Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, part 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 ноя 2019
- The legendary court of King Arthur and the knights of the round table at Camelot are at the centre of this tale. It is not an epic but a romance. Yet even still its opening lines court comparison between the heroism of one of those knights, Sir Gawain, and the heroism of the epic poems.
The setting is in the high middle ages, and the Christian poet is, like in the much earlier poem Beowulf, employing monsters to test the mettle of his hero. But unlike in Beowulf, the culture is meant to be Christian, not pagan, and here the paganism of the monsters serve as a rebuke to the pride of King Arthur and his court.
❤️ If you find my channel helpful, become a channel member: / drscottmasson
In fairness to Odysseus, he had to be devious because the Greek gods and goddesses were fickle and vindictive. With that theology, the only way to survive and succeed was to be a con artist. Christian ethics has different standards because it has a different theology. Makes all the difference what God is like, a doctrine of providence, and eschatological justice.
Because the Greek deities forced humans to take sides in rivalries between the gods, it was a no-win situation for humans. Whichever side you pick, you will antagonize a god or goddess. An implacable, unforgiving, vengeful, superhuman adversary.
That is correct. Understanding the theological presuppositions of the author is essential to understanding his characters.
Thank you so much for putting these lectures online. This is the essence of liberal arts that has been lsots in apragmatic and Machiavellian world. Your lectures on Medieval literature have really complemented my reading of a recent publication, "Biblical Reasoning," by Jamieson & Wittman.
So Glad I found your page it's an absolute treasure.
Great commentary. Much appreciated!! 👍🏼
45:30 what? Most historians I know of believe King Arthur to be mostly myth. Which ones believe there was a historical kind Arthur?
King James Bible
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
🪓📖🏵️
the indian practice of burning widows(known as sati) was indeed incorrect and disgusting. nowadays many such practices and why they were wrong are taught to students in the education system. i am not sure about the hanging part but the british were ruthless to indians. they did killed people just for having protests eg The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, A large but peaceful crowd had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh to protest , In response, the British officers surrounded the Bagh with his soldiers he ordered them to shoot the innocent protestors . They fired until ammunition was exhausted. Estimates of those killed vary between 391 and 1000+ and 1200 injured . they did looted 45 trillions, starved millions of people, stole the language of the oppressed, put up signs saying " dogs and indians are not allowed". they did abolished sati (one of the few good things they did) but Indian historians believe that Sati was already in decline before the British abolished it. Many Hindus believed it was not a good tradition.
From 1857 - 1947 British Parliament governed India. Prior to that the British East India Company administered Bengal under Charters crafted by the Parliament.
If Parliament was an evil institution that looted India why did Indian nationalists adopt Westminster style democracy for India? To continue looting?
@@LitProf the indian nationalists adopted westminister style of democracy and modified it to create it's own constitution and many people now do think "The parliamentary system devised in Britain - a small island nation with a few thousand voters per MP and even today less than a lakh voters per constituency - assumes a number of conditions that simply do not exist in India, where the appeal of individual leaders often prevails. "
BUT WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE BRITISH LOOTED 45 TRILLION FROM INDIA?? how does that justify the decades long colonial atrocities and dictatorship ? including incident like massacre of jallianwala bagh which i mentioned above.
the british goverment in india was a dictatorship. india took the democratic and other beneficial ideas not the dictatorial attitude, laws, ideas and ways of stealing and looting other's land.
your question is simply written in ill faith with no thought given to it at all.
don't worry no one is more sad about adopting the westminister model of democracy than us:
economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/westminster-model-of-democracy-not-suited-to-us-india-needs-a-presidential-form-of-government/articleshow/55455443.cms
The British drained India of $45 trillion between 1765 and 1940. In comparison, the US annual budget is $4 trillion. indians paid the price for british prosperity.
source and the ways british used to loot india:
historyofyesterday.com/great-britain-looted-45-trillion-from-india-3abd4ab2a10a
why did they changed the story if they were not evil??
www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india
how britain twisted the history and the misinformation being fed through schoolbooks are no surprise to me as well.
i have been following you for quite some time now and even subscribed recently. i never expected such a brain dead question from you but even after the comment I am still thankful for the sessions. thank you.
Didn't need to digress into undermining Political Correctness; clearly, these are personal views undermining a mov't towards verbal equality.
your comment is also your personal views so your point contradicts itself. he simply described pc and pointed out it's obvious flaw . pc is everything but verbal equality instead it's the complete opposite. a way of forcing your opinions on others. it has been criticized to death at this point.
15:11 cant believe he can be so ignorant as to say "Chinese people treat animals such as dogs cats and horses as food".
I'm not sure if you can feel the way I'm feeling, but it is quite awful to listen to someone talking about courtesy while knowing he might be somewhat racist, or worse, someone who should speak of something he is completely ignorant of. Hi Dr. Masson, I don't know if you can see my comment and neither do I know if you would think I am over reacting to your words, but I am really depressed now as I thought you are a great lecturer and I once enjoyed your ideas. I thought you should be more erudite than saying such assaulting words. Hard for me to finish this lecture though your ideas are irrelevant to the poem itself.
Hi Paige,
To my knowledge I was noting something factually accurate. No “assault” was intended. Courtesy is related to the court, but it differs somewhat between cultures.
@@LitProf Hi Dr. Masson, but have you really been to China or seen Chinese people treating dogs cats and horses as food? Where does your "accuracy" come from? I really respect you and I can probably empathize, that you think you are wronged by me since it is a "common sense" to you that Chinese people eat cats dogs and horses, but all I want to tell you is no, Chinese people never treat those domesticated animals like that. I have a cat myself, she saved me from severe depression and my family treat her as a family member. So it's especially, especially sad to hear you saying that. I enjoyed your lecture, and I believe you do not intend to be assaulting, but I just feel really sad, this is because I really enjoyed your lecture -- it's always more heart breaking to be hurt by someone you respect.
And, Hi everyone who can see this comment, Chinese people NEVER EAT domesticated animals. You might believe it is offensive for Chinese people to hear such words.
I have Chinese friends who tell me the opposite to what you are saying. There is no taboo related to eating these animals.
My point in the lecture was to discuss how the horse (cheval) had been bound up with chivalry in Medieval thinking. It symbolized something noble.