenthetical references are to page number of this edition.
2 Chrétien deTroyes, “The Knight of the Cart” in Arthurian Romances, Trans. William W. Kibler (New York: Penguin, 2004). All parenthetical references are to page number of this edition.
3 Geoffrey Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” in The Norton Anthology of English Literature (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000). All parenthetical references are to page number of this edition.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Felicia. “Always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succor”: Women and the
Chivalric Code in Malory’s Morte Darthur, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 26. (2002),
1-12.
Borroff, Marie. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Patience, Pearl: Verse Translations. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Chrétien deTroyes. Arthurian Romances, Trans. Editor William W. Kibler.
New York: Penguin, 2004.
Condren, Edward I. The Paradox of Chrétien's Lancelot, MLN, Vol. 85, No. 4, French
Issue. (May, 1970), 434-453.
Gaylord, Alan T. The Promises in The Franklin’s Tale, ELH, Vol. 31, N0. 4. (Dec, 1964),
331-365.
NAB(New American Bible): St. Joseph Edition. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Corp.
Norton Anthology of English Literature, Ed. M. H. Abrams. 7th ed., Vol I.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2000.
Pulham, Carol A. “Promises, promises: Dorigen’s dilemma revisited.” Chaucer Review 31.1
(1996): 76 Academic Search Premier. 28 April 2007.
The second, even rasher rash boon, if you will, now serves to highlight the inadequacy of the first rash boon, which is limited only to wealth or material goods. There is also a certain period of time that elapses between the first rash boon and the second, and this is significant also. Why doesn’t Kay, immediately after his rejection of King Arthur’s first rash boon and his statement that no amount of gold could keep him, simply say what he eventually says anyway, which is that he wants to bring the queen into the forest and defeat the knight? To answer this question, we must look at the events in between the first rash boon and the second. It is here that the king and queen attempt, in a quite melodramatic fashion, to find out how they can keep Kay. The king acts as if Kay’s leaving would bring him unending misery. King Arthur implores the queen to “beg him” […] “pray him”, […] “fall at his feet if necessary, for I would never again be happy if I were to lose his company” (Chrétien 208). And the queen, in fact, does all this, including falling at Kay’s feet. Condren argues that the king’s behavior in the opening passages, specifically the king’s reaction to Kay’s trickery and the king’s weak response to the knight Meleagant, indicates and brings to the reader’s attention the ineffectual leadership of the king (Condren 446). I would certainly agree with Condren, and would quickly add that it makes the king and queen look rather foolish and thereby injects a good measure of comedy into the whole affair. Thus, by not having Kay immediately come out and state his request to the king, the reader is better informed of various traits of each of the characters as well as entertained.
It is this idea of comedy, or entertainment, that also seems to apply specifically to the rash boon, for it seems a rather ridiculous offering that surely can’t be taken seriously. In short, is it not simply a figure of speech? Isn’t the rash boon, generally speaking, meant to convey deep desire and earnestness, and not meant to be taken literally? If you had two tickets to the World Series, for example, and I told you that I would do anything if only you would take me, you would no doubt be clued in to my level of desire. You would not, however, actually think that you could request anything of me. Rather, you would take my “rash boon” only as a starting point for negotiations: “Anything?” you might say. And then you would no doubt test the level of my desire by offering possible scenarios: “Would you give me your car?” In turn, I would have a chance for counter offers. “Give you my car! No way. But you can use it one month out of the year for as long as I own it.” Such a conversation is noticeably absent, however, in the rash boon of medieval literature. Thus, it seems that King Arthur knows that there will be no testing of the waters in regard to his boon… that, in fact, he will have to fulfill, without question, whatever it is Kay asks of him. The rash boon in this case then seems to serve the purpose of informing the reader that King Arthur is ineffectual and rather somewhat of a moron besides.
But it is not always the case that the rash boon is used to make someone look foolish and ineffectual. In The Wife of Bath, for example, we have the rapist knight agreeing to do anything the old woman asks of him if she will tell him what it is that women desire. Not much is known about the knight and we are given but few details. We know, for example, that he is a “lusty bacheler”, that he hails from King Arthur’s court, and that he is brought before the queen for having raped a maiden (Norton 273).3 Admittedly, the circumstances surrounding the rash boon in this story are markedly different than the circumstances surrounding the rash boon in The Knight of the Cart, but nonetheless, the boon in The Wife of Bath does not make the knight look foolish or ineffectual. The knight in The Wife of Bath is in danger of losing his life if he cannot come before the queen with a satisfactory answer to her question. When the old lady tells the knight to “’Plight me thy trouthe here in myn hand … / The nexte thing that I requere thee, / Thou shalt it do, if it lie in thy might…’”, the knight, with nothing to lose, quickly agrees to the terms offered by the old lady (Norton 276). It is difficult, given the circumstances, not to argue that the knight, in fact, had no choice or, indeed, made a wise choice by offering the boon to the old lady. Because of this, can we say that the boon offered by the knight was not rash at all? It is difficult to say. At first glance it appears that, compared to King Arthur’s boon and given the circumstances, it was not rash at all but quite prudent. We must keep in mind, however, that the knight agreed to the boon readily. Like King Arthur, he did not engage in any kind of bartering to narrow the focus of the boon. We can ask why the knight did not become his own advocate. Why not reply with a counter offer? Why not come out and ask what it is that the old lady wants in an effort to secure his advantage or strengthen his position? In this case, the knight may have counter offered with a suggestion that was more palatable. We might ask what would have happened if the old lady simply came out and told him that she would tell him the answer if only he would marry her. If the knight in this case counter offers but the old lady refuses to back down, then perhaps nothing changes, for the knight may realize that in order to save his life he must do it. Supposing this latter situation to be the case, then how is the story affected? In terms of plot, nothing really changes — the knight appears before the queen, his life is spared, he marries the old lady, and he commences to complain about it, although we might argue that he begins to complain a little earlier! Nonetheless, the point is that the sequence of events in the story is left largely unaffected and Chaucer’s story still maintains its most important arrangement, which is the fact that the knight marries the old lady. Perhaps the greatest change, however, is the element of suspense. In our revised version, suspense is completely eliminated whereas in the original version suspense is obviously created at the point the rash boon is made and ended at the point where the queen grants his life and the old lady demands he keep his pledge. The suspense, of course, arises from the fact that we do not know what the old lady is going to demand of the knight until that very moment when the queen spares his life.
What all this questioning amounts to is really testimony to the rather incongruous nature of the rash boon. In other words, the rash boon is so contrary to the rational faculty of human nature, so ludicrous, that its appearance always makes us question why it is there. Rather than pointing to any legitimate personality trait of the person offering the boon, its appearance instead forces us to dismiss the actual person as being central to the story and look outside the person to the area of symbol or allegory. When we are confronted with the rash boon, we are not invited to look at why this particular person would make such an outlandish offer, but rather invited to look at what greater truth the story is trying to convey. It is not that the only way to convey these greater truths is through the rash boon, but certainly the rash boon, when encountered, sends up a red flag telling the reader that the story, in fact, is operating on a level beyond the merely psychologically clinical or physical. In the case of the knight in The Wife of Bath, for example, it is easy to see that the old lady mirrors in many ways the Wife of Bath herself. The relationship between the old lady and the knight becomes a representation of the values that the Wife of Bath believes are important in a relationship, values that she expressed in her prologue. Applying this to The Knight of the Cart, we might say that the rash boon suggested by Kay and agreed to by King Arthur forces us to look at this part of the story, at least, as a representation; in this case, we might say that the exchange between King Arthur and Kay represents Chrétien’s belief that aspiring to the chivalric code is an impossible, and often suicidal, task. And in the case of King Arthur’s melodramatic behavior, we could argue that this is Chrétien having a little laugh by poking fun at what he sees as the overinflated status of knights in general in medieval society.
Bearing in mind the allegorical mode that the rash boon signals or helps to confirm, it is also interesting to note the influence of the fairy tale in the two stories discussed so far. In The Wife of Bath, for example, the tale opens with an account of fairies that inhabited the land many years ago:
In th’ olde dayes of the King Arthour,
Of which that Britouns speken greet honour,
Al was this land fulfild of faïrye:
The elf-queene with hir joly compaignye
Daunced ful ofte in many a greene mede — (Norton 272)
It may seem rather odd that the Wife of Bath opens her story with these lines until we realize that her story may, loosely speaking, be regarded as a fairy tale. Likewise, The Knight of the Cart may loosely be classified as a fairy tale. Not only do we have the rash boon, for example, but we have rather fanciful elements such as “The Underwater Bridge” and “The Sword Bridge” (Chrétien 215).
Borroff, in her introduction to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, also comments on the influence of folklore: “The main story elements of which the plot of Gawain is composed derive ultimately from folklore, but the poet himself probably encountered them in French or Latin literary versions … ” (Borroff 4). We may note that her comments not only speak to the influence of the folklore on medieval literature, but also to its venerable age. Gaylord also comments on the roots of the rash boon itself and also of its relevance to the characters involved: “The foolish-boon-granted is a familiar motif in romance and folk literature, to be sure, yet we must notice that the behavior of the boon grantor is rarely held up as exemplary…” (Gaylord 358). It is no surprise then, given its folktale ancestry, that Gawain contains fanciful elements including the rash boon, which we encounter at the end of scene II.
“And Gawain,” said the good host, “agree now to this:
Whatever I win in the woods I will give you at eve,
And all you have earned you must offer to me;
Sweat now, sweet friend, to swap as I say,
Whether hands, in the end, be empty or better.”
“By God,” said Sir Gawain, “I grant it forthwith! … ” (Borroff 41)
This rash boon differs slightly than the first two we have covered in several respects. First, it is a mutual rash boon, for each man must offer up whatever unknown gift or gifts he will obtain during the day. True, one might argue, that since the lord is hunting each day, he is most likely to obtain a gift of meat, but given the folkloric influence, it is not unreasonable to expect a different sort of gift awaiting him in the woods.(After all, this is a story that opens with an unknown knight picking up his own head and then speaking.) The second difference is that the rash boon does not center around an open-ended request; unlike the previous two examples, Gawain is not promising the lord to do anything he wants, but rather to give to him whatever he earned at the end of each day, but because Kay does not know what he will earn, I consider this a rash boon. It is problematic to say, however, that it is a rash boon on both sides, for complicating the matter is the fact that Gawain is being set up by the lord and the lady, and so we may be correct in assuming that the rash boon does not apply to the lord since he is clearly orchestrating a deception toward Gawain. The third difference is the fact that Gawain does not follow through on his rash boon — for rather than giving up the sash to the lord, he hides it from him. Thus, the rash boon is utilized differently in this story than it is in the other two. In The Wife of Bath, for example, we know that the knight must marry the old lady due to the rash boon. Likewise, in The Knight of the Cart, we know that the King must allow Kay to accompany the queen into the forest due to his rash boon. In Gawain, however, we have a complication. Central to the story is Gawain’s acceptance of the sash, but this acceptance places him in an untenable position. We do not have an untenable position in the other two stories. Due to the lady’s request in Gawain, an untenable position is set up. The lady, after giving Gawain the sash, “besought him for her sake to conceal it well, / Lest the noble lord should know…” (Borroff 59). Unlike the other two rash boons we have covered, therefore, Gawain’s acceptance of the sash forces him to decide between honoring the lady’s request and honoring his rash boon to the lord. So, the rash boon in Gawain is not utilized to conveniently move the story along to its next chapter, but rather to stall the story and highlight the shortcomings of Gawain, who is loathe to lose possession of the sash that will save his neck; therefore, he is willing to place himself in a position that he knows will result in his concealing of the sash from the lord, which is an obvious breach of his rash boon.
In either case, whether the rash boon is implemented to move the story along or stall it in order to draw attention to something, can we say that there is any basis in everyday medieval reality for the rash boon? Did people actually offer a rash boon with an intention of honoring whatever request might result from it? Could failure to honor a rash boon in the medieval period be the basis for legal action? I would argue no, that this is obviously absurd(in any time period), and that the rash boon is first and foremost a literary device. I take my lead from Gaylord who argues in a similar vein in regard to The Franklin’s Tale, where he makes his point quite humorously: “It was intriguing inquiring what basis for an action Aurelius might have had and what remedy he might discover if he sued Dorigen for breach of contract (i.e., failure to commit adultery) in civil or ecclesiastical courts, but I have since concluded that such research provides more recreation than relevance” (Gaylord 357).
We find the rash boon not only in the medieval period but in prior periods as well. It has already been noted, for example, that the rash boon is very likely a literary device borrowed from folk literature. In the medieval period, moreover, it is imbued with the courtly behavior of knights. Speaking of the “ladies’ clause” in medieval chivalry, Ackerman states that “Malory scholars often take it to include adherence to the so-called “rash boon” tradition, where a lady asks for a ‘gift,’ and a knight is expected to grant her request before even knowing what her gift will turn out to be” (Ackerman 7). Thus, the rash boon has been co-opted by medieval writers as a device to be used in the service of chivalry and courtly romance.
Looking back even further into the literature, we have the story of the beheading of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew. Herod, obviously enraptured by the dance of Herodias’ daughter, offers a rash boon to her. He swears “to give her whatever she might ask for.” And it is here that she asks for the head of John the Baptist on a platter, and “The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and the guests who were present, he ordered that it be given…” (NAB Mat 14:3-12). Herod does not question his obligation; he is bound to follow through on his rash boon not only because he made it, but because of “guests who were present.” Thus, there is this sense that the guests are witnesses to his promise and, like King Arthur who must follow the chivalric code, he must keep to his word.
Note
1 Marie Borroff, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Patience, Pearl: Verse Translations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001). All parenthetical references are to page number of this edition.
2 Chrétien deTroyes, “The Knight of the Cart” in Arthurian Romances, Trans. William W. Kibler (New York: Penguin, 2004). All parenthetical references are to page number of this edition.
3 Geoffrey Chaucer, “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale” in The Norton Anthology of English Literature (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000). All parenthetical references are to page number of this edition.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Felicia. “Always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succor”: Women and the
Chivalric Code in Malory’s Morte Darthur, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 26. (2002),
1-12.
Borroff, Marie. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Patience, Pearl: Verse Translations. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
Chrétien deTroyes. Arthurian Romances, Trans. Editor William W. Kibler.
New York: Penguin, 2004.
Condren, Edward I. The Paradox of Chrétien's Lancelot, MLN, Vol. 85, No. 4, French
Issue. (May, 1970), 434-453.
Gaylord, Alan T. The Promises in The Franklin’s Tale, ELH, Vol. 31, N0. 4. (Dec, 1964),
331-365.
NAB(New American Bible): St. Joseph Edition. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Corp.
Norton Anthology of English Literature, Ed. M. H. Abrams. 7th ed., Vol I.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2000.
Pulham, Carol A. “Promises, promises: Dorigen’s dilemma revisited.” Chaucer Review 31.1
(1996): 76 Academic Search Premier. 28 April 2007.