Canterbury as Reflection on Christians?


Jumping off the topic of Christianity and man's struggle, I can understand the concept that Chaucer dwells on Christianity and its flaws through Canterbury Tales. There is definitely a criticism of pilgrimages evident in the text. In terms of critique, I would not consider this a deliberate dig on Christianity as a religion. To me, the idea emerging in through the general prologue descriptions in the flawed nature of humans. Despite the intention to do good or to create the appearance of good, wickedness creeps in. The critique of the church is apparent in the shady dealings of church officials, like the Prioress and the Monk. Some of the other characters, however, are merely using the guise of religion to hide from their own crimes. This seems to not be a fault toward Christians but directed at the institution itself. I would be more inclined to argue that Chaucer is criticizes the church and its operatives. If there's one thing to be learned from the characters, it is definitely that humans are not what they seem. The church allows pirates to hide on land, monks to profiteer, priests to form monopolies. These people are represented on the pilgrimage. There are also charitable and respectable people represented as well. With any religion, Islam being a prime example in our present state, there are the extremists or the people who use religion for bad.
-Lauren Sandelius

The Real Revealed

Sticking with Canterbury Tales, I agree with Lauren on the idea that the journey to Canterbury being parallel with Christians’ struggles on earth and how we can identify with the members on the pilgrimage with people we know in our own lives. I find myself fascinated with the different characters and the reasons (real or ostensible) for going on the pilgrimage. It goes to show that we all have motives for why we do what we do, but also that when it comes to others we all have the two narrators inside of us that see the what we want to see (the naive pilgrim) or seeing the truth of things (the all-knowing poet).

Going from what Elise has said about Chaucer being a type of paparazzi, I actually like the fact that Chaucer acknowledges the “skeletons” for everyone and not just the lower class. As we have read, everyone has dual intentions for being on the pilgrimage and to me I see it that they are all on the same playing field, that they aren’t perfect but flawed regardless of how they disguise themselves, i.e. a mercenary, thief, loose woman, etc. I think that by learning about all the “skeletons” we can better understand the pilgrimage according to the poet and not the pilgrim.

[I am sorry if this doesn’t make any sense to someone]

Christianity/Canterbury Tales

Christianity has always been one of the main topics we've focused on throughout the stories we've read so far: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, The Dream of the Rood, Beowulf, etc. This is unsuprising, because religion has always universally been one of the most-discussed topics, as well as favorite of poets in particular. In Canterbury Tales, an interesting aspect that I noticed was that, though all the characters in the story are deeply flawed, they are making a pilgrimage to (ostensibly) honor God and to receive spiritual healing. While this may seem paradoxical, it is in fact a parallel to humankind's relationship to God. We are all inherently flawed and overflowing with sin. The Wyf of Bath is controlling and promiscuous, the men of God are lecherous, most of the others are greedy or attention-seeking. Perhaps the journey to Canterbury symbolizes the Christian struggle on Earth; in the face of our sins and shortcomings, we still journey on to get to a place where we might be washed clean.

-Lauren NuDelman

Canterbury Tales

So I am not trying to change the subject, I feel that we have had some really great discussion about SSGK, but I feel that it is time to switch to a new piece of literature.
From the background information, we can see that Chaucer was not born into the aristocratic society, rather he worked his way into that society. In class the past two days we have been reading the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales and talking about the ostensible sins/real reason for being on the pilgrimage. In this prologue Chaucer describes all different people from the three classes. For example he first describes the knight was from the aristocracy. It seems interesting though that Chaucer would use the naive "pilgrim voice" to describe the ostensible sins as the reason for the people to take the pilgrimage; and then use the "poet voice" to hint at the real reason for going. Wouldn't Chaucer be taking a huge risk by exposing the higher classes "skeletons"? I could see if he exposed the real reasons for the lower classes because he was in a higher class; but for the aristocratic class? In a sense it is like the poet voice is the paparazzi in a sense, always trying to expose the dirty, real reasons why a person does something.
-Elise Van Dam

More on the meanings of Green in Gawain and the Green Knight

When beginning our discussion of Gawain and the Green Knight, we made a list of different things that green could mean: envy, riches, nature, the muslim faith, etc. I think that you could fairly easily argue for many of these as being meanings behind the author's use of green. But I wanted to concentrate on the idea of green being symbolic of the muslim faith. Throughout the entire story, Sir Bertilak's court is obviously better than King Arthur. They are more sophisticated and treat their guests with extreme generosity- they even go to mass every day which makes them almost more "holy". So why is the Green Knight, the owner/ruler/liver/whatever of this fine and Christian court actually green, when one of the most obvious meanings to the people of that time period was the religion of their enemies? I first saw it as Gawain's faith being tested- which it is. He has to play the game that Bertilak has set up for him and prove the honor of King Arthur's court. However he doesn't fully pass. He gains his life, but he is carrying his shame from this experience for the rest of his life. The Green Knight actually wins in the end which, if following the muslim reading of green, means that Christianity loses. Why would the author do this? The way I saw it was as a message to the audience to keep the faith and to not end up shamed like Gawain. There could also be more lost in translation of the piece. I am hoping for the latter, for I am not satisfied with any of the answers I have come up with.

I really enjoyed reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I feel like there are so many subtle references and allusions to pick up on that give a richer sense of meaning to the text as a whole. For example, the whole section when Gawain first arrives at Bertilak’s castle is full of language that emphasizes Gawain being coaxed into staying at the castle, and eventually being led to trial and danger. As soon as Gawain enters the castle grounds, the people take his weapons and armor away, replacing them with rich, extravagant clothing meant for flattery. This could symbolize Bertilak stripping Gawain of all his defenses. Bertilak also makes sure that Gawain is good and drunk on the first night, further displaying his persuasive tactics. One other nuance that I especially noticed was how Bertilak explicitly makes a point to detain Gawain from leaving the hall after the festivities. He does this three times; he first “catches his coat” (l 936), then “brings him to his chamber” (l 1030), and finally “Seize[s] his arm and seat[s] him there” (l 1083). This shows how Bertilak physically tries to manipulate Gawain, even with such a thing as going to bed. This makes one wonder how he is capable of manipulating on a larger scale. Not only does this uphold the theme of the number three throughout the rest of the poem, but this emphasizes the strong will of Bertilak in the art of persuasion.

Covenants in SGGK and the Bible

Throughout reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I noticed several similarities that correspond with biblical texts. For example, we discussed in class that Sir Gawain removed the head of the Green Knight on the same day that the foreskin of Jesus was removed in the traditional Jewish circumcision and naming ceremony, eight days after birth. This can be taken further by emphasizing how circumcision represents the covenant made between God and Abraham in the Jewish community. I think this fact emphasizes the analogous chopping of the Green Knight’s head in King Arthur’s court which likewise symbolizes the agreement made between the Green Knight and Sir Gawain. The term “covenant” is derived from a Hebrew root word meaning “to cut,” which is an appropriate term for the agreement between God and the Jews because of the cutting of the foreskin, and the one between the Green Knight and Sir Gawain for obvious reasons.

The terms of the covenants are different however, because while God promised to bless Abraham’s descendants and make them his own people in return for Abraham’s faithfulness, the Green Knight and Sir Gawain traded fatal blows to the head. The covenant in the Old Testament can never be fulfilled by the descendents of Abraham because of the imperfection of humanity however, and Sir Gawain did not fulfill his agreement with Bertilak, which exemplifies their similitude. The Green Knight absolves Sir Gawain of his failure however, which I believe references the covenant in the New Testament, where Jesus is the medium between God and man instead of circumcision. When the Messiah came to earth, circumcision became unnecessary, just as the chopping of Sir Gawain’s head did because of Bertilak’s decision to spare him. In the first part of the poem, the Green Knight focuses on the law, but in the last part, he is merciful and compassionate, which parallels the old and new testaments respectively.

Greece and Rome in SGGK

I am fascinated by the Greek and Roman myths and histories and so I was intrigued by the references to Troy and Rome in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Maybe these comments were just to show Arthur's genealogy but I see some ways that the author could be comparing the history with Sir Gawain. In the Trojan War, the gods meddled with the direction of events, they chose certain people to be heroes and then sometimes caused the downfall of their own heroes, and there were many tests of various sorts for the heroes. In Sir Gawain, Morgan le Faye, who is a powerful magical being much like the Greek gods, decides to test the knights of King Arthur's court and sends Sir Gawain through a series of temptations. The Trojan War has lots of times when the hero has to do single combat with the enemy's hero or with a bad guy, and Sir Gawain has to face the Green Knight. The Greeks and Romans have many stories of women tempting men into giving up something, their power, their honor, their life... and Lady Bertilak tempts Sir Gawain into giving up his honor by accepting the green girdle. While many of these ideas are common themes in many stories from many different cultures, I think that the similarity to the Greek and Roman myths are significant because of the references to these stories at both the beginning and the end of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Rachel Means

The Significance of Powerful Women in SGGK

I know someone else wrote a post about the role of women in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but I feel like there's so much to say on the topic. Lady Berdilak, one of the most cunning and influential characters in the story, yields an enormous amount of power over Sir Gawain, which is significant because it demonstrates the power woman can have over man. She engages in intellectual exchanges with him, and nearly always emerges as the victor. Even more importantly, Lady Berdilak gives Sir Gawain the green girdle, the ultimate symbol of power – after all, it gives him the ability to evade death. However, by doing so, it is implied that she has tainted Sir Gawain. Before accepting the girdle, Gawain was defined by his knightly honor and his inherent faith; afterwards, it seems that he has lost his honor by not giving the girdle to Sir Berdilak, as was their agreement. Lady Berdilak deters Gawain from his knightly honor by tempting him with the tantalizing promise of life. Morgan la Fay/the old crone is another powerful woman in this story, and is perhaps one of the strongest characters in all the story, for it is she who causes all of the events to transpire. The powerful role of women in this story illustrates the paradigm change between Beowulf’s and Sir Gawain’s time, from being viewed as little more than peace-weavers to actually having substance and wills of their own.

Christianity in Arthur and The Corpus Christi Carol

When thinking of King Arthur, I would automatically identify him as a Christian King. With that said, I was intrigued by the contrast of faith between Arthur’s court and Bertilak. Bertilak’s court attended mass on a regular basis, where as Arthur’s court’s attendance was seldom. After learning of the different seasons in regards to the Church, I was able to better understand the references in the story.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, all my previous understandings and conceptions of Arthur and his court were completely skewed which in turn made the readings harder for me, mainly because I kept picturing all the movies and television series in relations to Arthur but that’s just me.

On another note, as much as I enjoyed reading the short poems, my favorite being The Corpus Christi Carol, I find the text very difficult to comprehend. In all honesty I have no idea what Adam Lay Bound is about because I got from it was something about an apple and thanks be to God. Maybe I’m one of the many or the few who struggles with the Middle English readings, the pronunciations and interpretations, but they are a joy to read none the less. The reason I appreciated the Corpus Christi Carol most was mainly because of the line "he bare him up, he bare him down", the image of Christ being raised on the cross and then lowered into a tomb was impacting, at least for me.

The Role of Women
I found it interesting the way women are used in the test of Gawain and Arthur's court. In lines 2415-2428, Gawain compares Lady Bertilak's temptation to the temptation of the Biblical characters Adam, Solomon, Samson, and David. Gawain, unlike these characters, was able to refuse a woman's temptation and earn godliness for himself and Arthur's court. Both Bertilak and Gawain have respect for Lady Bertilak and Morgan Le Fay's power but both acknowledge the temptation and power over men women hold. The dichotomy of respect and fear of women poses an interesting situation. The motto of the Order of the Garter, "Shame be to the man who has evil in his mind," hints at the Biblical theme of thinking pure thoughts (Matthew 5:29). Oftentimes, especially in the Hebrew tradition, women are the cause of these evil thoughts. However, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the women are given power to wield over men (Morgan Le Fay has her magic and Lady Bertilak is part of the scheme of tempt Gawain). With these two women working against him, Gawain stood little chance. In Gawain's and Lady Bertilak's conversations, Gawain shows a great respect for the lady. I believe that it is this respect that saved him. He was aware of the power she held over him and continual praised her and diminished himself to avoid falling into temptation.

End of SGGK

Going off of what Cherise said, I also found it surprising that the green knight ended up being the Bertilak and that Gawain had no idea. However, what you said at the end that we didn't really pay attention to the clues because it didn't seem like that would happen, is probably what Gawain did too. But it does seem strange that he never caught on to that. Magic probably had a lot to do with it. Something at the end that I thought was interesting was the number of times the Green Knight (or Bertilak) attempted to strike and kill Gawain. 3 times he raised up the weapon to kill him. Looking on that number paper, 3 means: completeness, a sign of perfection, unity and like the trinity. I wondered if this had anything to do with the story? Was it to show that now that Gawain realized his sins and the lack of faith of Camelot that now they would all change their ways and become a lot stronger and more unified with God as the center?

Andrea Yarnell

Green Knight = Bertilak?

After finishing Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I was left with a nagging question: How did Gawain not know that Bertilak was the Green Knight? Yes, the Green Knight is decked out all in green and may look and act a little different as per his disguise, but for Gawain to be completely taken by surprise by his true identity is hard to believe. Gawain spent days in the company of Bertilak and failed to notice anything amiss. This would lead me to believe one of two things. 1) Gawain is extremely dimwitted and is not so observant as a knight. Or 2) Morgan le Faye's magic must have been extremely powerful to completely hide Bertilak's identity behind a little green disguise. However, after weighing these two options, I've found that it's neither one nor the other; it's both. First off, Gawain is unobservant, but not in the way you'd automatically think. Back in Part II, Gawain's shield has a five pointed start emblazoned on the front. We know that the number five has many symbolic meanings. Five denotes Christ's five wounds, the five senses, our fingers, and spiritual blindness. In a way, Gawain is completely blind to Bertilak's disguise because he is not spiritually strong. His spirituality needs to be tested before he can see the light. Second, Morgan le Faye's magical powers really are quite daunting. She is described as "a mistress of Merlin" (line 2248). As the most powerful wizard in the King Arthur stories, Merlin has quite a bit of pull in that department. Bertilak even goes on to say that Morgan "guided me in this guise"(2456). Not only does Bertilak have her magic on his side, but he also has her wisdom.
So, I learned that I can't just jump to conclusions about the likelihood of a story's plot. Although the Green Knight/Bertilak grand reveal seems cheesy at first, after closer examination of the surrounding story, it works. We just have to be paying attention to the clues.

The Wanderer

Although I'm a week late, I thought it would be interesting to go back and look at The Wanderer. This poem had a lonely, almost haunting quality to it and it deserves a closer examination. In class, Doug asked us to pin down exactly who the wanderer was. From reading the poem, we can glean that the speaker is alone, has lost his lord, his homeland, and even his happiness. Rather than simply stating that this character is just a regular guy going through a tough time, I think it would be interesting to examine the wanderer as not just a person, but a ghost. Yes, a ghost. There are a few snippets in the writing that would lead us to believe that the speaker is no longer living. For example, the wanderer comments that "exile's path awaits him" and that he can experience "no joy of earth". During Anglo-Saxon times, a person would have had to have done something really terrible to be exiled. Even the worst acts, like killing a member of one's kin, did not lead to exile for some of the characters in Beowulf, like Unferth. Instead of striving to figure out the details of his exile, it's more clear to see that this wanderer is exiled from life itself, not necessarily from his group. As a ghost, it's hardly surprising that the wanderer can find no joy in earthly things; the dead aren't expected to do so. The wanderer goes on to reminisce on happier times when he was a warrior. He comments "How that time has gone, vanished beneath night's cover, just as if it never had been!". For a deceased person doomed to perpetually walk the earth, a short life lived would seem to have vanished as quickly as it started.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

To answer the questions about SGGK; I feel that the quality and style changed from Beowulf to SGGK because, "In the 12th and 13th centuries, there was a movement toward a more solitary relgious life and a more personal encounter with God" (Norton Anthology, 157). This is great information that can give a reason to why there was more influence from Christianity and the humble quality of the knights.
I would also like the address how interesting it is that there are many Christian references, for example following the liturgical calender, to have references towards magic, the star on the front of the shield. When this poem came into being, was there a lot of people who believed in magic, or is this style of using images of magic just to speed the story a long and make it interesting? Why would the poet give so many references to Christianity and the Virgin Mary, but then have these subtle references towards magic and the multiple meanings of numbers? I guess these are just some thoughts to ponder.
-Elise Van Dam

Judith- She was pretty awesome too!

After looking over what people were writing about, I noticed that there was a lot on Beowulf and Dream of the Rood. And quite deservedly- they are great works and worthy of study. I personally found myself fascinated by Judith. The fact that a woman was the main character of a very anglo-saxon poem and did the works that a man was more or less expected to do is quite intriguing. The story is based off of the book in the Apocrypha and clearly has a lot of Old Testament themes- the judgment of God, the glory of His chosen people, worthy violence and war, etc. The poet didn't have to do that much to make it more Anglo-Saxon. Add more drinking and treasure and you're good. The poet still kept Judith a female though; obviously he could not change it in this story, but he still chose to write it and most likely perform it in front of an audience. The audience would most likely be men...who would relate to those who waited for Judith to come back and THEN charge into battle. So Judith, the "noble one, and the licentious one, terrible and fierce" decapitates the evil king for the glory of God and her people. She is rewarded with the spoils of war. In our discussions of Beowulf, women have been talked about as the peace weavers through marriage, not warriors in battle. Treasures were shared among the men who fought courageously. As to the ultimate important or message of this I am uncertain. It could be an encouragement for men to think of creative possibilities to win a battle or a taunt for them to step it up a little. I personally would like to think that the poet was secretly a feminist, but I doubt it. This poem does support the Anglo-Saxon thought of the individual sacrifice for the masses, and considering that past of the Israelites in this poem, perhaps that is what the poet wanted to get across.

Elements of Christianity in Beowulf

Throughout the course of the epic poem Beowulf, interspersed in the flow of verse are regular references to the Christian God. Although the language of the praise meshes well with the archaic language of the rest of the poem, the subject matter and syntax feel oddly forced. Such as the break in line 1605, where the writer compares Beowulf's sword to the melting of ice and states, "It was a wonderful thing, the way it all melted as ice melts when the Father eases the fetters off the frost and unravels the water-ropes." While there are fitting examples of kenning, the excerpt is still slightly awkward. We know that the person who finally put the oral version of Beowulf to paper was most likely a Christian monk, therefore it makes sense that the holy man would have attempted to Christianize a popular cultural story in order to help people to identify with Christianity. Have you noticed any other ancient works of literature display this same benign tampering? Does this detract or improve on the character of the literature?

Gawain and Beowulf

The story of Gawain and the Green Knight is one well known to all of the English majors I am sure. The Arthurian legends are a key favorite to British literature. But today I would not like to talk only about Gawain but about what we can ascertain by comparing Beowulf with this story. We are looking at two similar but very different stories and ways of telling them. Both stories are unlike the books we read in our current time in the fact that they are not wrapped up in the end of the story but the details of getting there. But both stories focus on very different details. In Beowulf the emphasis for most of the poem seemed to be on establishing the history and bloodlines of the great families and the relationships of all those involved. Gawain of the other hand gives little family history; a large amount of the text is spent in detailed descriptions of everything and everyone. Also it is no longer boasting and tall tales that show greatness but a respectfulness and humbling quality that shows the true worth of the knight. Why do you think these changes came about? Was it the influence of the church? Which story telling method do you prefer more and why?

Wife's Lament and Christian influences

I see "The Wife's Lament" more as a portrayal of the effects of the Anglo-Saxon traditions than as going against the tradition. The Anglo-Saxon tradition being discussed is that of peaceweavers and their role in their new home and the speaker is lamenting the failure of her peaceweaving and its consequences. Stories such as Beowulf show the glory and might of the Anglo-Saxon tradition while "The Wife's Lament" tells the story of the women left behind when the mighty warriors lose.
One common theme I saw throughout all of the readings was the Christian influences on the Anglo-Saxon writings. Even though the Anglo-Saxon ideas of Christianity may not agree with the our understanding today, God is often referred to as the source of power for people such as Judith or a protector in "The Dream of the Rood." The very presence of Christianity in the culture changed the stories with the introduction of books and literacy from the monasteries. I think that it is intriguing how the reader can see evidence of the spread of Christianity even in the (mostly) secular literature such as Beowulf or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Rachel Means

Elements of Modernity in "Wife's Lament" & Beowulf

To again change the direction of the thread, the "Wife's Lament" stuck out to me as unique in a sea of heroic deeds. It seems to possess aspects of modernity due to its focus on individuality and personal feeling.  Because Anglo-Saxon culture so highly esteemed displays of strength and power, with emphasis on battle victories, impenetrable armor and the like, it seems abnormal to have a poem about emotion and grief.  The speaker, in displaying her miserable situation and her response to the status-quo, seems to question the ethos of her time and the uselessness of it all, and I think therein is an interesting connection to Beowulf.  I think that Beowulf himself also defies the stereotypical ethos of Anglo-Saxon culture and this can be seen towards the end of his life.  To have Beowulf's demise be in a state of passivity ("the old lord gazed sadly at the gold") and inability to proliferate his personal and cultural ideals, is quite ironic.

I really enjoyed reading everyone's posts about Beowulf and "The Dream of the Rood". The comments about "The Dream of the Rood" really interested me. I must admit when I first read this poem I thought that the speaker was either a viewer of the crucifixion or one of the criminals that hung besides Jesus. Then in class when rood meant cross was mentioned, it all started to make sense. I agree that this is a beautiful poem full of images that are really never thought about when one thinks of the crucifixion. I know I have never thought of the cross's perspective before reading this poem. After reading the poem and listening to the discussion in class it made me realize that I, as a Christian should have the same feelings at the cross. It reminded me that through Christ's death my pride is broken down and all that is left is humbleness. That I shouldn't be embarrassed to bear Christ's name on my heart, instead I should wear His name in big bold letters for everyone to see and be proud of it. Finally, it is an interesting thought that even though this poem was written a very very long time ago, we as 21st century readers can still find value and lessons that apply to our lives.
-Elise Van Dam

The Christian-Germanix Paradox in Dream of the Rood

Continuing in the “Dream of the Rood” vein, I feel as if one of the most essential points has already been made: the sacrifice of the tree transforming into the Cross; Beowulf’s sacrifice immortalizing him as a hero; and Christ’s sacrifice fulfilling the prophecies. Obviously, while all of these sacrifices have a definite Christ-like sentiment surrounding them, it is interesting to note the Christian-Germanic paradox present in the poem. With new Christian morals tearing people away from their ancient Germanic tradition, there was bound to be a feeling of confliction and confusion. This struggle between the old and the new is clearly evident in “Dream of the Rood,” namely the idea of a burly hero intent on revenge versus the idea of a different sort of hero who preaches forgiveness. The author’s answer to this conflict is a suitable compromise: Christ is portrayed in the poem as a “young Hero” and “Warrior,” but one who bears his fate stoically, who does not vow vengeance on his enemies. Portrayed thus, Christ is now wholly relatable to the Anglo-Saxons, and is probably even reminiscent of Beowulf. However, “Dream of the Rood” is even more powerful and inspiring than Beowulf, for Christ does not die an untimely death, nor does he grow weak and old. Instead, he rises up again, more majestic and beautiful than ever before, a key contrast to Beowulf.

-Lauren NuDelman