Bondage of the will

Luther thinks that men are so bad and therefore not capable of "... free choice for the good" (182). I agree with this point of Luther's. I think that man is totally depraved so it's not that we can't choose God, it's that we won't. This speaks to the fact that we are given the power to choose God, by God. But aside from an act of God inside of us we won't choose Him because we are totally depraved and innately bent towards ourselves and sin.

I commented on Sierra's and Darby's!

The Validity of Luther's Opinions on Peasants and Rulers

"Since the peasants, then, have brought both God and man down upon them and are already so many times guilty of death in body and soul, since they submit to no court and wait for no verdict but only rage on, I must instruct the worldly governors how they are to act in the matter with a clear conscience."
I think this is a pivotal statement made in Luther's "Against the Robbing and Murdering
Hordes of Peasants" because it goes to show that he wasn't just making these speculations because he disagreed with the peasants reactions to the government, but rather that he found it quite necessary to approach a topic that was easily avoidable as a Christian who values both life and holy justice. Where do you draw the lines when ruler-ship is God-ordained and human free-will is also God-breathed?

I commented on Ethan's and Natalie's.

Peasants

Luther writes against the peasants because they have committed three "terrible sins against God". First, they are not submissive to their rulers like Christ commands. Luther says they have "forfeited" their "body and soul" by bringing violence against those above them. Secondly, they rebel and rob monasteries and castles. I found it interesting that nothing is "more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel". They start a chain reaction of trouble that keeps producing. Luther compares a rebel to a dog with rabies. A rebel, if you do not kill him, will kill you. Thirdly, they are blasphemers. They are like a wolf in disguise claiming to be Christian, and earning "death in body and soul ten times over". I am not sure of the history of what is going on when Luther is writing, but he clearly states that he is not judging them. This is a matter that needs to be brought to light, and how to approach this situation with the "devil's"work going on.

I commented on Ethan and Darby's.

Luther Over-reacting

I read "Luther on Translating" and noticed that while he brings up some points about proper translation to German, he constantly insults the original translators, which I believe is Luther to be over-reacting and looking down upon others for a simple mistake. I think it's best to remember that we are all human, and that if we want people to take our advice, we should not demean and insult them.

I commented on Ethan's and Darby's posts.

Cast Off Worry

“I have a better worrier than you and all the angels. He lies in a cradle and clings to a virgin’s breast, and yet he is at the same time seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Therefore, be satisfied. Amen.” (Luther 106)

I can really relate to Catherine Luther. She is in a state of worry and fear. This seems so reasonable, to worry for your husband’s health. There are so many fears that I harbor in my mind that seem completely reasonable- school, finances, jobs, etc. Luther’s letter really served as a reminder to me. There is nothing that worrying does to fix any of my problems. In fact, worrying displays a severe lack of faith. Here at the end of the semester, I truly find myself in a state of needing to trust God so much more than I usually do. I pray, as Luther did, that I can remember Christ and trust rather than worry and stress about the things that are out of my control while faithfully stewarding the things that are.

I commented on Sierra and Alex's posts. 

To Kill a Peasant

Reading through "Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants" by Martin Luther, I was surprised how quickly Martin Luther brought up wanting to put the Peasants to death. I understand the crimes they have committed, although I am not sure if immediate execution is always a great route to take. Luther also seemed very okay with calling everyone out to take action, and it seems that he wasn't exactly going to jump to fight himself though. This guy can have some good moments, but also some bad, I've gotta say. Although people do commit horrible crimes, there should at least be some type of attempt to bring them back. Of course Hebrews says that it is impossible for someone to truly experience God, the Holy Spirit, and the joy of the Word, and then fall away, and return. Im not 100% up to speed with the state of the peasants, other than they do in delusion call themselves Christian brethren will committing their crimes and sins. I think thats a great representation of how we sometimes live in sin and almost deceive ourselves into thinking we are fine and not in disobedience to God. Very convicting, although I'm not sure if that was the intent of the writing. LAST BLOG yeah.

P.S. I commented on Darby's and Sierra's posts.

Bondage of the Will

Referring to the topic of conversation from class last Thursday, I think it is good and interesting to challenge ourselves with knowing doctrine, but we also just need to remember a few things while discussing doctrines and Calvinism. First, we need to never hold tighter to doctrine than we do to scripture. Yes, Calvinism's Five Points (TULIP) are interesting to argue and help put ideas in perspective, BUT Scripture remains the ultimate authority. We get our doctrine from Scripture, not the other way around. Another thing we must remember is that before we start discussing the huge, contradictory questions about the specifics of our faith, I think it is crucial that we are grounded on the basic understandings of what we believe. Then we can explore more. I am all for learning about doctrine and stretching to see what I believe to be true, so this is awesome. 

Regarding Luther’s Bondage of the Will, I appreciate his comment when he says, “as for people who read without the Spirit, it is no wonder if they are shaken like a reed by every wind” (175). I agree with this claim that we need the Spirit. A role of the Holy Spirit is to bring understanding and wisdom, so how can we expect to understand God’s word without guidance from His Spirit?

I commented on Darby and Natalie’s!

The Bondage of the Will

In Luther's, The Bondage of the Will, his main argument seems to be that man is in total depravity for life. He thinks that men are so bad and therefore not capable of "... free choice for the good" (182). His thought processes towards mankind remains in the total depravity category of Calvin's 5 points of Calvinism. While I am still confused about free will in general and God's sovereign elect, I don't think that Luther is right when he says that man cannot choose rightly when given the option of free will and free choice. If God extends his grace and his love upon us, He intercedes in our lives therefore giving us the option to take and receive his love or reject it. I think I agree with the third tree (the trees Olsen drew on the board on Thursday), that God intercedes in our lives before we even have a chance to think about Him because He is God and if we are apart of His chosen elect, he would have to act in order for us to really think about Him.

I commented on Natalie's and Sierra's!!!

Righteous Anger or Wounded Pride?

     After reading "Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants", I had to ask my dad if Martin Luther was being satirical...he wasn't. He truly wanted the rulers to smite the peasants. At first, I thought he was being a little harsh--and I definitely still do--but I see where he is coming from. Martin Luther defended the peasants' rights to be fed and taken care of, like the Bible commands, and yet they take it for granted and are even seeking to overthrow the government. He then tells the rulers that they should kill as many as possible, and he even says: "Stab, smite, slay, whoever you can. If you die in doing it, well for you! A more blessed death can never be yours, for you die obeying the divine Word and commandment in Romans XIII..." Dang. Isn't he doing one of the very things he condemned the Catholic church for doing? In the Crusades, the church said that whoever died in the war would be admitted into heaven, and now Martin Luther is implying the same thing. I guess in light of that, my question is, is he truly righteously angry or is he more embarrassed that he defended them to begin with? And was his idea of punishment anti-Christian?

95 Theses and Their Intentions

I find it so interesting that the 95 theses written by Martin Luther were not simply 95 things that Luther disagreed with in the Catholic Church. They were initially created and posted as a note of 95 statements Luther saw as needed for a revision in the Catholic Church. However, those who responded to the Theses did not receive them in the same civility Luther originally meant them to be understood.

I commented on Darby's and Daniel's.
(Darby Approved)

Luther

In reading the 95 theses, I was a bit lost. The concepts are not all completely foreign to me, but a lot of them I do not really understand. When he talks about someone's last moments (I think), he is basically saying that's when they are the fakest because they are just scared. Indulgences are supposed to supposedly save one from purgatory, but Abernathy described purgatory as "not a place". Then what are they paying money to save them from? I also thought that how later on he says that even though one pays an indulgence, if you pass a poor person on the street and do not give money to them, your indulgence does not count. Paying money for forgiveness just does not make sense to me.

I commented on Daniel and Darby's.

Martin Luther and the 95 Theses

I was aware of Martin Luther's 95 These but never had read it before. Now that I read it, I am surprised. I knew that Luther had nailed this work to the doors of the local church and that he called for change in the Catholic Church. I was aware of the many issues with the church at this time, but after getting into his theses, it is definitely a different experience. It gives you a very clear picture of what the problems in the church were like from the perspective of someone in that time period. I can almost hear and feel Luther's frustration in the words, and that is both a bit unnerving and very interesting. His feelings towards the church are made quite clear in these theses and I applaud him for doing what he did.

I commented on Darby's post.

95 Theses

It seems to me that Luther states his purpose for his 95 Theses quite plainly in the introduction to his work. I always thought Luther was screaming at the Catholic church with these theses, but in fact all he really wanted to do was just to talk through these ideas with someone else. I think the people who saw his work, took it the wrong way, therefore ending with his excommunication. One of the things Luther talks most about is the way the Catholic church does indulgences. He did not agree with the way indulgences were thought to save one form his/her sins. It seems to me that Luther really wanted these indulgences to be thought of (maybe) as a form of tithe. Instead, they were bought in order to buy one's salvation. All Luther wanted a change in the Catholic church, but instead he got a new change by creating Lutheranism.

Sir Gawain

The main question that I have from Sir Gawain is what is the point of the beheading or attempted beheading? I get that the game the green night wanted to play was dangerous and showed courage in whichever man was brave enough to play. However, after the green knight was beheaded he simply picked up his head and one year later when the green knight tried to cut off Sir Gawain's head, he was only able to make a small cut on the back of his neck. So my question is what was the purpose of decapitation here? Was it supposed to symbolize something else important? And if so, why were none of them successful ( I recognize that the green knight's head is successfully cut off but what is the point if he is able to simply pick his head up and move on with his life?

I commented on Brax's and Sierra's!

Sir Gawain, the totally depraved, and gay was he too...

"Sir Gawain the good, and gay was he too"


Was Sir Gawain good? From a christian perspective it is hard to justify this statement. For the Bible says "No one is good except God alone."(Mark 10:18). Even if we look outside of the Biblical context, we see that Sir Gawain was deceitful, thieving, and prideful. Sir Gawain demonstrates these sins by not fulfilling the promise of giving back the girdle. His pride is also demonstrated throughout this writing. As I was wrestling with this question, I began to wonder if I should bring Christianity into this since Sir Gawain is literature and we can't truly predispose our Christian beliefs on him. I began to ponder whether a god existed with this reality and my final conclusion was that there was. For to say, that Sir Gawain is good is to say that good exists, and if good exists there must be a moral law, and if there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver. So assuming that Sir Gawain is living in a theistic universe, there is absolutely no way he would be considered righteous or good and thus is a wretched sinner.


I commented on Hannah and Dallas's Posts.

A Comparison to the Christian Journey?

As odd as this initially sounds, I think this poem's story can be closely related back to the Christian walk through life. The Green Knight in ways represents Christ- with his 'resurrection', initial persona of justice, and later merciful act of forgiveness, and Sir Gawain represents us- with our pride, and desire to live with integrity, and our failure to do so on many accounts. It's an unlikely journey of humility for Gawain and a display of love/mercy for the Green Knight. I am still confused about how Morgan Le Fay fits into this story...is she there for historical reference or some deeper reason?

I commented on Hannah's and Wendy's

Sir Gawain, A Truly Polite Individual

I know that the rules of chivalry and whatnot were quite prominent at the time of the original rendition of this tale, but shouldn't Gawain be a little more forward with his rejection of his host's wife? Sure, if you don't like the food, suck it up. If she is a little weird, just deal with it. But if she tries to seduce you, perhaps you should be a little more upfront about your opinions. Granted we see where this got Joseph in the book of Genesis (prison, for those of you who don't know), so maybe Gawain is doing the best thing.

I commented on Sierra and Francesca's posts.

Pride

     Normally I'm not the person who tries to relate to characters in works we read, but this time I can't help but feel a lot like Gawain. I often find myself chasing honor, prestige, and recognition, and I end up getting in over my head. I find myself face-to-face with a powerful Green Knight who survives having his head cut off, and I pretend I can do the big task on my own and get halfway there and get scared and do whatever it takes to save my pride. All of it could've been avoided had I have trusted someone else or just had the courage to accept the consequences of my actions. I'm not thinking of an instance in particular in my own life, but a bunch of little instances (I think you see where I'm coming from).
     Eventually, Gawain accepts the consequences of his actions (duh, the girdle), and what I think I love the most is that his friends bear the punishment with him. They don't just tease him for caving or for not being perfect. I think we are the same way. We mess up and we get scared that when people find out, they will abandon us. I guess this is just a goofy reminder to me that even when we mess up, there is grace and forgiveness...even if you have to wear a green girdle.

I commented on Francesca and Nathanael's posts. 

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

I think I honestly just have questions. I agree with Darby and Ethan: what are we supposed to be understanding? What is the significance of the in-depth explanations of the disemboweling and cleaning of each animal after hunting? As a whole, how does these scenes contribute to the story? I appreciate Darby's attempts at trying to make sense of the symbolism of each animal. Surely, there has to be a deeper, underlying meaning behind all of this.

I commented on Darby and Hannah's posts!

Thoughts

After reading Sir Gaiwan and the Green Knight, I come to think of what is the point of this novel? It is just another epic that has a protagonist, antagonist, a journey, and something mystical. The color green is the only thing that seperates this from the rest. However in the end where Sir Gaiwan continues to wear the green girdle as a sign of his failure and sin is such an askewed perception of what he actually accomplished. In the beginning it is clear to see his bravery among the rest and that he is unique compared to the rest of the table. He should wear it as a reminder of his journey and what he learned along the way.

I commented on Dallas and Ethan's blog post.

What?

I think what we see in this story is not really a change from Gawain alone, but from both him and the green knight. We see Gawain looking for repentance and the knight being nice enough to forgive him and share his life. A very different picture of the two people we saw at the beginning of the story. Both were ridden with their own personal issues, including the knight's mocking nature and Gawain's
cowardice and initial sins because of that. I've enjoyed the story quite a bit but am gonna go ahead and say that I'm not 100% if we are supposed to get a crazy clear moral or lesson from this. Maybe that's a problem with reading these types of stories. We should enjoy the writing style and the way it was related to its time of creation.


P.S. I commented on Alex's and Hannah's posts

Morgan le Fay

At the end, we find that Morgan le Fay, King Arthur's half-sister, is the one that sent the Green Knight to the castle. She wanted to see if the knights of the Round Table were all they are cracked up to be. She wants to hurt Guinevere, but I do not really understand why. It is a very short description that brings the story together to all make sense. With this not really being the focus, one can see that the main thing to gain from this story is Gawain's transformation. He is honorable throughout the story, but is proven to be human when he inevitably falls. He is redeemed through his voluntary confession of his faults. He is shown to truly be honorable.

I commented on Dallas and Darby's posts.

Why is the Green Knight... Green?

People may wonder why the Green Knight is green all-over. I think that he's either a ghost or a supernatural being. Green is typically the color associated with the supernatural. In addition, the Green Knight survived having his head cut off (a feat impossible for any normal human). However, if he is a spirit, what might his purpose be? Could he have been sent to test the might and bravery of King Arthur's court?

I commented on Darby's and Dallas's posts.

Exposing the Wounds

In the end, Sir Gawain recognizes that the wound on his neck was a punishment for his cowardice and covetousness. It brings him grief and disgrace. However, he makes a very wise and true observation. He says, "A man may cover his blemish, but unbind it he cannot." This can apply in several ways. We can always try to hide our sins, but we can hide nothing from God. The more we try to hide our wickedness, the greater the damage it causes in our lives. No man can ever do anything to remove the pain and scars caused by our sin. Though man is not capable, God most certainly is. Christ is the only one who can expose our wounds and cleanse them. As Gawain finds out, it is painful and brings shame and disgrace when a wound is exposed. When the Word of God exposes our sin, it brings shame and is quite painful. But when God cleanses us of our sin, we are made new and no longer have to live hiding our sin and shame. This quote just stood out to me as a picture of the gospel and how incredible God is as he cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

I commented on Hannah and Alex's posts.

What is the significance?

Even though I liked Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I am confused about the significance of it. Even more so, I do not understand why the knight Gawain befriends is the Green Knight. I figured he was the Green Knight or at least not a real friend to Gawain because the game he proposed seemed sketchy. I was trying to understand the game and how it went along with the three huntings and the three temptings of the knight's wife, and all that I could come up with is how with each animal the temptations of the wife get more intense. The first game the knight kills are deer, which for the most part are innocent and harmless. And the first tempting of the wife seems harmless enough because she just wants to get to know Gawain more. But the next day, the knight and his men chase after a boar, and as most people know, boars can be savage beasts. And as we read, the wife just wants a little bit more of Gawain. She wants him to sleep with her, all the while testing him to see if he actually would. The last animal the knight brings home, is a fox which I think is very significant. Foxes are thought to be very cunning and wise and sneaky animals which seems to mirror the knight Gawain has befriended. The wife tricks Gawain into taking the gift she has given him, the girdle, and tells him not to tell her husband. This is the sin that Gawain gets caught in. So when he goes to the Green Knight's lair, in all honesty, he seems to be forgiven a lot easier than I would have thought. So all in all, I do not get the whole point of the Green Knight in the first place (again). Was the point just to see who was worthiest out of all of King Arthur's knights?

I commented on Wendy's and Ethan's!

Pretending to be Brave

“But however heedfully thou hid it, if I here departed, fain in fear now to flee, in the fashion thou speakest, I should a knight coward be, I could not be excused.” (105)

This passage bothers me. Gawain is about to meet the Green Knight, and he is wearing the green girdle. This girdle is supposed to protect him from harm, but he was not supposed to keep it. The agreement he made with the king was that he would return all the things he received each day back to him. His fear caused him to act dishonestly and keep the girdle anyway. This is not courageous, yet he pretends to have courage in this passage. He appeals to his honor, and refuses to let his fear drive him from his quest. The problem is that he already lost his honor, and he is wearing the gift that attests to his lack of honor. His pride leads him to trick his guide (and maybe even himself) into believing that he is brave. I do understand that he redeems himself and recognizes his mistake, but it still irritates me that Gawain even acts heroic when he has done something that so compromises his honor and bravery.

I commented on Darby and Dallas' posts. 

'Immaculate Pearl

'My immaculate Lamb, my final end
Beloved, Who all can heal', said she,
'Chose me as a spouse, did to bridal bend
That once would have seemed unmeet to be.
From your weeping world when I did wend
He called me to his felicity :
"Come hither to me, sweetest friend,
For no blot nor spot is found in thee!"
Power and beauty he gave to me;
In his blood he washed my weeds in state,
Crowned me clean in virginity,
And arrayed me in pearls immaculate.'

This entire section of the book was very encouraging to read. Being able to hear the Gospel story in a unique way that I haven't heard before was a true blessing. The different uses of imagery and the likeness of the jeweler and the pearl was such a beautiful expression. The fact that we sinners are actually seen as worth something to the one who gave it all, the Immaculate Lamb, is a very sobering moment of realization. With that worth, we are held to a standard that only can be achieved through dependence on Jesus and the Father. I am willing to bet that this is a relationship that will last well throughout the world's trials, for HE has overcome the world. What shall we fear?? Very encouraging today!!

P. S. I commented on Dallas' and Noah's posts

Why Green?

In reading most of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight there are forms of alliteration with the harsh letter g sound when describing and talking about the Green Knight which add to his already overbearing character. Also the way he presents himself by looking down on some of the most well known knights of the round table shows arrogance and abudnace of pride. The way he comes to someones else's home turf and demands things such as playing a game and seeing the highest in charge aid to that as well and bring sense of intimidation. One thing that I do not understand is WHY GREEN? Why choose this color that isnt initmadting at all? Why not purple to show royality or prestige? Or black to show power and mystery? Green reminds me of Earth and things that aren't at all what the Green Knight presents himself as.


I commented on Dallas's and Daniel's blog post.

Alliteration and Rhyme

I find the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight interesting, but I just love the alliteration and rhyme used. After reading it out loud, it became very humorous and sometimes hard to read without getting tongue-tied. It is just incredible to me that so much thought went into making the text alliterate and explain the plot. These literary devices make the reading more entertaining but do not distract to much from the great story line. I appreciate Tolkien's work in translating this work and the great writing of the original author, who is sadly unknown. This is one of my favorite readings so far simply because of the style that it is written in.

I commented on Alex and Francesca's posts.

I'm Gawain: I have big muscles and courage, but no honor.

Listen, Gawain is a great knight. He's loyal to his king; he lives by his knightly code; and he never strays away from a challenge...even when that challenge is unknown from an unknown knight in all green armor that invaded on the feast your king was hosting. I find Gawain's courage in the beginning to be astounding. Although it took him a good while to accept the green knight's challenge, and he only accepted it to save Arthur the trouble; he still possessed the courage to take the ax and strike the knight.  Gawain is defending his king and at the same time showing off his knightly valor. The challenge is completed, the green knight recovers his severed head and leaves, and Gawain is stuck for the next year that he must return the blow to the green knight in one year's time. Gawain at this point was on medieval death row. Talk about a punishment; Gawain now must sit for an entire year knowing that his coming death will be that of decapitation.

Gawain then travels in search of the green knight and stumbles along a king and his castle and is faced with another challenge there. Gawain is told to repay to his host what he has received while his host is out hunting in the mornings. Gawain follows through with the promise on the first two nights. He is then caught by the same woman that visited him the past two days asking for "more." Gawain in his knightly manner denies her the favor and instead accepts a cloth that prevents death. Man, what a snag! A cloth that can prevent me from dying when I know my death awaits me in a couple of days? Sign me up!

This has me disgruntled, as Gawain received this cloth during the time his host was out, so he must give it to the host. Gawain, however, decides to keep the cloth a secret and then leaves to confront the green knight.

A knight such as Gawain, who has been built up to be this noble and honorable fellow, is then seen lying to his host in order to save his own life? That's untrustworthy and dishonorable, and if Arthur were to find out, I'm sure Gawain would no longer be welcome at the round table. It seems like a minor offense, but the cloth given to him had magical properties able to defy death. I'd say that Gawain should accept his fate and carry out the knight's challenge willingly, knowing that he will not survive. I'd rather die honorably than to be known as a liar and thief.

I commented on Natalie's and Alex's.

Pineapple does not go on pizza...

True Bravery

I really enjoyed this reading! The alliteration and rhyming reminded me a lot of children’s books. Despite the light and playful wording, the story line was very well-suited for all audiences. The ending was my favorite part. Gawain demonstrates an often-neglected part of being a real hero. He shamefully recounts his mistake, and he is very upfront with Arthur and the rest of the kingdom about his cowardly actions. Even in his shame, he is renowned as a hero for his bravery and honesty. I think Gawain reminds us that sometimes the bravest thing a person can do is be honest about their failures.  

I commented on Daniel and Nate’s posts.

Sir Gawain's Timeless Morals

I find Sir Gawain to be a character that is easily relatable, even in modern contemporary times. Throughout his journey, Sir Gawain resists temptation, braves the Green Knight, confesses his sins, basically he grows as a person. These trials and tribulations can easily parallel everyday real-world problems that Christians face, like resisting temptation. I think it's cool to find an old piece of work that can still resonate into the modern real world, as bravery and self-control are virtuous traits.

I commented on Daniel's and Wendy's.

*Contains Spoilers if You Haven't Read to the End*

*Disclaimer: I am unsure of how far we were supposed to read, so I read the whole thing. If you want to preserve the ending, don't continue reading.*

     Sir Gawain sets off on his journey in order to gain honor. The knights praise his intentions and his courage, and when he gets halfway through his journey, he begins to question why he went. This is pretty much the plot of a lot of stories, except the main characters in the majority of the stories are small, weak characters whereas Sir Gawain is definitely not portrayed as being weak. To me, the ending is what separates this story from the rest. He caves to the temptation and takes what is basically a girdle out of hopes that it would protect him, and he pays the consequences. Usually, the hero wins and goes away unscathed and without consequences. I like that Gawain doesn't try to fight his consequence and that the other knights join him in his punishment.

I commented on Wendy and Nate's posts. 

Sir Gawain and The Green Knight

In reading this poem over the weekend, I was annoyed with the amount of times the book had Gawain's name printed "Wawain". It was ridiculous. Gawain is a knight of truly noble character. He is humble from the beginning when he volunteers to take the blow from the Green Knight. He is tempted three times by the Green Knight's wife. Sir Gawain is honorable enough to not be a "traitor" to the owner of the house he is residing in. He pleads for God's help to keep him strong. The third time, Sir Gawain is tempted by fear and cowardice to accept the lace from the Lady of the house. This lace is said to protect him. To me, this is not the dishonorable part really. When Sir Gawain does not hold true to the lord of the house's deal, that is when he becomes ignoble. Sir Gawain keeps the "love- lace that the lady had given" him despite the agreement to exchange whatever the other had won that day. I do believe Sir Gawain has redemption though. He is in a sense forgiven by the Green Knight and returns to King Arthur's castle to tell the truth of what happened. He does not hide what he has done, even though it questions his loyalty to what is noble. Sir Gawain admits to his sins and there is nobility/honor in that.

I commented on Daniel and Nate's.

THe Green Knight's Motives?

I am at a loss for the reason the Green Knight came to Arthur to challenge him or Gawain or whomever he came seeking to a fight. He simply entered the court, making an arrogant challenge, then had his head removed. He then reveals he doesn't even really need the head to live, carrying it around after the beheading like the Headless Horseman. Why did he come to Arthur's court to perform such an action? Is it the idea of honor and glory in battle? If so, he certainly has an unfair advantage in a battle, what with the continuing to function without a head, and all. It would not be a fair and honorable battle because of that, so then why? What does he want? I have no idea.

I commented on Darby and Nate's posts.

My first thoughts on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight....

When I first started reading Sir Gawain, my thought was "what?!" I did not understand who the green knight was, why he wanted to play a game, or anything else for that matter. What this story kind of reminds me of though, is David and Goliath. Not in a biblical way, but in the way that a tiny man comes to fight a giant to protect people he loves. But that is where the similarities end because after Gawain chops the knight's head off, the knight just walks away. I am not sure I could even guess what the point to his game would be just from reading the first section. But the knight is wanting Gawain to go on a journey to find him-- what that journey has in store, I have no idea but it will be interesting to read about it.

I commented on Nate's and Natalie's!

Sir Gawain (Post for 4/11)

   Sir Gawain and The Green Knight is one of my favorite readings from this semester. First off, I love the mysteriousness of it having no author, which just seems fitting due to the aura of mystery inside the tale itself. Also, I love reading anything Tolkien, who translated this edition. (He also wrote a killer introduction.) Anyway, this work has many themes throughout, my favorite being the human condition--namely, its imperfection.

   This story focuses upon the perfection and valor of Sir Gawain throughout its entirety. But even Gawain, the pillar of morality and loyalty, fails in at least one regard. This points out man's inability to be perfect, his fallen state. If even one of the greatest among men can fail, so can all men. Also, it is interesting to note that Gawain does a wonderful job of resisting temptation, until his life is on the line. It is fear of death and love of self that leads him to his one failure. Could this transfer over to our lives? Perhaps the reasons behind our most glaring failures is an excess of self-love, or maybe in fact a fear of loss, be that of life, stature, or respect. Maybe I'm wrong, but most sins in my opinion could be pulled from these two categories: fear and pride. What do you think?

The Utopian Traveler

The Utopian traveler caught my attention upon the reading of "Utopia." What grabbed me so, I think, was the orderliness, structure, and strictness of the traveling. In our world, we might see traveling as a sort of freedom, an opportunity to vacation and do as you please, but to travel in Utopia comes with rules and guidelines to follow. A passport is necessary and if not obtained, upon second offense, you were to be sold into slavery. And even if you obtain a passport, wherever you travel, you are expected to help labor in your area of work. Though it sounds efficient, I feel like my desire to be free in travel would be compromised and even take away from the joy found in traveling.

I commented on Wendy's and Alex's

Utopia

The fact that every one works in an Utopian society is interesting. Only six hours a day are spent working; that's less than the average work day now. I like how they set aside time for work, and leisure time is spent enriching their minds. Utopia sounds nice, but I feel like life would be quite boring and freedom is limited. One has to dress the same, work the same, and eat the same. There are variations in what they do and do have freedom, but I feel it is extremely limited. It has various similarities with utilitarianism.

I commented on Dallas and Alex's.

A Common Goal

In Utopia, the common goal of working for the necessities of the public showed a sort of camaraderie and connection between the people. I couldn't help but notice the way they divided their time throughout the day, so they are able to be efficient. They held contribution to society through work highly, but they were also mindful that the people should not toil all day and night. This shows to me that one of the common goals was to progress as a society but to not get lost in the future. I will command them on their dividing people off to work or study depending on their interests. Quite a good working society.




P.S. I commented on Hannah and Daniel's posts

Utopia: The Simpler Life

I feel like the purpose of Utopia is to illustrate that the simpler life is easier than wanting more. While many kingdoms are at war trying to conquer each other, the Utopians instead live in peace, working together six hours a day. Unlike other countries where people work long hours but are less productive because there's more people who are not working, everyone in Utopia has a purpose that keeps the country productive, but are still given time to peruse leisurely activities, which is important. While it's important to work, it's also important to allow people time to recharge. It shows that cooperation, not long work hours, can produce the most results.

I commented on Hannah and Dallas'.

Man's Love of Power

"For most princes apply themselves more to affairs of war than to the useful arts of peace; and in these I neither have any knowledge, nor do I much desire it: they are generally more set on acquiring new kingdoms, right or wrong, than on governing well those they possess. And among the ministers of princes, there are none that are not so wise as to need no assistance, or at least that do not think themselves so wise that they imagine they need none; and if they court any, it is only those for whom the prince has much personal favor, whom by their fawnings and flatteries they endeavor to fix to their own interests: and indeed Nature has so made us that we all love to be flattered, and to please ourselves with our own notions."

This quote from Raphael says a lot about the nature of man. Man craves power and control above all things. He has reason for not wanting to be a counselor for royalty based on the majority of rulers. He recognizes the pride of man and does not want to deal with the arrogance of a prince. He recognizes the selfishness caused by our sinful human nature. However, this does not mean that he should not try to make a difference and offer good advice to a ruler. Even if they do not listen, he should make an effort. He understands what is wrong but he does not seek to make a difference.

I commented on Hannah and Daniel's posts.

Princes and the People

While reading this, I noticed a particular line, "...for the springs of both good and evil flow from the prince, over a whole nation, as from a lasting fountain." I immediately thought of the Niocomachean Ethics by Aristotle. This sounds very similar to Aristotle's defining features of a just ruler, in that a good prince will produce good people, and vice versa. It is often that the character of the ruler defines the character of the people he rules over, as he defines the laws of the land and his actions have great ramifications as the face and voice of his kingdom. This is such an important theme in political power, that some forget about. And in the end, the bad rulers receive their due.

I commented on Hannah and Trevor's post.

The Wisdom of a Traveler

"But you are much mistaken," said he, "for he has not sailed as a seaman, but as a traveller, or rather a philosopher.”

Travel is a very eye-opening experience. Raphael’s wisdom and character is greatly impacted by his extensive travels. He has great wisdom concerning the character of men and what it takes govern them well. His view can be seen as very pessimistic, but I would suggest that travel has opened his eyes to the overarching reality of all of human nature. He has been in close relationships with people from across the world and seen that  they are not so different from his own countrymen. As he reenters his home country, he sees it more clearly than he did before. He is not surprised that men are thieves, but rather he is able to discern why they are. Travel transformed him into a better philosopher. His understanding and knowledge increased exponentially by simply taking the time to know another people well.  This is why it is so important to learn from other cultures. Travel is the best remedy to ignorance, and in the end, it helps one understand themselves and those around them more fully.

I commented on Daniel and Trevor's posts.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

" This Raphael, who from his family carries the name of Hythloday, is not ignorant of the Latin tongue, but is eminently learned in the Greek, having applied himself more particularly to that than to the former, because he had given himself much to philosophy, in which he knew that the Romans have left us nothing that is valuable, except what is to be found in Seneca and Cicero" - I take issue with this statement, partially on principal of sweeping generalities, but also because Rome was the fulfillment of several of the Greek traditions (Hellenism exceeded by Pax Romana, Marcus Aurelius redeeming the Stoics, etc.). Understanding that the Greeks were the foundation of Western culture is one thing, removing the Empire that firmly settled that foundation is another. The Romans may have mostly regurgitated the Greek tradition, but they also brought their own strong points.

The Reality of the Inferno

It's interesting to recognize Dante's reaction to sin in the higher levels of hell and then compare them to his reactions to the sin in the lower levels of hell. Increasingly, he becomes less and less understanding towards the souls sin and stories, and more and more justice driven as he enters the final levels of hell. You see this most glaring at the end of Canto 33 when the soul asks him to remove the frozen tears from his eyes and he doesn't saying "And so I did not open them: to be villainous to him was a courtesy."

I commented on Ethan's and Darby's!

Canto Twenty-eight

In the twenty-eighth Canto, we see the punishment of the makers of discord. These are people who were involved in scandals and schism. The Italian for these words are scandalo and scisma. Some of these people were traitors and others engaged in gossip and major scandals. Mohammed and his cousin Ali are in this part of hell because they caused a schism in Christianity, creating a new religion. We also find Bertran de Born who started animosity between Henry II of England and his son, Henry the prince. This is the reason for the punishment. As Bertran de Born was torn emotionally between the king and his son, he is now physically torn in two. The punishment for all in the ninth ditch of Malebolge is being sliced open and healed, then the process repeats. Mosca dei Lamberti is here because he instigated the murder of Buondelmonte de Buondelmonti. Curio is also here because of his advice to Caesar started a war. As with the other sins, the punishment ironically fits the crime. 

I commented on Ethan and Wendy's posts.

Lemme Smash: A short history of the Beckys and Bens of the world

In the first Malebolge, we find the panderers and seducers constantly driven by whips to move forward. This can be indicative of the desires to chase after others and drag them into the harsh penalties of sin, they must follow where their desires led them eternally.

Tried to comment, wouldn't let me.

Dr. Schuler you were right, I am Thrilled.

Reading the final Cantos of Dante's Inferno was a truly (Insert stuff here). Studying up on Dante's portrayal of Satan left me in a similar state as Dante. I could almost feel the eerie nature of the innermost ring. The cold frozen lake with the distorted individuals was enough to really set the tone. I feel like there's a significance in the fact that those within the final ring are frozen and unable to move. It's like they have done the deed and must stay and think on their actions, with no chance to act in any way again. I feel like it's worse than just wandering around like some did in the early parts of hell. They are all acting in vain because they have no chance of leaving of course, but some have other freedoms, which others gave up.



P.S. I commented on Darby's and Sierra's posts!!

P.P.S. Am Pupper

Evil counselors

In Canto 26, the evil counselors are found in the eighth ditch of Malebolge. I found this interesting because the evil counselors are covered by a flame. They appear to be flames walking around, and one cannot tell who is who. When Virgil gets the flame of Ulysses and Diomedes to speak, the flame is described as looking like the very tongue that spoke. This stood out to me because they are evil counselors; they are trapped in a flame that, in a sense, is their very tongue. Their tongue is what condemned them; therefore, the tongue is what surrounds them and causes suffering.

I commented on Alex and Nate's.

Fraudulent Counselors

The 27th Canto of Dante's Inferno talks about fraudulent counselors. These are not people who give false advice, rather people who use their position to teach others to engage in fraud.
The punishment these people go through is to be engulfed in fire. This punishment seems fitting because as these people were leading others into sin with their tongues they will be engulfed in "tongues of fire."
Dante met a soul named Guido who talked about how his mind was altered Bob Boniface VIII who was a pope. Guido advised this pope to overlook a grudge he and against a family who took shelter from him. The Pope, as well as the family involved in the feud agreed to the terms but right as the family left their castle the Pope destroyed it leaving them without shelter.

Fraudulent Counselors = Consigliere fraudolento

I commented on Sierra's and Darby's.

Fireflies

Canto Twenty-six takes place in the eighth ditch of Malebolge, where the evil counselors are punished. They are surrounded by fire and are displayed as little “flickering firelights” and as “fireflies” (267). The attention is brought immediately to two flames that are joined together. These are the flames of Diomedes and Ulysses. They are joined together because of the three treacheries they committed together. The image of fireflies is relatively peaceful considering some of the other punishments others face. Why is that? I am definitely not saying that fire is not painful, but the imagery is still not as tense as in other cantos. Could it be that Ulysses and Diomedes have a certain level of respect in Dante’s eyes because of their heroic lives?

I commented on Daniel and Nate's posts.

Odysseus: An Evil Counsoler?

In Canto 26, Dante and Virgil enter the eighth ditch of Maleborge, where the evil counselors dwell. But I'm wondering: What is Odysseus (Ulysses) doing in this circle? According to the poem, he's in here because of the Trojan Horse, which was used to deceive the Trojans during the Trojan War, but why has he been grouped with the evil counselors? Later in Canto 27, a religious figure named Guido da Montefeltro was damned for giving bad advice on how to conquer Palestrina, but I don't see the resemblance between him and Montefeltro, unless I'm forgetting something.

I commented on Sierra's and Jessica's.

Betrayers of Guests

Canto 33 speaks of the realm of Ptolomea, where the betrayers of guests are placed. Here, their bodies are encased in ice but their heads are left exposed, their tears freezing to their faces as they weep. I cannot say for certain if this a fitting punishment for these sinners, but it is definitely poetic. These sinners betrayed those whom came into their care, and do not deserve to hide their faces in shame such as with those whom betray their family. They also have no right to weep in any way comfortably for such sin, and so their tears only cause them more pain. Whether fitting or not, the most intriguing detail of this section is that you could end up in this zone of Hell long before you actually die, just as Brother Albergio and Ser Branca s'Oria have, their souls having been replaced with a demon. It is adds to the poetic nature of the punishment, for commiting such an act turns you into a different person, a different being than you were before, and so you are sent early to your punishment.

I commented on Nate and Sierra's posts.

Thieves

In Canto Twenty-Four is the seventh ditch of Malebolge (the eighth circle of Hell) where the thieves are kept. I find it interesting that there are so many different kinds of venomous snake creatures in this ditch of hell. Why are the snakes associated with thievery? What is the connection exactly? It is especially confusing when I searched meanings and symbolism of serpents. The results I found were that snakes are associated with renewal; however, this does not seem to be relevant in this particular context. Maybe I am missing something?
Another scene of imagery that is depicted in this Canto is that the people are running "naked, frightened, and without hope" with their wrists "strapped behind their backs by snakes." Their nakedness is an exposure that depicts their shamefulness of being a thief. And the fact that the sinner's hands are tied behind their backs depicts their actual sin of using their hands to steal.

I commented on Nate's and Darby's!

Treacherous to the kindred

Canto 32 in Dante's Inferno is about the treacherous to the kindred. These are the people who have betrayed and/or killed their family members. These sinners are frozen in a lake of ice with their heads bowed down for all of eternity. It makes sense for their heads to be bowed because maybe they are ashamed of what they have done. Furthermore, it makes sense that they are in frozen in a lake because in this ring of hell, there is no hope at all. These are the sins that change the soul- they are not love based sins like lust or greed. The sin of treachery to the kindred changes who one is because it is murder and betrayal to your loved ones-- there is a deeper level of hate here, I think to be able to betray family. Here Dante meets a man named Camiscion de' Pazzi who explains to Dante where exactly he is. This man tells Dante that the 2 men he almost stepped on were two brothers from a place called Caina (hmmm ironic). The footnote says that these brothers were the first of the treacherous and it is fitting that they would be named after Cain because he was the first man to ever kill his brother.


I commented on Nate's and Natalie's!

The Flatterers

Seeing as how we were all assigned a different sin, I figured I would post on the one I was assigned--flattery. In Canto 18, Dante writes on more than just flattery, but the section devoted to flatterers is by far the most interesting. First off, flattery is defined as "excessive and insincere praise, especially that given to further one's own interests. It is over-complimenting in order to gain favor or position, which is not a lack of love, but a perversion and abuse of it against one's fellow human. The characters given are quite interesting: Alessio and Thais. Alessio is a guy from Bologna, who is involved in a party that Dante does not support. Thais is a "wench", as Virgil says, that over-complimented her lover on his... adequacy. Both of these are really weird characters. 
   

The funniest part of this section is the punishment for these flatterers. They are covered in excrement, in hair, fingernails, everywhere. It's gross, but funny to think about the implications. These people's words in life were used to get them approval or do win a position. Basically, their words, as Dante writes, are crap.

P. S. I commented on Sierra and Darby's posts.

The Diviners

In Canto twenty, Dante encounters the diviners. One in particular stands out--Tiresias. We know Tiresias from Oedipus, but we also know his backstory. He was born male, Hera turned him into a woman for seven years, and he was blinded when he found Athena bathing. Athena later took pity on him (after Tiresias' mother pleaded) and gave him the ability to see the future.

I think it's entirely possible to argue that Tiresias technically didn't do anything wrong by seeing the future especially since the blindness and the ability was inflicted on him. Moreover, the Bible speaks of prophets and that's essentially what Tiresias was. However, I think Dante put Tiresias in the realm of the diviners for two reasons: 1. He was pagan (he didn't know God and therefore had to go somewhere in hell) and 2. the word "diviner" is another word for "soothsayer" which is another word for "psychic/fortune teller". That being said, Dante could have associated Tiresias with being a psychic which implies he got his gift from pagan sources. This is plausible since the gods were pagans and not the true God (keep in mind that although the Greek/Roman gods are not real, for the sake of the story Dante considers them as such). 

The punishment for the diviners makes perfect sense since they focused on the future and they can now never see what's ahead of them again. I think my favorite lines concerning the state of the diviners are lines 22-24: "When I looked on our human image there / so gone awry and twisted, that the eyes / shed tears that trickled dow the buttocks' crack." I don't mean for that to come off as crass, I promise, I just find the imagery funny. And that's the note I'm going to end this post on.

I commented on Nate and Daniel's posts. 

Inferno

In Canto 20 Dante grieves over the sinners who have to walk with their heads on backwards for the rest of eternity. For the first time in Malebolge, Dante feels pity for the sinners in this circle, and Virgil chastises him for his behavior. Perhaps Dante wasn't ready to see the true nature of sin in those earlier cantos. It's also possible that Virgil is fallible and can also feel pity for some of the souls in Hell but not for those in the final circles. However, it surprises me that someone else has to chastise Dante for feeling sympathy. My only explanation for this is that he can relate to the sins of these people and therefore, seeing them suffer for there sins is something he can fear and relate to as well, but not surprisingly, this weight of sympathy does not burden him for long.

I commented on Brax and Sierra's!

Furies

The Furies seem to pop up in numerous works I read, even in British Literature. It makes sense for Dante and Virgil to run across them at this specific instance because they had just left the place where the angry reside. I thought the description of the Furies were interesting because I had never pictured them as such. They are described as being "dyed and stained in blood", while vicious snakes make up their garments. This book has so much detail and references to other things that it makes it difficult to pick up on certain meanings. Having read a lot of literature and philosophy in my two years here makes books like this one come together more easily.

I commented on Nate and Darby's.

Sodomy and Usury

I find it interesting that Dante categorizes Sodomy and Usury as violence against God. I understand that Sodomy and Usury are sin and so they are most certainly violence against God but, by all of the circles of Hell would fall in that category. I think Sodomy could be grouped in with lust as it is a sexual sin, I understand that it isn't necessarily lust but, it fits better there than were it currently is. As for Usury, it fits well in the fourth circle of Hell (greed). I feel like something like heresy or blasphemy is more directly violent towards God's nature, at least in categorization.

P.S.: I commented on Hannah and Dallas' Posts.

Violence Against God

In the fourteenth Canto, we find the seventh circle where there are those who had committed "violence against God." I find it interesting that blasphemy is considered violence against God. We know from the Bible that God takes blasphemy very seriously. He commands us to respect and honor his holy name. I believe that this is a good way of looking at blasphemy. When one takes the Lord's name in vain in any way, it really is violence against God. The Lord most certainly considers it to be such. It is a sin that Christ took our punishment for on the cross, as is all sin. This really made me think about how all of our sins are really violence against God. It makes me think of how thankful I am that Christ was willing to take on the wrath of God on our behalf.

I commented on Hannah and Sierra's posts.

Tracking the motives

So what are we, as the readers, supposed to make of all of this? Dante describes so many horrific and hellish scenes, each seeming to be more creatively disturbing than the last. What is Dante's purpose in describing each part of hell to us? I have been trying to take note of the encounters that he has with different souls in the different layers of hell. Sin is obviously the underlying issue for each of the souls. In canto 18 on page 185, Dante stops and talks with a soul (Venedico Caccianemico) that catches his attention. Venedico explains that his motives and reason for being in the eighth circle is because of the "avarice of [his] heart." It is interesting to take note of and track the motives and reasoning behind each soul and further connect that to which circle of Hell they end up in.

I commented on Hannah's and Nate's!

Bolgia

Throughout Cantos 18-23, I was very interested in the various circles where the different categories of sinners were separated. Reading through the various sinner groups, (the hypocrites, those of simony, flatterers, sorcery, and political corrupters, etc). I never quite understood why the Catholics separated sins into categories where some were considered worse than others. This may not be the main purpose of the different circles, but it struck me as such. Dante even places people, such as Jason, leader of the Argonauts in Hell. He obviously has opinions on certain people and their lives at the time, in literature and in real life. I'm curious to know more about the historical background at the time Dante wrote this and how it influenced who he threw down into hell in Inferno. 

P.S. I commented on Daniel's and Natalie's posts.

What is Dante really trying to say?

I know Daniel's blog also talked about this, but it was on my mind as I was reading as well. In his Inferno, is Dante trying to call out the people of Florence for being sinners? By writing about the Florentine people as he goes deeper into Hell, is he trying to say that Florence is the ultimate sinful city like Sodom in the Bible? I feel like he is poking fun or ridiculing the Florentine people for something. Dante's descriptions of the Popes' in Canto 19 is almost similar to his description of the Florentine people. I think he is trying to call out the hypocrisy among his fellow people. Maybe?
He is trying to do something, I just can't put my finger on it yet.


I commented on Daniel's and Natalie's blogs.