Sir Gawain and Feminism Essays

Sir Gawain and Feminism Essays Sir Gawain and Feminism Essay Sir Gawain and Feminism Essay Essay Topic: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Sir Gawain and Feminism Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a lively Arthurian romance about a young knight of the round table who takes on the challenge of a mysterious green knight who wanders into Arthurs hall. The Green Knight asks Sir Gawain to strike him with his own axe, and in one years time he will return the blow. Time passes and Sir Gawain does everything in his power to procrastinate his impending meeting with the Green Knight. He leaves for his quest, and on Christmas day after wishing for a lace to hear mass, a shimmering castle appears in the distance and the lord of the castle welcomes Gawain inside. Little does he know, the welcoming lord is actually the Green Knight. This is the part of the story with women become involved, or should I say woman, because there is really only one who plays a large role in the story. There are others who are mentioned, or are included for smaller roles, but there is only one main character who also happens to be a female; that is my first problem with the text. I m aware that it was written in a time of courtly love, and when women werent looked at as contributors to society, but the lack of representation, not to mention the lack of good representation, is troubling. The story progresses and the Lord, whose name we learn is Lord Bertilak strikes a deal with Gawain, a sort of game, if you will. He will go hunting every day with his men and when he returns, he will trade whatever he has won that day for whatever it is that Gawain has acquired while staying at the castle. Gawain agrees to the game, nd they agree to start the next day. Their game progresses like this: Bertilak goes off to hunt and brings back some sort of kill each day, while Gawain stays home, he spends time with the beautiful lady Bertilak. She tries her best to seduce the Knight and each day succeeds in gaining kisses from him. The pals, Bertilak and Gawain exchange their winnings in a friendship reminiscent of todays bromance. That is until the final day when the Lady Bertilak convinces Gawain to let her give him her sash. Gawain of course, is ashamed of his betrayal to his friend and goes to bed nhappy. The next day Gawain is to meet the Green Knight to seal the deal, so he puts on all his armor including the green sash from Lady Bertilak. When big, bad mister Green Knight tries to cut off Sir Gawains head he cant do it. Eventually it is revealed that Lord Bertilak is actually the Green Knight himself and that the entire scheme was put together by Morgan Le Faye, the great evil sorceress mentioned in many Arthurian legends. After this, Lord Bertilak and Sir Gawain have a bro moment about how much women suck, and then go on with their lives. This leads me to my second point, throughout the entire text the women in the story are painted in a negative light. Lady Bertilak spends the whole poem attempting to seduce Sir Gawain, regardless of the fact that she has a husband or that Gawain is friends with said husband. This is regarded negatively by Gawain, and is illustrated by the language that talks about these scenes. Yet, Gawain is never once criticized for his part in the act of kissing Lady Bertilak, a married woman and the wife of his friend. The only egative impact of Gawains role in the courtly romance, is his own shame, but none 0T tne otner cnaracters Teel tne need to call nlm out on nls actions. In tne ena 0T tne story, Sir Gawain and Bertilak lament about how manipulative and deceitful women can be; they go on to discuss how women have been the down fall of many a historical men, such as Adam, Solomon, and Samson, but Gawain is never reprimanded for his actions, only for his dishonesty about the sash. The character of Morgan Le Faye is disguised as an old, ugly woman throughout the telling of the tale ntil the very end. Morgan is arguably an intelligent, yet cunning woman, because she came up the whole plot to test Gawains loyalty, but these characteristics are also played in a negative light. Any trait that a women possesses in this text, whether good or bad, is written off as bad or turned against them in some way. The men in the story are too quick to shed the negative light on the women, and not take any of the blame for themselves. The text as a whole is very enjoyable, but when looked at from feminists prospective, has a lot of problematic and troubling content.

Overview of the Glencoe Massacre

Overview of the Glencoe Massacre Conflict:Â  The Massacre at Glencoe was part of the repercussions of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Date:Â  The MacDonalds were attacked on the night of February 13, 1692. Pressure Building Following the ascent of Protestant William III and Mary II to the English and Scottish thrones, many clans in the Highlands rose up in support of James II, their recently deposed Catholic king. Known as Jacobites, these Scots fought to return James to the throne but were defeated by Government troops in mid-1690. In the wake of James defeat at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland, the former king withdrew to France to begin his exile. On August 27, 1691, William offered the Jacobite Highland clans a pardon for their role in the uprising provided that their chiefs swore allegiance to him by the end of the year. This oath was to be given to a magistrate and those who failed to appear before the deadline were threatened with harsh repercussions from the new king. Concerned over whether to accept Williams offer, the chiefs wrote to James asking his permission. Delaying over a decision as he still hoped to regain his throne, the former king finally accepted his fate and granted it late that fall. Word of his decision did not reach the Highlands until mid-December due to particularly harsh winter conditions. Upon receiving this message, the chiefs quickly moved to obey Williams command. The Oath Alastair MacIain, the chief of the MacDonalds of Glencoe, set out on December 31, 1691, for Fort William where he intended to give his oath. Arriving, he presented himself to Colonel John Hill, the governor, and stated his intentions to comply with the kings wishes. A soldier, Hill stated that he was not permitted to accept the oath and told him to see Sir Colin Campbell, the sheriff of Argyle, at Inveraray. Before the MacIain departed, Hill gave him a letter of protection and a letter explaining to Campbell that MacIain had arrived before the deadline. Riding south for three days, MacIain reached Inveraray, where he was forced to wait three more days to see Campbell. On January 6, Campbell, after some prodding, finally accepted MacIains oath. Departing, MacIain believed that he had fully complied with the kings wishes. Campbell forwarded MacIains oath and the letter from Hill to his superiors in Edinburgh. Here they were examined and a decision was made not to accept MacIains oath without a special warrant from the king. The paperwork was not, however, sent on and a plot was hatched to eliminate the MacDonalds of Glencoe. The Plot Apparently led by Secretary of State John Dalrymple, who had a hatred of the Highlanders, the plot sought to eliminate a troublesome clan while making an example for the others to see. Working with Sir Thomas Livingstone, the military commander in Scotland, Dalrymple secured the kings blessing for taking measures against those who had not given the oath in time. In late January, two companies (120 men) of the Earl of Argyles Regiment of Foot were sent to Glencoe and billeted with the MacDonalds. These men were specifically chosen as their captain, Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, had seen his land plundered by the Glengarry and Glencoe MacDonalds after the 1689 Battle of Dunkeld. Arriving in Glencoe, Campbell and his men were warmly greeted by MacIain and his clan. It appears that Campbell was unaware of his actual mission at this point, and he and men graciously accepted MacIains hospitality. After peacefully coexisting for two weeks, Campbell received new orders on February 12, 1692, following the arrival of Captain Thomas Drummond. That No Man Escape Signed by Major Robert Duncanson, the orders stated, You are hereby ordered to fall upon the rebels, the MacDonalds of Glencoe, and put all to the sword under seventy. You are to have special care that the old fox and his sons do upon no account escape your hands. You are to secure all the avenues that no man escape. Pleased to have an opportunity to exact revenge, Campbell issued orders for his men to attack at 5:00 AM on the 13th. As dawn approached, Campbells men fell upon the MacDonalds in their villages of Invercoe, Inverrigan, and Achacon. MacIain was killed by Lieutenant John Lindsay and Ensign John Lundie, though his wife and sons managed to escape. Through the glen, Campbells men had mixed feelings about their orders with several warning their hosts of the coming attack. Two officers, Lieutenants Francis Farquhar, and Gilbert Kennedy refused to take part and broke their swords in protest. Despite these hesitations, Campbells men killed 38 MacDonalds and put their villages to the torch. Those MacDonalds who survived were forced to flee the glen and an additional 40 died from exposure. Aftermath As news of the massacre spread across Britain, an outcry rose against the king. While sources are unclear as to whether William knew the full extent of the orders he signed, he quickly moved to have the matter investigated. Appointing a commission of inquiry in early 1695, William awaited their findings. Completed June 25, 1695, the commissions report declared that the attack was murder, but exonerated the king stating that his instructions regarding repercussions did not extend to the massacre. The majority of the blame was placed on Dalrymple; however, he was never punished for his role in the affair. In the wake of the report, the Scottish Parliament requested an address to the king to be drawn up calling for the punishment of the conspirators and suggesting compensation to surviving MacDonalds. Neither occurred, though the MacDonalds of Glencoe were permitted to return to their lands where they lived in poverty due to the loss of their property in the attack.