This being necessary for him it is still a substantial burden on them and seems pretty generous.

This reminds me of the limbo married to a hurdle competition.

As a particularly tiny person, 4'9'', (Im no Liliputian) but this line really resonates with me and makes me chuckle because it reminds me of all of the creative things petite people have to do to function in an oversized world. When I go to the grocery store i wear my youngest baby, put my 5 year old in the basket and make my 6 year old walk, when it comes time to leave I get get my daughter out by turning around, standing on my tippie toes while she climbs on my back (with my baby still strapped to my chest) this is made extra silly by how big my kids look with me. I chuckle to myself at how it must look but don't really mind. I am also an expert climber due to that never-ending need in my life.

This story was the most realistic of any of the ones read so far. It was at times infuriating, when it came to issues of slavery (even Oroonoko selling slaves himself) to gender issues (the submission of Imoinda to the old king), it was also extremely sad when Oroonoko killed Imoinda and their baby because he could foresee his own death and the tragedy of what would happen to them in his absence was far greater than death by his hand. It's also highly to have such tepid feelings towards the author who is passively observing the slavery around her. It is wrong to look to history through the lens of today but it is very challenging to read something so morally abhorrent written in such a mild tone.

like the natives

As a Texan I really enjoy this description of an armadillo and the fascination with it

this is true.

This is a surprising response for the man who sold them

burn.

This is the punishment Oroonoko described as an assurance to the captain and an explanation of why he would keep his word. Unlike the captain who swore an oath to God and not honor and who clearly had neither.

is this cowardice or guilt of betrayal or merely this task was beneath him and he felt nothing at all as a man who deals in people might feel.

when you fight for your life you are actually restricted by the fear of death, with that gone Oroonoko's life might actually be better protected by the fierceness that comes from his new-found indifference/possibly desire for, death.

He is saying it is better to die honorably and violently in battle than to "die" by the torment of his love-sickness

for some reason this reminds me of Romeo, "must thou leave me so unsatisfied?"

this speaks to the youth and delicacy of the women

I don't know if their faded beauty is a blessing as they no longer have to be essentially sex slaves or if it is something to pity as they have lost some relevance to age.

Sounds an awful lot like slavery.

This is a very harsh criticism of Christianity and the hypocrisy of those who claim to practice it.

Her explanation of why they don't enslave an entire group of people speaks to the purity of racism at this time. True racism is believing that one identity group is biologically or in some other way superior by nature. She clearly doesn't view slavery to be immoral, merely impractical with this particular group of people. And for everything she praised in this group she seems like, given different circumstances, she would be completely ok with their enslavement.

Truth makes you feel exposed and vulnerable. Since, truth is never hidden form God; the lies we tell reveal our cowardice. We are somehow more afraid of the current shame from others that the coming wrath of god. Marriage is important to help men care about the future and to help them develop consideration for others through the gentleness that is necessary towards their wife and children. It is also important that single men contribute to our society. They have the resources to be charitable and can dedicate themselves to being their best. All contribute to the continuation of a nation. Seeking greatness requires many personal sacrifices. You can lose yourself should you find greatness. Assuming the role of greatness opens the door to vices, but they can be overcome. Superstitions make the order of the world reversed. The fool leading the wise man. Superstition deforms religion. These concepts depict a vileness and manipulation from a superstitious mind. When negotiating it’s best to negotiate in person so you can read the person and adjust your tactic as you proceed. You can build a relationship with which to proceed with future negotiations. Overall these essays are guides to living a fruitful life whether married or single, whether great or small. Tell the truth because you will one day face god. Be the best you, you can be.

Single men have the ability to give more to others, because they aren’t stretching their time and money to provide for anyone other than themselves. Though they are more charitable not having to be gentle with a wife and children leaves them with cruelness in their heart. This makes it seem like kindness is a task that requires practice.

Having children brings a dedication to the future beyond your own life. No longe are you solely working to better your own life but to provide for your children and their future

This exposes a vulnerability that the writer feels when sharing truth. Open and naked these concepts leave the truth teller completely exposed. The person who tells the truth is further exposed by the daylight. In truth there is nowhere to hide your shame as the light shines on your nakedness so does the truth expose your every flaw and every shame.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." (Quote definitely from The Big Short attributed to Mark Twain but difficult to verify that it actually came from him) I thought it was fitting with this line. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/18/know-trouble/

Not only is it interesting to have a female poet writing of love from the female perspective but I find it particularly interesting how the female in this piece takes a somewhat authoritative role with the make she comes across who is grieving with heartache. He tells her to leave him alone and not to speak and she obeys neither order and sets out to council him in his sorrow. If this had been written from a male perspective at this time would a female character be so independent of mind? And it is not that the female character is joyful and impervious to pain as she stumbled on the man in her own state of grief but she seems to play a strong role despite her own sorrow.

Seek love at all costs

like oil and water, love is always unsatisfied and wanting in the face of absence

He is lamenting that something so beautiful could be so fleeting.

if it's not truly as sad as he is building it up to be then this is one heck of a pity party.

About 5 seconds ago she was appalled at the idea of being comforted in her own pain. She is offering medicine she would never herself take.

Yeah I'm gonna stay and I'm gonna talk.

If you have any decency at all leave me alone or at the very least don't talk to me.

It's interesting that it opens talking about a "sweet morning" and ends with "mourning"

I found her focus of female characters very interesting. It's like if there were a comic book that contained batman and Robin but the focus was on Robin. Females typically seem to be more of background art or supporting characters in Biblical stories. She even spoke of Pilots wife petitioning on behalf of Jesus and made a case for Eve. She elevates men as if by obligation but then refocuses to women. It was an interesting read and good Lord is she complementary of the Queen throughout!

The first will be last and the last will be first in the Kingdom of heaven.

The first will be last and the last will be first in the Kingdom of heaven.

Her disobedience was the product of her naivety and not her greed.

This seems clever to me, she initially is saying that how could she compare to any man, they are educated scholers but then she follows it up by saying essentially, what they have to study to learn is natural in the soul of a woman, or at least her soul.

Jesus was the figure of the living sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb that was slain. He died and was buried, went to hell and returned three days later with the keys of death. This sacrifice made it to where believers could live an eternal life with Him and not be damned.

This acknowledges that everything comes from God, therefore poverty is mans most natural state which is why there is something sweet about the God of all things taking on our "flesh" and "meanest berth" and living as a peasant not a king.

She is saying that the representation she is giving of the queen is as reliable as a mirror and she is a valid source.

Having read the write-up for this work and its authoress I anticipated the faintest hint of feminism (like those meals made for kids with "hidden vegetables" so the kids won't know it's mildly good for them) but I was wrong. Right out of the gates she is all about the ladies!

Another example of eyes as a source of light, he seems to have a weird fixation on the sun and almost a competitiveness or resentment towards it. Is the sun symbolic of moral views about sex? Marriage? Morning is followed by night is followed by morning, it is fixed and rigid. Eyes being a source of light independent of the sun is in defiance of the sun as are sexual relationships outside of marriage.

Love surpasses physical realities again and again.

Several mentions of eyes as a source of light.

He is very fixated on having a relationship outside of marriage.

He is in the height of infatuation from a new relationship.

His idea of "love" sounds a little predatory, at the very least overly eager and creepy.

As powerful as the sun is he has he power to shut it out by merely closing his eyes, but that would take her from his view. I think this is meant in 2 ways, he can literally/physically shut out the sun which would make him not see her but also he has the power to ignore his responsibilities of the day (shut it out) and remain with her as though nothing else exists, but there would be consequences that would likely impact his relationship with her.

perfect harmony in love gives it a kind of immortality

This is really wonderful imagery for the intimacy between them.

The Flea

The speaker makes an argument that he and the woman he is lusting after are joined by having bith been bitten by a flea. The flea mixing their bodily fluids is no different than if they were to join together directly. After making this assertion he then petitions for the fleas life claiming that as it contains both of their blood she would actually be killing herself and the speaker and the flea so the idea is that it would be more immoral for her to kill the flea than to have sex with him outside of marriage. She kills the flea. He responds by claiming that as they are both unaffected by the death of the flea fears of immorality are false so they needn't worry about honor and just have sex. This man is supremely manipulative. He comes across as weak and somehow cowardly as his argument claims no value in himself as a motivator for her. He gives no cause for her to actually want him but tries to win her by exhausting her will through some crazy mental gymnastics. Then again he's basically every tenth grade boy from my high school (15 years ago) so maybe the speaker is simply younger than I initially considered.

Is the flea lust?

This reading reminded me a bit of Everyman (only sillier at times), in that it shows how all of the things man focuses on and lives for are stripped away and give no comfort in death. Also like the Faierie Queene we met the personification of the seven deadly sins. Unlike the Fairie Queene, however, Faustus never found the redemption and victory that comes from repentance. Faustus was a very frustrating character. Initially he seems bored with scholarly pursuits as though he has achieved the limits of human excellence through his brilliance but then he is infuriatingly stupid with his decision-making and painfully short-sighted, which is actually a brilliant way for the author to exemplify the hubris and foolishness of man.

He is telling him to attack the old man that tried to help him save his soul by repenting.

He is telling him to attack the old man that tried to help him save his soul by repenting.

yikes!

It's kind of funny that his goal in all of this was to rule and have authority but he seems to be more of a servant/errand boy/entertainer for others. Are they not summoning him in the way he is summoning Mephistophilis? And even though Mephistophilis does what Faustas asks it is not on Faustas authority but on Lucifers, so he didn't gain any actual power at all, just the appearance of it?

Is he comforting himself that as long as there is time left he can undue this arrangement by repenting at the last minute? Why else would he bring up the thief on the cross?

Seventeenth century sarcasm.

The mythological place the gods gave heroes to experience immortality. Faustus wants power so fervently that he confounds hell with what is essentially heaven.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elysium-Greek-mythology

based on the translation given by echingryanL, this says, "Farewell, a threefold diety Jehovoe" This refers to the Christian trinity of God the father, the Son, and the holy Spirit aka the holy ghost aka the spirit of truth.

He thinks very highly of himself but seems to resent the limits of his humanity.

Maybe this is why his speeches are so persuasive, he truly wants to die and cannot, so his speeches about death are sincere which makes for a better salesman.

This reminds me of the very first creature he fought.

Just like the Lion that befriended her and protected her before. The theme of trustworthy beasts versus untrustworthy men is very interesting, it also has a bit of a, "don't judge a book by its cover" lesson to it.

"Pride comes before the fall" this was a dungeon of once great peoples who fell by their pride

The product of the deadly sins is death and the fog symbolizes the inability to see with clarity the wrongness of your situation while you are sinning. The "road of sin is death"and this is the path of those whose "life had gone astray"

All display and no substance, it is basically fake greatness.

She was safer with an actual lion than a companion of bad character (a real beast).

This is really sweet imagery of her beauty but also speaks to a soft, cheery, innocence of character.

This sounds amazing.

This gives a sense of the inevitability of good defeating evil, they are a picture of indulgence to their nature without restraint, and this is what destroys them.

This imagery is beautiful! Describing the leaves as, "sommers pride" personifies the trees and makes me think of one of those old cartoons where the trees interact with the characters, their chests are puffed out as they shield the characters taking shelter. Also describing the sunlight as "heavens light" elevates it to something beyond the mundane and give an almost magical feel to it.

This makes me think of, "The only thing to fear is fear itself"

I am torn between being awed by the simplicity of Utopia and appalled by the almost oppressive lack of personal choice. On the one hand the idea of a society in which everyone contributes and lives humbly, no one owns property, and there is no social class hierarchy is appealing, shorter working days, and thoughtful leisure time. On the other hand i see the micromanagement of the family structure as problematic. A home could have no fewer than 10 and no more than 16 people living within, if one home has too few and another home has too many people, people are re-distributed, this seems like the focus shifts from contributory to controlled. There is an emphasis on a kind of sameness as the basis for peace and contentment in society as seen in the way people dress, to the design of buildings that I see as being problematic as well, almost like a 500 year pre-quil to Harrison Bergeron (where the whole of society is forced into mediocrity so no one feels lesser than the other, this comes in the form of many devices that handicap everyone in any they they are exceptional). Overall, I understand romanticizing certain aspects of this society but then it is too rejecting of ambition which can produce both conflicts as well as greatness.

This sounds great if man were wholly this simple. Mankind, however, is highly complicated and driven, ambitious, competitive the speaker assumes that these traits lead to hardships in a society. Meeting mere physical needs does nothing for the human spirit. Some of the greatest art and music, literary works and more came from poverty and hardship and desperation. Accomplishing something profound, achieving a goal, conquering an obstacle, these are all potential sources of joy and growth. I feel like a society like this would only be possible by suppressing the human spirit completely.

This seems like a very cold and authoritarian way to attain a "peaceful" society.

As a person who had their (1st) apartment robbed (while I was at home) and the thieves arrested, only to have my money and possessions go to the police station to sit in "evidence" and never be returned, I appreciate the simplicity of this punishment. I remember saying, "So first they rob me then the cops do?" I understand the practical purpose and need for our current system but do appreciate their clarity of mind on this issue.

This shows a significant contrast to his tone when facing death at the beginning. He also seems to be processing different stages of grief, he was angry during his first rejections, he bargained with death offering to pay him off, there has definitely been displays of utter desperation if not depression, and now he seems to be humbled in acceptance.

This reminds me of income inequality. If great wealth is accumulated by one or few there is less to go around for everyone else.

This love not only, is temporary but it takes from love that is more permanent

"You can't take it with you"

He is willing to kill for but not die for his friend. This says a lot, he is willing to take for his friend but not give.

This is a "fair weather friend" he is saying that he is around for the good time and not the bad, yet he claims his presence when times are fortunate and fun is some kind of loyalty.

This is so human. All are guaranteed to die and yet we live life as though that is not a certainty. Knowing this inevitability he should have lived the previous 12 years and more working toward this reckoning.

This seems almost dismissive, as if death needs his compliance.

I think this means that God had hoped that man work towards and build up things that are of heavenly value.

The part that stood out to me the most was the idea of the hazelnut in the palm of her hand representing all of creation. The juxtaposition of something finite, small and fragile representing something infinite and almost incomprehensible is really mind boggling. Also calling the Character of Jesus the Mother is very interesting. I wonder how well received it was at a time when women's voices were not prevalent and all aspects of God were more commonly viewed in strictly male terms.

three seems to be a trend of theme so far of three, the Trinity, in chapter 5 creation is described as having three properties,"The first is that God made it, the second is that God loveth it, the third is that God keepeth it" also in this chapter God is described as "The Maker, the Keeper, and the Lover" and is "All-mighty, All-Wise, All-Good", and finally in Chapter LVIII, "All our life is in three: Nature, Mercy, Grace",

This is very interesting, we blame God for allowing the existence of sin (our free will), but he forgives (doesn't blame) us our sin.

In the moment that a person discovers faith this is that momentary enlightenment, a glimpse at truth, and after that moment passes the faith is kept and maintained by the Holy Spirit which came as a result of that moment and stays as a companion until death.

This closeness and presence from God can't be known in this life unless experienced from within by The Holy Spirit.

This really is a beautiful picture of power and love.

It is a greater honor to be graced with the presence of a king and be warm and present with him than to receive gifts from the king.

"God is love" Jesus embodied love so perfectly that he was one with God and transcended mortality.

This was definitely the most difficult read. I had to google constantly and read and re-read certain parts several times and a few were still lost on me. Overall though, I believe the essence of this story is about the cheapening of the church and religion. There is an emphasis on Truth as a character the main character seeks and obeys. The mention of Simon Magus from the Bible really emphasizes the message throughout the story, that virtue cannot be purchased or adorned but comes by hard work, grace, kindness, fortitude.

Biblical character, sorcerer who followed the disciples Peter and John but when he saw the disciples laying hands on people to give them the Holy Spirit he offered to pay them so he would have that same power. Acts 8:9-24

When monks shave the tops of their heads bald leaving a "crown" of hair below it

I feel like they represent virtue and piety.

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Matthew 6:26

two

harvest time

Don't overeat, eat until you are no longer hungry not until you are full. Don't dine with Sir Surfeit (excess)

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do" Luke 23:34

In the "Holy Trinity", the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" the Holy Spirit is often referred to as "The Spirit of Truth"

common sense

People worship (long for, dream of, work to attain) material and temporary things of this world instead of working for something larger and more eternal that these momentary satisfactions.

They use religion to enrich themselves

confession to a preist

They are adorned in the appearance of virtue, "To prayer and penance put themselves many," they preform their acts in front of others as part of the disguise. This juxtaposes the hermits who seek virtue in isolation, they don't seek luxury or comfort.

The labor with very little comfort. "And won"-the result of their labor, "that which wasters by gluttony destroy" gluttony is consumption without necessity, so these people labor and toil to be sustained by what would be considered scraps by the more fortunate.

The Friars Tale is about a summoner who works for an archbishop. He goes around extorting money from people because of their various sins he learns of through spies in his employ. One day he meets a yeoman who claims to be a bailiff, the summoner claims to be one as well (as it is a more respectable occupation than a summoner apparently). They declare one another brothers and travel together discussing their various means of getting as much as they can from people. The yeoman eventually admit that he is actually a demon from which does not deter the summoner in their pledges of friendship and loyalty. They come across a man whose cart is stuck, he curses it and everything in it to which the summoner encourages the demon to take what was sworn away. The demon tells him the words were not meant in the mans heart and God knows this therefore he does not have the authority to take it. Next they go to the home of an old widow for the purpose of the summoner swindling 12 pence from her over a claim that while her husband was alive she was unfaithful (a falsehood). The woman curses the summoner, the yeoman asks the woman if she really means it to which she replies that she does and the yeoman takes the summoner to hell.

Extremely passive aggressive toward the summoner in their group.

This is terrifying, is he not telling the summoner he is going to hell?

The lion explains to the deer.

He had sex workers as spies.

Made known their displeasure like a judgmental bully.

This feels like they are having a story battle or roasting each other but not in a fun way.

The Prologue, I thought, was more of a focal point than the actual tale she shared. The wife of bath was a woman advocating female dominance in relationships, she spoke of mental and emotional abuse she bestowed upon her husbands as she sought sovereignty over them and of physical abuse from them. She oddly enough used the Bible in defense of her many marriages which is a bold move to say the least. She seems to be some prototype of a feminist which may not be the most desirable face for feminism, especially as her story is about a rapist. The rapist faces death for what he has done but can save life by answering what women want. An old crone gives him the answer but the price is his marriage to her. Her answer pleases the queen who gave him the assignment and he does marry the crone. He treats her poorly because she is ugly so she says he can have an ugly, good wife or a beautiful unfaithful one, it's his choice. He tells her to choose so he gets a stunningly beautiful wife who is good to him because he gave her power over him. So even though there is some concept of female empowerment, the crone's value is still incredibly superficial (her appearance), and above everything else there are no consequences for the rapist.

This is why 100s of years later we have the #MeToo movement, This guy rapes her and in the end doesn't die and basically gets rewarded with a hot and faithful wife. It is interesting that this story is narrated by a woman which makes a really interesting statement about female indifference and complicity to these kinds of acts.

It seems like she is immediately appealing to her mostly male audience.

So many works dedicated to the wickedness of women because almost all authors were male, this leads to a heavy bias about gender roles in society.

Is she saying that she can't really be a lone so she is lining up her safety net for the end of her marriage?

Passion is often a part of the cycle of abuse.

The unattainable is always more appealing.

For some reason I read this as him being smart or sarcastic with her, at the very least not entirely sincere and the "younger men" line seems like it's meant to be a dig.

Feminism in 1400? The very mention of this argument (women with many men) from a female character had to be deemed unsavory and unacceptable by people at this time.

This story was completely different in tone and energy and mood than that of the knights tale. The crass Alison following the chaste Emele is like a shot of vinegar after a slice of cake. The knights fighting for a maidens hand they dream of for years verses men trying to bed a married woman and one of them almost instantly succeeding.

The trick played by Nicholas is very bold but also incredibly near sighted. What explanation would he have given the next day? Was he only interested in a single night with her to "have her" or would he have had to continue with deceptions in perpetuity? For some reason the drunken narrator was more captivating and easier to read and stay engaged with than the honorable knight's tale. I think it was clever to follow up the knight's tale with The Miller's Tale because it really grasped the readers attention like a splash of cold water to the face when you're sleepy.

It's 2019, everything everywhere is sexualized and yet some of these descriptions are still a little shocking, "for well he knew a woman has no beard; He'd felt a thing all rough and longish haired" She sounds like a very crass woman much like her narrator.

The husband "cages" her because she is wild and young, do all these men see her as something to possess and control?

sex.

I believe falsely speaking "in Christ's name" is blaspheme, so this would have been a very big deal to the reader at the time.

I don't know why this fascinates me but for some reason it makes me happy that they plucked their eyebrows back then.

I imagine him socially rough around the edges and bawdy and clearly would not stop talking (like most drunk people)

The knight's tale truly was a Knight's tale, complete with romance and fighting for the hand of the beautiful maiden. She is so pure that she prays to Diana so that she can not marry at all but remain chaste all her life, so she is the epitome of what would have been desirable in a woman at that time, because while she is untouched she is also obedient so when she is told that she is to marry one of them she obeys. I find the use of words/concepts like "knight" and "duke" to describe characters from a time right out of greek mythology very interesting and maybe a little ego-centric or ethnocentric of the story teller.

Irrational love-sickness that comes from infatuation

There is "confidence" and there is "kidnapping and hiding you in a cellar," I think they cross that line a few times with their single-minded possessiveness.

There is a Biblical story of Jacob waiting 7 years for Rachel, I feel like this could possibly be a link to the Biblical story based on who the audience would have been at the time.

"Love" is one hell of a drug!

If you were to have this sentiment and these circumstances with modern sensibilities, both of these guys would be restraining order, stalker level, crazy.

Reason is returning to the situation as the reality of their circumstances returns to focus.

This is extremely presumptuous also pretty comical as neither of them have spoken to her and they both are IN PRISON!

He is just as if not more struck by her beauty.

When I was reading this I immediately envisioned a play. With each passing character I imagined a spotlight hitting them as everything the narrator spoke into being was revealed in them. The contrast between some of the characters really stood out to me, like that of the friar and the Country Parson. Though this will be a duel of tales I can't help but to imagine and interaction between these two. I also can't help but to imagine the scholar riding alongside the doctor, or the Franklin interacting with the modern and somewhat rebellious monk. It's exciting to have so many possibilities of tales to be told.

I like how the "bravest" (a knight) had to go first in a sort of duel of wit, words, and wisdom. It's a different type of courage, but creating something or sharing something for the purpose of having it judged is not a comfortable thing.

This is such a stark contrast from the greedy Friar.

People often say that doctors have a God complex, could this be the cause of his disinterest? For a man so learned in so many other areas it is interesting that he is apathetic towards something that most people were preoccupied by at that time.

This is not the best ailment for someone preparing your food. It is glaring even in the face of the highest talent in the kitchen.

The secular scholar seems to be more pious and devout than the monk, the friar, or the nun.

He seems to have an agenda but keeps some anonymity by being forgettable, these traits make me think of a con man.

Makes me think of a snake

This seems like he was merely the most opportunistic and abusive of his "authority"

his clientele, people more likely to need absolving which apparently means money, He chooses this over those strictly in need.

A bit of a rebel.

He follows a way of life that is very old but maintains modern sentiments and manners

"In this tale I pace" for some reason I love this imagery, I believe he's saying he is going to linger in the telling of this tale, and be thorough almost as though he is savoring it. I could be wrong about my understanding but that what the line makes me think of.

This is another reminder of the fate that awaits Sir Gawain.

Dismembering something "with loving care" is a contradiction of concepts. Perhaps this represents the war between being polite and virtuous-can you be both?

Juxtapose Gaiwan's attempts to be courteous against his attempts to be virtuous. He is easily bent to her will; She uses his politeness to manipulate him into doing what she wants him to do. It makes me question the value of politeness, how often do we do things that make us feel shameful rather than dare to be impolite.

With a practiced hand the quarry is very graphically dismembered, keeping in the readers mind the fate that Sir Gaiwan faces.

In an attempt to live up to the purest standard of the knights code of honor, he ultimately sacrifices it on the alter of courtesy. Rather than offend, he makes compromises at his own expense that result in his shame. When the story culminates and he discovers the deception, and that he compromised for a trick he sees clearly the malleability of his character. What I take away from this story is that strength of character is more important than comfortable situations. Don't sacrifice your values over the perception of your character.

I really love the rhythmic devices used throughout this story. It feels almost like having a studio audience track placing emphasis and focusing the audiences attention to specific place as directed by the author. The essence of the first part seems to be very jovial, youthful, celebratory. The challenge made by the Green knight shifts the tone in the story. It's also interesting the contrast between the Green knight and politeness of court and Sir Gawian. The challenge is therefore a literal, physical challenge as well as a challenge of character.

He wears all of his virtues, this makes it sound empty like they are primarily for show, perhaps virtue signaling.

When gold is put through fire it is purified yet ultimately remains soft and malleable. The choice of describing sir Gaiwan as gold instead of steal suggests Gawain's character can be bent. Steal would break rather than bend. This foreshadows tests to his character. Gold is also used as an embellishment not an actual weapon suggesting that perhaps much of his character is for show.

The cadence of this line is brutish and bumpy with all of the B sounds. The alliteration reflects a masculinity that the description portrays.

Pleasant chatter that is conflict free and probably pretty superficial in nature.

The cadence of this line is bouncy and reminds me of laughter, "happiness high in halls," "ha hi ha"

Was it New years Day? The choice of describing the new year as "young" reflects the jovial nature that has prevailed through the poem to this point. It also is reflective of the fact that it is the beginning of the story.

The role reversal of this story is fascinating. The difference between the perspective of a female author of chivalric romances and the more typical male authors is a complete role reversal. The focus on Sir Launfel as, "beloved by many of the Court, because of his beauty and prowess, for he was a worthy knight, open of heart and heavy of hand" would (I think) not be a typical descriptor from a male author. That coupled with the fact that he was shunned by the king and alone in a strange land gives him a vulnerability, again less typical for a male character at this time. "Sir Launfal was son to a King of high, descent, though his heritage was in a distant land.... Ever must the pilgrim go heavily in a strage land, where there is none to council and direct him in his path." Statements like these give him almost a cinderella quality to his character. In the perspective from a male author a beautiful female character seems almost abstract like a piece of the scenery whereas, the magical female from this story makes a grand entrance, captures and audience with the king and speaks boldly and directly to him. She pursues Sir Launfal, obtains an oath of loyalty from him, and when he finds himself in trouble she arrives and rescues him. Her beauty is not an aspect of her that he has power over as she is not his possession but it is a source of her own strength that ultimately saves him.

This is basically the worst thing you can say to a woman much less a queen.

His transition as a foreigner is not smooth.

I know that I am supposed to be moved by Sir Orfeo's loyalty to Lady Heurodis, and I am, but she was described as very beautiful and there is something somewhat vapid about his devotion. I'm not saying he didn't love her but the emphasis placed on her physical features made her seem more of an object that a companion.Like watching a movie and being moved by the extras, I found myself moved by the devotion of his people who wept and wailed when he left them, and who embraced him and allowed him to reclaim his status when he returned. Perhaps it speaks to our culture at this time that I am more moved by platonic devotion than I am by romantic love. Just as the beginning expresses the nostalgia of the author: "In Btitian in the days of yore The harpers writ that men should praise The gallant deeds that were before Of such the Britons made their lays" I find that I am nostalgic for the idea of a people who are not self-serving, but are faithful and loyal.

"I am here to play music for your bosses enjoyment if he will see me" the attendant listens and allows him entrance

he was single-minded in his mission; nothing was stopping him

I think this basically means, "I'm going and whatever happens, happens"

purple was the color of royalty so this speaks the the lavishness and comfort of his life.

all were silent

who did this to you

This evokes an image of desperation, fear, and agony as a dying person loses all sense of safety even with the people they are closest to. It also speaks to his helplessness that despite their relationship his presence is no comfort to her in her state.

Beowulf parts I and II had an energy that was aggressive and triumphant despite themes of isolation, but part III there seemed to be a melancholy tone that set the stage for Beowulf's final battle. After all of the years of fighting and death Beowulf reminds me a bit of Grendel in heorot hall in Part I. Grendel was unable to sit on the throne (which is symbolic of his inability to ever rule over an empty room) just as Beowulf is the king but has no heirs and has found isolation in the void that accompanies so many deaths. Beowulf is further abandoned in his final battle by all but the loyal Wiglaf who stands alone with him as he faces the final dragon. I find it interesting that the final battle ends in mutual destruction between Beowulf and the dragon. There is a lot of violence and action, but I am struck by the pervading sadness and loneliness throughout the story.

When we think of a hero we often think of only traits of a leader but what about the bravery of following? Following another into battle. The loyalty of Wiglaf is more awe-inspiring to me than Beowulf essentially bare-knuckle boxing a dragon.

This is the most relatable line of the entire poem to me. How many times have you imagined an argument with someone and all of the clever things you would say, all of the perfect wit and timing? Or you imagine a simple explanation you would try to give a combative person, to explain away tensions only to imagine their sharp rebuttals, harsh jibes, and even cruel criticisms. As you imagine these scenarios your heart rate increases, your skin gets hot, and sometimes your fury spills over from the imaginary realm of hypotheticals into an actual confrontation.

I also find it interesting one of the most relatable lines is not about a human but a dragon which reveals a lot about human nature to me.

I noticed several themes throughout the poem. There seems to be an idea of isolation brought on by wild strength versus the community that comes from the power of leadership. There is also a lot of language of destiny and divinity. The monster is the offspring of Cain who was cursed by God and the kings are chosen warriors whose victories are "woven" by God. It's an interesting contrast because there are some similarities between the "good" and the "bad." Even the good kings are adorned in and buried with gold and yet it is only the monsters who are identified as greedy. It is almost like a personification of how man views himself and the self he denies which is the enemy or the "other."

Contrast this to versus 144-146, "So Grendel ruled in defiance of right, One against all, until the greatest house In the world stood empty, a deserted wall stead." the emptiness of the hall for Grendel mirrors the emptiness of hid victory in isolation, whereas a victory of one who fights for many comes with "triumph and gladness."

This line exemplifies several themes found throughout the poem, themes of isolation versus incorporation, protection versus the wild, and the blessed versus the cursed.

embraced by the pain of isolation.

This alludes to a sense of protection and possibly even innocence. The cub enjoys a protected life, not a life in the wild.

This is really interesting because if you go back to verses 24 and 25, "Behavior that’s admired Is the path to power among people everywhere." but Grendel,

"ruled in defiance of right, One against all, until the greatest house In the world stood empty" (v 144-146), this is why he could have the room but would never be able to rule the people he drove away.