Whilereading the scholarly paper titled, “Moral theology in Sir Gawain and the GreenKnight: the pentangle, the Green”. I was pleased to see the views of otherstudents and what their opinions were while completing the readings while writingabout this topic. In this paper assorted topics are discussed as it relates tohow this poem was produced and perceived. The article is intended to discussMoral theology in Sir Gawain. One statement that was discussed and caught myeye while reading and researching was, “Moral virtue may be considered eitheras perfect or as imperfect”. In this statement the writer was discussing how perfectmoral virtue is.
Explaining that Sir Gawain’s The Green Knight displays andshows that a habit that inclines us to do a good deed well; and if we takemoral virtues in this way, we must say that they are connected, as nearly asall are agreed in saying. It is possible but however, it relates the twosymbols and to determine the allegorical significance. These quotations fromthe Gawain’s Green Knight quoted in the throughout the review paragraph givesthe writer enough room to express to the reader and reviewer how it is told ina more modern perspective. Reviewing this in a scholarly statement I must agreewith the writer. Moral virtue is either perfect or imperfect. Reading the GreenKnight, it shows that no moral virtue can be without prudence; since it isproper to moral virtue to make a right choice, for it is an elective habit. So,the writer is giving detail from the Green Knight and placing it in perspectiveand displaying the difference between the two in his opinion as it relates tothe passages in this Middle English, medieval epic written by Sir Gawain.
The GreenKnight by a consideration of the notion of “perfection” from thestandpoint of medieval moral theology, that both symbols serve to defineperfection in terms of the virtues, the one as to their connection, and theother as to the perfect act of virtue.’ The notion of the connection of thevirtues had a long medieval tradition. Robert Blanch and Julian Wasserman, whilereading and reviewing decades of criticism on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. wrotean authorized vision of Camelot, and analyzed with the general trend being moreeasier readings of the court.
My second literary review was a paper written bythe two, “Tokens of Sin”, and as I read I saw that this paper was about thepropensity of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to be read in many ways, owing ingreat part to the question of the motivation of the court’s laughter, hashelped to make it “one of the most discussed of medieval texts,” as observed.On the other hand, less experienced, first time, and more indulgent readers whoread or have not read Green Knight will hear Camelot’s laughter as a thoughtfuland proper response to Gawain’s experience of sin and penance, the members ofthe court adopting his girdle as their own so as, at once, to remind him thateven saints sin and to remind themselves that they should seek to be asrigorously introspective as this model knight. This reading considers the poemto be a divine comedy, wherein the hero’s temporary debasement results in hisand his society’s greater good. Camelot turns Sir Gawain’s token of dishonestyinto a badge of honor, a transformation that very closely resembled Cameloturges upon the self-condemning Gawain, who needs to learn to see his scar notas a sign of failure but as a sign of struggle and survival and who needs tolearn to see his wound as God sees it. The writer explains that reading the endof Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is in comparison with the contemporary,optimistic theology expressed by Julian will help to uncover the romance alsoto be open minded, that the poem is revealing on an open minded note while associatingthe founding of Britain with some primal treachery leaning towards Troy. Thelast Sir Gawain literary review is on a scholarly paper that I read titled, “ChivalricFailure in The Jeaste of Sir Gawain”, spoke about how the ending had adisappointing end to the story.
The version that was spoke about in this paperthat I and going to speak about in this literary review is stated that with itsinconclusive and narratively unsatisfying ending Sir Gawain differs sharplyfrom the French source for the romance, in which Gawain successfully reconcileswith the seduced woman’s brother and then both marries the seduced woman andbrings her brother into Arthur’s court. This allows the jeaste to comment a formof chivalry that depends on masculine prowess to make changes and maintain variousrelationships as far as the characters relate. The points of failure in thisstory of chivalric prowess in the Jeaste raises concerns and questions of reconstructionsof male and female gender roles, discussing and if the way chivalry isrepresented it insists on the division of the two and jeopardizes or comes inbetween the way of established social ties or preventing the characters and thesituation from accessing various situations. The story in the Jeaste is easily uncoveredas one of the countless variations about the exchange of women. For example,Gawain encounters a woman alone in the woods and lures her in and eventuallyattempts to restore with her male king’s men who view the loss of their king’swoman’s virginity as a loss of their honor. Coming to an agreement about theexchange of the woman, and her virginity, enables the romance to come togetherand this is where the gender roles change as it relates to the woman andprimarily involve being the center of the male relationships that are createdaround her. This is only justified when the romances and gender roles areexchanged, and there is no movement within the woman, and she does not movebetween the men, create social bonds among the men, or the men are unable tosettle upon a value for her virginity that leads to related social ties withinthe characters.
I argue that what truly fails is neither the woman nor theinterchange but a similar definition of chivalric behavior that defines thewoman for passive object of exchange and distinguishes her from the malecharacters. This separation of gender roles with being so broad preventsthe men from non-violent and this potentially gerund verbal and legal means of restoration. ‘The kinds of masculinity and femininity that interchange the matrixconstruct and pass off as inevitable, or even universal, but as we have begunto see, they might be culturally contingent, limited, and local. Theauthor in whom this has been written by seems to recognize the limitations ofcertain gender roles of male and females in the interchangeable system whilecreating a mockery and the chivalry that defines women to build relationshipswithout taking in to consideration the benefit of the non-violent relationalstrategies they often represent the system of interchangewithin itself with the use of women as objects. The emphasis that is displayed hasa unique observation of the issues that surround the problems in a chivalricsystem that often uses women to build relationships between men and makes womenobsolete from actively being able to establish those social ties. It emphasisthe problems of adhering to a chivalric model that divides masculine fromfeminine being in creating relationships, and offers a different meaning of socialconnections through the character of Gawain. While the other male characters inthe romance represent chivalry as synonymous with masculine prowess in combat,Gawain displays a view going towards the direction of chivalry that surpassesnot only prowess but also the way to create long lasting relationships and movetowards reconciliation using verbal and legal means. In the romance, the battleis sharply defined based forms of reconciliation and reconstruction.
The separationdivides the two to be in between acceptable and non-acceptable ways ofmasculine interaction and is mirrored in the romance by an equally sharpphysical division between the men and the woman. Throughout the romance, thewoman remains in her pavilion, completely separated from the men as they fightover her lost virginity; although she is both figuratively and literally thecenter of male interaction, the pavilion effectively walls her off from theactual interaction between the men. The woman remains in her solitude until theend of the romance when she is forcefully removed and abandoned by her brother,while her kingsmen remain in the outside world without entering the woman’s space.This relates to separation and represents division of the woman’s king’s mensee between masculine and feminine roles and behavior. Despite the inconsistencyon separation, the pavilion is still considered located on the battlefieldwhere the men battle, suggesting that the two spaces are not as separate asthey appear. By the end of the romance, the woman’s father begins to take partof the potential value of non-violent forms of reconciliation andreconstruction between men. And significantly, Gawain moves freely between thetwo spaces, staying with the woman in the pavilion between battles while theother men remain outside.
The man’s ability to move between two diverse waysmirrors the man’s ability to move around the woman’s verbal modes of restorationand relationship within a structure mode in other men that wish to separate toelevate as the only proper, masculine way of forming relationships. As Gawain,greatest knight, moves between spaces coded in this romance as masculine likethe battlefield and feminine such as the pavilion and between relational modessimilarly coded, The middle English late medieval society contributes from achivalry that is integrate previously gendered roles. Checking a damaging relianceon manly prowess.
The failed success uses different modes of points to thedifficulty of changing even social aspects ofchivalry. In conclusion the threeliterary reviews conducted showed different points as it relates to SirGawain’s Green Knight, in so many various aspects to steer the readers invarious directions and to be opened minded about the reading.