While are connected, as nearly as all are agreed

While
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 uncover the romance also
to be open minded, that the poem is revealing on an open minded note while associating
the founding of Britain with some primal treachery leaning towards 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 comment a form
of chivalry that depends on masculine prowess to make changes and maintain various
relationships as far as the characters relate. The points of failure in this
story of chivalric prowess in the Jeaste raises concerns and questions of reconstructions
of male and female gender roles, discussing and if the way chivalry is
represented it insists on the division of the two and jeopardizes or comes in
between the way of established social ties or preventing the characters and the
situation from accessing various situations. The story in the Jeaste is easily uncovered
as 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 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. Coming to 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 center 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 related social ties within
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 in whom this has been written by seems to recognize the limitations of
certain gender roles of male and females in the interchangeable system while
creating a mockery and the 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. The emphasis that is displayed 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 reading.