While the problem of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’s ending - especially the true meaning of the court’s laughter - has fueled scholarly disputes, even more controversial are the changing critical visions of the initial Yuletide festivities at Camelot. These shifting perspectives usually zero in on a “childgered” (86) Arthur and his courtiers, representations of youthful exuberance or of spiritual blindness (arrogance). Despite such divergent viewpoints, the nature of Camelot must be examined by scholars and students of Sir Gawain “since the judgment of the court … is probably the chief factor in shaping one’s reading of the poem as a whole” (Wasserman, “Weavers” 111). In this investigation of Arthur and his court - basically a historical conspectus (1950s to the 1990s) of critical perspect- ives - we will offer a representative selection of essential articles and full-length scholarly books focusing on this subject. Following our overview of critical readings devoted to this crux in Sir Gawain, we will chart the course of possible future explorations of the Camelot fellowship.

I

During the 1950s and 1960s scholarly assessments of Arthur’s court were sharply divided, ranging from negative views - those underscoring Camelot’s surface values or corruption - to praise qualified by references to “childgered.” Charles Moorman, for example, is critical of Camelot’s knightly trappings, claiming that the Hautdesert court may be “closer to the courtly and chivalric ideal” (“Myth” 228, 225).

Hans Schnyder (“Aspects”), however, views Camelot as a severely flawed court and calls attention to its ruler’s pride and immaturity. Such qualities, Schnyder asserts, may endanger Gawain’s life and may trigger Arthur’s own fall on Fortune’s wheel. Departing radically from the arguments expressed by Moorman and Schnyder, D. S. Brewer (“Courtesy”) then claims that courtly life in Sir Gawain - both at Camelot and at Hautdesert - reflects the spirit and language (hende, cortays) of courtesy.

At least three 1960s critiques, those composed by John Fisher, J. A. Burrow, and John Eadie, offer muted praise of Arthur’s rule or identify Camelot with a moral battleground. While Fisher contends that childgered (“childish”) may hint at the nature of Arthur’s monarchy (“Aristocracy” 140, 150-2), Burrow argues that the king’s youthful demeanor cannot suggest “an outright denunciation of the king” (Reading 6). Still, Burrow notes, the Gawain-Poet’s admiration for Arthur is tempered somewhat by the inclusion of the word childgered in the depiction of Camelot’s ruler (Reading 7-8).