Though there are many tricks being played by Don Quixote' corrupted mind or those who play into his insanity for amusement, the real trickster element is being played out by those close to him that care for his shaken mental state and are trying to protect him. Here in the passage highlighted, his housekeeper, niece and barber Nicholas are tricking Don Quixote into thinking the source of his disease was taken by a wizard. With Sancho later in the story, he often plays into his fantasy either to agree with is master or to manipulate him out of laziness.

the word catholic in this case is not describing something as religious or holy but being used as its literal definition universal. Catholicism wasn't necessarily made a distinction from Christianity (faiths that worship Christ as God) until the western schism and Martin Luther's essay created unrest and eventual division in the religion in the later 14th and early 15th century (britannica). The early Christians would call their religion based around Jesus's teachings Catholic because of how widespread and popular it had become in a short period (britannica).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism/The-emergence-of-Roman-Catholicism

Throughout the Novel, this hate towards Muslim people is due to their long occupation of the Arabic Peninsula (hence the name) for 8 centuries (bbc). This hate is akin to hate expressed by countries in the Mideast towards western powers, because of their constant colonization and troop presence for the past 100 years. Though the conquest of Spain by nature was against many Spaniard's wills there were some that not only accepted it but helped this Islamic force. This divide between those in Spain was brought up by disagreements in faith about the trinity and whether Jesus was a prophet or God. Those who believed in the trinity (trinitarians) were very oppressive, so in 711AD the Islamic people had spanish helping them in their conquest to, "unify Spain in monotheism" (islamicity). During the occupation of Spain Muslim powers displayed high levels of religious tolerance and allowed of autonomous governments with the spanish (islamcity).

i originally researched this think i would be able to better contextualize the bigotry of our author throughout the story but i found that this ignorance towards Muslims in Spain was nothing more than just Ignorance.

https://www.islamicity.org/11535/muslim-conquest-of-spain/?msclkid=0b39d8d0bc4111ec8b12897c3af4510b

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml?msclkid=f36c326cbc4111eca64216b75dd6fe62

Here Gawain Isn't acting nobly as he should but instead is acting brashly because of the taunts of the green night. If it weren't for Gawain, King Arthur would have put his kingdom in jeopardy, having to fulfill the second part of the green nights "game". As described in "the Song of Roland" Sir Gawain fulfills many tenets of the code of chivalry because he served his lord king Arthur by defending his court's honor in participating in the game (Knights Code of Chivalry 1). spoiler alert He also goes on to fulfill many more tenets of the code while up holding the second half of the game, though he does break one or two when met with his looming death. The last consideration is that Gawain is protecting Arthur's honor because Arthur has hastily jumped into this competition with no regard for its morality or how it may endanger his court. This is a strong moral justification for Gawain's actions but it does completely let him off the hook for decapitating a man in the middle of the festivities.

https://www.scasd.org/cms/lib/PA01000006/Centricity/Domain/1487/Knights%20Code%20of%20Chivalry.pdf

Unlike my previous annotation, this is definitely the least virtuous thing Gawain does for the entirety of the story. Though we find out later this wont kill the green knight, Gawain doesn't know this and swings the axe with the intent of cutting off heads (killing). Perhaps Gawain's action was acceptable in the context of the Green knight's test but according to the middle evil knight's codes he was "expected to temper this aggressive side of a knight with the chivalrous side to his nature" (Knights Code of Chivalry 1). This would probably be where Gawain asks the strange knight why he wants his head chopped off or tell him a new-years festival might not be the place to hold this competition. to be fair to Gawain, he does ask the Green Knight where he might find him and what he might call him so he may fulfill the second part of the game.

https://www.scasd.org/cms/lib/PA01000006/Centricity/Domain/1487/Knights%20Code%20of%20Chivalry.pdf

Spoiler Alert!!!

Here, Gawain is being modest by saying he is the weakest of the knights of the round table because he is actually not weak but probably the strongest and most virtuous. As we find out after Gawain goes to the green knight to allow the knight to strike him, the Green Knight was actually testing Arthur and his court on there virtue and if it "lives up to the hype." Not to get too meta but by Gawain being modest in this instance he starts the path of living up to reputation of Arthur's Knights which consequentially ends in Gawain fulfilling the second half of the agreement.

In this instance and many others, Krishna shares parallels with the Christian God. God shown in the bible is described as eternal infinite, both in create and outside of it. according the catholic catechism God being infinite means he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, which boils down to what Krishna was saying about his power and existence.

I personally find the parallels between Christianity and Hinduism very evident and interesting, because it points to how closely they intertwined during both of their conceptions and how universal some of this rhetoric is viewed. Some ideas of temperance and self-control are universal and necessary in a function society. Much like the message from the video in this weeks model, much of the insights found in the Gita is from the readers discretion.

https://westminstershortercatechism.net/godisinfinite/

An action done without the outcome in mind but merely for the merit of the action is most moral. This can be related to helping the homeless. You shouldn't help the homeless because it would make you feel like a good person or even because you know the person you helped would feel better. The moral action is to help a homeless person only because he needs help.

This is similar to Catholic theology, a moral action is moral only because of the merit of the action itself not the outcome or reason for it.

I feel with any discussion on morality things tend to become very black and white in a world of color not just grey.

Arjuna doesn't see the sin as just the murder of family on a battle field but sees his role in this war as a sin of disrupting the family. This adds a level of severity and intensity to his internal debate because he is not only killing but destroying households he himself is apart of.

As I understand it, Hinduism places a large emphasis on family because they view it as one the most important stepping stones to completing your four "ashramas" reaching enlightenment. Relating it back to the Gita, Arjuna is beyond conflicted in a way western culture can understand because according to his dogma, he will be incomplete if he follows through on this civil war.

source https://family.jrank.org/pages/768/Hinduism-Hinduism-Family.html