reading the scholarly paper titled, “Moral theology in Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight: the pentangle, the Green”. I was pleased to see the views of other
students and what their opinions were while completing the readings while writing
about this topic. In this paper assorted topics are discussed as it relates to
how this poem was produced and perceived. The article is intended to discuss
Moral theology in Sir Gawain. One statement that was discussed and caught my
eye while reading and researching was, “Moral virtue may be considered either
as perfect or as imperfect”. In this statement the writer was discussing how perfect
moral virtue is. Explaining that Sir Gawain’s The Green Knight displays and
shows that a habit that inclines us to do a good deed well; and if we take
moral virtues in this way, we must say that they are connected, as nearly as
all are agreed in saying. It is possible but however, it relates the two
symbols and to determine the allegorical significance. These quotations from
the Gawain’s Green Knight quoted in the throughout the review paragraph gives
the writer enough room to express to the reader and reviewer how it is told in
a more modern perspective. Reviewing this in a scholarly statement I must agree
with the writer. Moral virtue is either perfect or imperfect. Reading the Green
Knight, it shows that no moral virtue can be without prudence; since it is
proper 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 perspective
and displaying the difference between the two in his opinion as it relates to
the passages in this Middle English, medieval epic written by Sir Gawain. The Green
Knight by a consideration of the notion of “perfection” from the
standpoint of medieval moral theology, that both symbols serve to define
perfection in terms of the virtues, the one as to their connection, and the
other as to the perfect act of virtue.’ The notion of the connection of the
virtues had a long medieval tradition. Robert Blanch and Julian Wasserman, while
reading and reviewing decades of criticism on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. wrote
an authorized vision of Camelot, and analyzed with the general trend being more
easier readings of the court. My second literary review was a paper written by
the two, “Tokens of Sin”, and as I read I saw that this paper was about the
propensity of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight to be read in many ways, owing in
great part to the question of the motivation of the court’s laughter, has
helped 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 who
read or have not read Green Knight will hear Camelot’s laughter as a thoughtful
and proper response to Gawain’s experience of sin and penance, the members of
the court adopting his girdle as their own so as, at once, to remind him that
even saints sin and to remind themselves that they should seek to be as
rigorously introspective as this model knight. This reading considers the poem
to be a divine comedy, wherein the hero’s temporary debasement results in his
and his society’s greater good. Camelot turns Sir Gawain’s token of dishonesty
into a badge of honor, a transformation that very closely resembled Camelot
urges upon the self-condemning Gawain, who needs to learn to see his scar not
as a sign of failure but as a sign of struggle and survival and who needs to
learn to see his wound as God sees it. The writer explains that reading the end
of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is in comparison with the contemporary,
optimistic theology expressed by Julian will help to reveal the romance also to
be optimistic, that the poem seems to open on an ominous note, associating the
founding of Britain with some primal treachery perpetrated at Troy. The last
Sir Gawain literary review is on a scholarly paper that I read titled, “Chivalric
Failure in The Jeaste of Sir Gawain”, spoke about how the ending had a
disappointing end to the story. The version that was spoke about in this paper
that I and going to speak about in this literary review is stated that with its
inconclusive and narratively unsatisfying ending Sir Gawain differs sharply
from the French source for the romance, in which Gawain successfully reconciles
with the seduced woman’s brother and then both marries the seduced woman and
brings her brother into Arthur’s court. This allows the jeaste to criticize a form
of chivalry that relies on masculine prowess to make changes and maintain
different relationships as far as the characters relate. This example of
failure in this story of chivalric prowess in the Jeaste thus calls into
questions of constructions of male and female gender roles, discussing and
assuming that a chivalry that insists on dividing the two jeopardizes or comes
in between the way establishment of social ties by preventing the characters
and the situation from accessing certain strategic situations. The story in the
Jeaste is easily noted as one of the countless variations on the subject of the
exchange of women: Gawain encounters a woman alone in the woods and lures her
in and eventually attempts to restore with her male king’s men who view the
loss of their king’s woman’s virginity as a loss of their honor. Reaching an
agreement about the exchange of the woman, and her virginity, enables the
romance to come together and this is where the gender roles change as it
relates to the woman and primarily involve being the pivot of the male
relationships that are created around her. This is only justified when the
romances and gender roles are exchanged, and there is no movement within the
woman, and she does not move between the men, create social bonds among the
men, or the men are unable to settle upon a value for her virginity that leads
to beneficial social ties among the characters. I argue that what truly fails
is neither the woman nor the interchange but a similar definition of chivalric
behavior that defines the woman for passive object of exchange and distinguishes
her from the male characters. This separation of gender roles with being
so broad prevents the men from non-violent and this potentially gerund verbal
and legal means of restoration. ‘The kinds of masculinity and
femininity that interchange the matrix construct and pass off as inevitable, or
even universal, but as we have begun to see, they might be culturally
contingent, limited, and local. The author of the Jeaste likewise
recognizes the limitations of certain constructions of male and female roles in
the interchangeable system while creating a mockery a chivalry that defines women
to build relationships without taking in to consideration the benefit of the
non-violent relational strategies they often represent the system of interchange
within itself with the use of women as objects. Jeaste has a unique observation
of the issues that surround the problems in a chivalric system that often uses
women to build relationships between men and makes women obsolete from actively
being able to establish those social ties. It emphasis the problems of adhering
to a chivalric model that divides masculine from feminine being in creating
relationships, and offers a different meaning of social connections through the
character of Gawain. While the other male characters in the romance represent
chivalry as synonymous with masculine prowess in combat, Gawain displays a view
going towards the direction of chivalry that surpasses not only prowess but
also the way to create long lasting relationships and move towards reconciliation
using verbal and legal means. In the romance, the battle is sharply defined based
forms of reconciliation and reconstruction. The separation divides the two to
be in between acceptable and non-acceptable ways of masculine interaction and is
mirrored in the romance by an equally sharp physical division between the men
and the woman. Throughout the romance, the woman remains in her pavilion,
completely separated from the men as they fight over her lost virginity;
although she is both figuratively and literally the center of male interaction,
the pavilion effectively walls her off from the actual interaction between the
men. The woman remains in her solitude until the end 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 men see between
masculine and feminine roles and behavior. Despite the inconsistency on
separation, the pavilion is still considered located on the battlefield where
the men battle, suggesting that the two spaces are not as separate as they
appear. By the end of the romance, the woman’s father begins to take part of
the potential value of non-violent forms of reconciliation and reconstruction
between men. And significantly, Gawain moves freely between the two spaces, staying
with the woman in the pavilion between battles while the other men remain
outside. The man’s ability to move between two diverse ways mirrors the man’s ability
to move around the woman’s verbal modes of restoration and relationship within
a structure mode in other men that wish to separate to elevate as the only
proper, masculine way of forming relationships. As Gawain, greatest knight,
moves between spaces coded in this romance as masculine like the battlefield and
feminine such as the pavilion and between relational modes similarly coded, The
middle English late medieval society contributes from a chivalry that is
integrate previously gendered roles. Checking a damaging reliance on manly prowess.
The failed success uses different modes of points to the difficulty of changing even social aspects of chivalry. 
In conclusion the three literary reviews conducted showed different
points as it relates to Sir Gawain’s Green Knight, in so many various aspects
to steer the readers in various directions and to be opened minded about the


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Click here