Greetings to the men of ROK, with best wishes for the New Year! I hope Christmastide has gone well for you all. This season also brings us through the New Year, a “liminal” time. The concepts of “liminal time” and “liminal space” are important in many religions; “liminal” is from the Latin “limen,” meaning a boundary or border, especially the threshold of an house.
Such things as rivers, caves, temple perimeters, the times of dawn and dusk, the transition from old to new year, are “liminal” places or periods of transition and ambiguity. The month of January itself is named for the Roman god, Janus, looking backwards and forwards, who was the god of doors, gates and other liminal spaces.
The Christian feasts as well, reflect on the liminal character of Christ—God-Man, Eternal and Newborn, Infinite and Finite, Himself the fulfillment of the Old, and Author of the New Covenants, etc. One of my favourite stories, drawing on Christianity and Christianized elements of old pagan lore to exposit these themes, is the tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I re-read it every year around New Year’s Day.
As a man who has read the greats from Homer to Shakespeare and beyond, I do not speak lightly in calling Sir Gawain and the Green Knight one of the very finest works of Western Literature. But it is so often overlooked, that I don’t know if I should second-guess my opinion, or assume that most men are too far removed from Medieval culture to understand all the tale’s riches. In any case, upon the whole story, more than any other I have found, the piercing glory of the Christmas spirit rests.
I thought seriously about dedicating an article or four entirely to this tale, which is so fitting for this time of year, and is one of the greatest stories of virility ever written. But I will do this next year, I think. For now, I’ll give a brief synopsis; those who want the great pleasure of reading the tale should skip what follows (major spoiler alert), and can come back to read the last couple paragraphs of the article. I recommend Tolkien’s translation.
The Story
On New Year’s Eve a young King Arthur is at court with his merry knights and their ladies, in the middle of Christmastide feasting. Everyone has been served, but Arthur has the custom of not eating his first meal of the year until he has heard a tale of some marvel or feat.
Suddenly a gigantic man, green from head to toe, with green eyes and beard, on a green horse, rides into the hall and challenges the “beardless young lads” (a knock at the fresh youth of Arthur and his knights) to a game: he will let one man of the hall take a swing at his head with his great, green axe; but on New Year’s day of the coming year, that man must come to find him at the Green Chapel, and offer his neck to the axe in turn.
After a dumbfounded moment, Gawain winds up cleaving the Green Knight’s head clean off… but then the knight arises, picks up his head, and arranges to meet Sir Gawain a year and a day hence. Gawain, true to his word, sets off next year and endures a few days of trial before finally going on to meet his doom at the end of the Green Knight’s axe. He survives the encounter, but I’ll let you read how on your own.
In the end, the whole story is a tale of virtue and manliness, and how mature manhood is not the result of blunting, diminishing, suppressing or escaping our raw virility, but of shaping it into a truly keen and constructive instrument through virtue and good character. The Green Knight is a Christianization of the Green Man, a similarly “liminal,” trickster figure from English lore. The Green Man is often depicted as a human face emerging from foliage, but just as often as foliage emerging from an human skull.
The Green Man represents the vigor of merely biological life of ambiguous morality, a raw force, that could be put to good or bad purposes, which ends naturally in death, and emerges renewed from death. Gawain’s struggles with courage, with lust, with mortality and humility, are centered upon his contest with the Green Man. The man who is not afraid to die, and who does not abuse his natural faculties contrary to nature, befriends death and nature; the man who fails, loses his head.
Many men have asked me to write some articles on how to pray; strange as it may seem, directing you to this story, and to reflect upon this liminal time of year, situated in the balance between old and new, life and death, is my way of beginning this topic: for prayer and spiritual life comprise the greatest “liminal” space or time of them all. The articles I have written thus far were also all designed to hint at some basic concepts before doing so.
In Gawain’s encounter with the Green Knight, the Green Knight acts as a touchstone: he reveals the mettle of the men who enter his contest. Similarly, prayer is first and foremost a contact with the Source and Sustainer of our being. In prayer, we meet our origin, and our last end. We meet Truth so true, that the most honest men begin to see all the ways in which they lie to themselves. It is a thing worse than death in some ways, especially for the proud man who thinks strength consists in never owning his own weakness. Any real attempt at prayer will bring us to confront our weakness; as Gawain found with his green garter (read the story!), the acknowledgment of our ultimate, inevitable weakness, can itself become the perfection of strength.
Life Imitates Art
I knew a monk at the monastery who had gladly given up all he had to come there. Very quickly after arriving, within just a few months, he had thrown himself at prayer so completely that he came to a kind of threshold in the contemplative life. He told me that he had gotten to a point where his state of prayer was so constant and so focused, that there seemed to be a vast amount of time in each, small moment. He always had “enough time” to consider everything he was doing, every faintest movement of thought—and, moreover, he had a great clarity, and a certain knowledge of what was right and wrong, what he should and should not do, in each fleeting moment of time.
He said that this exposure to an hyper-aware state terrified him. It asked everything of him. It was a state of mind that did not allow him a moment to himself; never an unguarded instant; never an easy excuse for indulging in some light sin or imperfection, since every moment was a moment of full life and perfect clarity. He was no longer free to get so much as a drink of coffee when he liked. He admitted that he knew this was the first time he was truly being himself; yet he was so attached to what he thought of as “himself”—his “personality,” his “character”—that he felt like he was losing “himself” in order to become himself. He said it felt like being asked to die; in reality, he knew that this was exactly what it was.
As we enter the New Year, I am glad to go into the life of prayer. But the articles heretofore have been designed to impress a few ideas upon us: prayer and the encounter with God is a masculinizing experience because it joins us to the Supreme Patriarch. It is not easy or pleasant, but hurts and requires discipline and exercise. It is not a self-pandering, emotional process. Prayer is itself a liminal time and space—that place between the “Cloud of Forgetting” and the “Cloud of Unknowing,” between the lies or unworthy thoughts we leave behind and the Truth we do not yet know.
Brothers, I am a man who takes the spiritual life seriously, and I’ll tell you the truth: I have been living the lie for about six years, because when God made me look this thing in the maw, I could not—no, would not—pay the price. I’m not speaking lightly. Every day, I live in the shadow of my failure to yield myself to the all-consuming fire, and try to chip away at the bonds that hold me back.
But do not think it will all be so bitter at first; long before we really come to it in earnest, God often gives us consolations in prayer, makes it sweet for us, draws us to Himself, even if the pleasure must be taken away at some point to ensure our fidelity is true. So, if you want to begin the life of prayer, I ask you during this liminal time of the New Year: are you ready to encounter the Being who is nearer to you, than you are to yourself? And, are you ready to be made willing to rise to the demands this experience will make of you?
Can you be honest, true to yourselves, and to Him? For that, is the essence of prayer: radical honesty with self and God, Who will show us things about ourselves, and about Himself, that may be hard. I will not sell you an effeminate, “nice” version of prayer.
Next week we can begin discussing the “how.”
Read More: The Problem Of “Spiritual But Not Religious”
The tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is one my favorites of the old Arthurian legends. I encourage guys to read the poem. It is not very long, and moves along briskly.
Aurelius does not discuss it here due to space constraints, but the poem is also very important as a cautionary tale against female lust and temptation. As Sir Gawain travels to meet the Green Knight to fulfill his promise, he is taken in by a “lady” who deliberately tries to make him betray his promises.
Did she take him to the Castle Anthrax?
Punished with a spanking?
Bad, wicked, naughty Zoot!
That’s what the bitch gets for lighting the grail shaped beacon.
Just a little peril .
No it’s too perilous.
You guys are actually not far off!
I strongly suspect that Monty Python was making a farcical reference to this tale, in their own weird way except with Galahad, not Gawain as the protagonist.
No doubt. I imagine those fellas knew more Arthurian legend the most, and peppered their film with humorous allusions thereto. My readings in Arthurian legend are actually fairly limited, so I imagine I’m yet missing out on some of the jokes.
Yes, and there is great significance in the way this element of the story is alternated with Bertilak’s hunts.
Especially poignant, is how this threat is always hanging, uncomfortably, in the background: if Sir Gawain sins and has pleasure of Bertilak’s wife contrary to the laws of God and nature, what spoils would he be obliged to yield to Bertilak himself at the day’s end? It is a powerful reminder that all sin is contrary to nature, even if one sin evinces this in a particularly clear manner.
I just watched a clip of that old Sean Connery movie, “The Sword of the Valiant”, where he played the Green Knight. I had forgotten about this story. I’m glad you guys reminded me of it.
These articles brighten my fridays.
With a little trepidation, I look forward to your next article on how to pray. Great read, as always!
Nah, the next articles will be more practical. This article was the warning; at this point, the men are without excuse if they choose to approach prayer as dabblers.
But how can I deny that I am a dabbler, too? We all need reminders to quit falling short of the standard.
Dabblers we are.it is self interest, our nature. Which is, why prayer, honest and true prayer, is exceedingly hard to accomplish. (I can’t say that I have accomplished that. But the few time I did, it was an experiance I can’t say I’ve had before.)
A piercing essay. Far too many who seek solace in prayer do so unaware of the nakedness of self it entails. And far too few who seek to “get closer to God” through prayer bother to consider beforehand how utterly minuscule one becomes in any sincere attempt to do so.
Prayer has power…but the power is not ours to be wielded as we wish. It is His, and we have no say in how He will use it.
Pascal paraphrased that famous dictum of St. Thomas – “God has given prayer to man, that he may share in the dignity of causality.” But this requires that man *participate* in the causality of prayer; if he sets himself up as another cause along with, or in addition to prayer, he is not really praying.
Yes, with prayer you have to let yourself go. Give the reins to God and whatever happens, just happens.
Glad to have this article here Aurelius. Missed you last week. You’ve made a dramatic impact on my faith, I’ve recently been attending an Alpha course at my local Catholic church in order to deepen my faith and learn to live The Truth. Please continue with these articles and I look forward to the next one Brother. Its interesting you mention prayer as a means of finding things out about ourselves. I have been reading Søren Kierkegaard’s works and saw him say something similar about confession and repentance:
“…His self-improvement had never led him to surrender to God so that in the humility of repentance he might remember what he had once been. Yes, in the temporal and social sense, repentance may come and go. But in the eternal sense, it is a quiet daily commitment before God. In the light of eternity, one’s guilt is never changed, even if a century passes by. To think anything of this sort is to confuse the eternal with what it is least like – human forgetfulness. One can tell the age of a tree by looking at its bark. One can also tell a person’s age in the Good by the intensity and inwardness of his repentance. It may be said of a dancer that her time is past when her youth is gone, but not so with a penitent. Repentance, if it is forgotten, is nothing but immaturity. The longer and the more deeply one treasures it, however, the better it becomes. Repentance must not only have its time, but also its time of preparation. And herein lies the need of confession, the holy act that ought to be preceded by preparation. Just as a person “changes his clothes for a celebration, so a person preparing for confession is inwardly changed. But if in the hour of confession one has not truly made up his mind he is still only distracted. He sees his sin with only half an eye. When he speaks, it is just talk – not true confession.”
-Excerpt From: Soren Kierkegaard. “Provocations.”
This is very true. St. John Fisher, and many other saints, have said the same: if repentance does not produce fruits, fruits that deepen and mature, it is not really repentance. God usually has to break us down, until one day we realize that our “spiritual” striving has all been the work of ego, and has not been the self-surrender of mortification, and of acceptance and cooperation with God’s grace. Then, our repentance may begin to grow more genuine.
I would recommend that every Catholic read “Christ, the Life of the Soul,” by Blessed Dom Columba Marmion, a saint of our times. He talks about how the soul’s love of God always remains the love of a penitent. It cannot be otherwise, for any human being besides Christ. Even the Blessed Virgin (conceived without sin), and St. John the Forerunner and Baptist of our Lord (born without sin), are penitents – not for personal faults, to be sure, but because they know that even the exalted manner of their origins is the fruit of grace, pardon and remission.
At first I thought you might be referring to a story I read in Thomas Berger’s classic novel Arthur Rex, a somewhat unusual (and wryly humorous) telling of the Arthur legend. I haven’t read it in years (the local library’s copy seems to have been stolen), but as I recall one of Arthur’s peerless but horribly naïve knights is given the quest to learn what women want most of all. I don’t remember what he wins if he finds the answer, but he travels all over hill and dale, enduring various trials and adventures, and questions everyone he sees, until at last he finds – think it was – a woman honest enough to tell him: “To rule over men.”
When I first read this, some twenty years ago, it was an eye-opener in my then-nascent Red Pill education. I don’t know if the story is part of the official Arthur canon, but it’s well worth reading (as is the whole novel).
As a man for whom the religious life is primary (though in a different tradition), I have been very much enjoying your articles here, which are a cut well above the usual run of “Androsphere” fare (necessary and educational as most of it is). Looking forward to more.
The story you describe, in addition to possibly occurring in Arthur Rex, is also the Wife of Bath’s Tale in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. It and the prologue to her tale, are well worth a read from any man!
Of course, everything Chaucer wrote is worth reading, but the Wife of Bath’s tale and prologue are amongst the more interesting tales, and of interest in particular to the “manosphere.” Most traditional literature is replete with “red pill” truths about women (and life, in general). Gawain even has a go at the topic of women, at the end of his meeting with the Green Knight.
The manosphere is being reduced to the neurotic confessions of celibate monks who feel guilty about getting a cup of coffee. Welcome to omega land
Shove off, parasite.
Life is more than chasing pussy. Chasing pussy is fine, but if you think that’s the end all be all of life, you’re either really young, or have wasted your life on shallow pursuits.
Don’t like what’s written here, then find another site to read.
Why are you replying to me when you should be off praying about your use of that beer-advertising avatar? That’s much worse than the sin of getting a cup of coffe when you feel like it, so you have much to atone for. Stay guilty, my friend
Bitch bitch bitch. Typical female.
This site is for men, not passive aggressive snarky chicks. Find someplace else to post if that offends you.
The man who reads with understanding, will perceive that I was speaking of something more profound than mere “guilt,” and that it was not about getting a cup of coffee. Rather, I was speaking of how the encounter with being raises us to a level above the life of mere desires and thoughts – and this often terrifies the beginner, because it is the only life he knows. Separating from it, feels like death.
Is it fair to say your view on Christianity is:
God granted us god-like powers as sentient humans (above animals and rocks and whatnot), but to become eternal and ascend into a heaven we must ultimately deny our animalistic tendencies (sins) to reach a state above our animal-like state (fornication etc).
So our existence is simply a test, or opportunity, to prove we ourselves are worthy of eternal god-like existence, as opposed to giving into our animal urges. ?
And following these virtues, convictions, and disciplines has the side effect of creating a great civilization?
So the whole concept of sin is more about not giving in to our weakened human state, as we are above that.
I would not own this view of Christianity, no.
I would say that man was made in the image of God and was without passions in the beginning. The soul is the form to the body’s matter, and the soul is naturally immortal – thus, all men are eternal whether they live the lives of beasts or not. The separation of soul and body is a state of violence to man’s nature; all rise in the Resurrection – the wicked to eternal life (in torment) and the just to eternal life (in bliss).
After the prevarication and Fall, man perdured in impenitence; God therefore pronounced upon man the “curse,” which itself also provided the means of healing and correction. This curse was the curse of death – a “death” of the soul in the sense that it was deprived of the supernatural gifts bestowed upon it (though, on the level of nature, it remains immortal), and also the consequent death of the body. This resulted in two kinds of defect in man – one unnatural, the result of the concupiscence which man introduced as a parasite upon his nature through the Fall, and the other natural – i.e., the weaknesses which, while not being God’s design for man, nevertheless remains on the level of nature and is not intrinsically evil. This latter defect involves the struggle of biological life to maintain itself so far as possible against its natural infirmity and mortality: death, hunger, thirst, the yearning for posterity, etc.
Salvation is not something earned by moral struggle, conceived of as personal effort and personal dessert. Salvation is the reversal of Adam’s Fall – accomplished first of all by the dispensation and merits of Christ, to which the individual Christian is joined through Baptism and Faith. The divine life is then implanted in man and, by cooperating with the grace of God and learning to cleave to the source of our being, rather than to assert our own being as though it were sufficient to itself, the soul grows from grace to grace in a salvation which always exceeds his natural merit, but of which he becomes condignly meritorious, in a sense, according to the good pleasure of God.
The struggle is not so much between “animal” urges and “divine” urges, as it is between Good and Evil. For example, the “animalistic” urge to reproduce does not require fornication; there is marriage. Sin is in the will, not the (mere) deed or circumstance, such as the urge to have sex or the mere act of copulating.
Finally, I would say that Christianity also holds forth a perfect ideal, towards which all should aspire, and towards which monastics are bound to strive, which involves transcending the elements of corruption even in our biological life (i.e., making efforts to use and transcend the natural passions such as thirst, exhaustion, hunger, fear, procreative urges, etc.), to rise above even the merely natural state through voluntary mortification, and thus to aim at a more profound union with the divine and a more supernatural manner of living. But, while this is central to the Christian life, even paradigmatic of it, the degree of observance necessary for each individual’s salvation varies. Put otherwise: it is the one and only quality to the Christian life, but “quantity” or intensity of its observance varies justly.
thanks for the lengthy reply.
I’ll put some shekels in your paypal when I get the chance
Existence exists, so our being is de facto “sufficient”. What’s more, the concept of sufficiency is a religious presupposition you have overlayed across the brute fact of existence.
There is a distinction between contingent being, that which is ἀνυπόστατον (not self-subsisting, i.e., insufficient as a cause or sustainer of its own existence), and absolute Being, which is αὐτυπόστατον (i.e., uncaused, integral, self-subsisting and sufficient unto itself.
These concepts have been exposited in philosophical thought going back to Aristotle and Plato, and really, even to Parmenides. Given the tangential, truculent nature of your comments heretofore, I imagine my opinions on these matters are held with significantly less presupposition than your own. Many of your comments are also incoherent when unpacked. “Existence exists, so our being is de facto sufficient.” Think about what you’ve really said. What do we mean by “sufficient” in this context? What do we mean by “being?” How is this being “ours,” and if it is “ours,” and is “sufficient” (as we mean it), then what meaning could “de facto” have, in qualifying its sufficiency?
A little less “cleverness” would serve you well.
Every concept we have is an overlay? This doesn’t mean it’s not a part of reality and of humanity’s shared sense of being in the world?
I used the word “sufficient” only because that was the way you phrased things in your post. My point was that the term “sufficient” does not apply, because of the brute fact of existence. The same applies to “ours” and such other terms; due to the limitations of language we are forced for the sake of communication to use terms that can only approximate the facts.
My presuppositions are those of Democritus and Epicurus, but one doesn’t have to be a materialist to argue that thoughts and desires are are the ultimate grounds of ethics
But, thoughts and desires are the ultimate crucible that in-form the ethical decisions we decide to make at each given juncture, surely?
In anthropology, the myth of the fall seems to be an almost universal theme across a variety of cultures that could never of shared the knowledge in any natural manner. It does appear to point back towards an event of global and cataclysmic proportions in humanity’s remote past that was interpreted differently, but, with the same essential narrative.
The story of the nephilim in the Book of Genesis is but one telling of this tale which is an aspect more relevant than eve’s seduction by the serpent (a common symbol in tales of the fall) and even the pre-Christian writers of the west wrote much about the prelapsarian golden age. I’ve read the founding myths from some of the Indian tribes in Latin America and time and again in cultures isolated from western influence this theme of humanity who once lived in a golden age where the men were “mighty men of old, men of renown” appears repeatably. The theme of man having to be chastened and put in his place by some type of God (perhaps an alien force) is nearly always present.
Yes, several Old Testament tales are found in the mythology of many religions. One that baffled me, in my pre-Christian days, was the very popular tale of the Flood. At first, I knew only of the Genesis flood, and that it was mirrored in some near-Eastern mythologies. This was always explained away as the result of some local flood that all the near-Eastern people had a recollection of, or by the assertion that they simply passed the story around amongst themselves.
But then I learned that the flood myth is practically universal; the Celts, the Welsh, the natives of North, Central and South America, even many Pacific Islanders, all have flood myths involving a few people surviving after making efforts to save the animals, and the flood being a divine punishment. Reading more Greek and Roman mythology, and learning a bit about Hinduism, I saw that the similarities continue – increasing corruption from a golden age, earlier man living longer, Earth’s “loss of virginity” when bloodshed and mining began, etc., etc. The Modernist view, rooted in an occult tradition of immense evil, so far as I’m concerned, is notable for turning this traditional view upside-down.
Well, at least you have the capacity to provide an intelligent reply, unlike Ghost of Jefferson who apparently believes that only women are able to engage in sarcasm.
The flaw in your argument is that thoughts and desires are themselves rooted in ontology. Thus, everything is an encounter with being, and this encounter is impossible for anyone to avoid. Furthermore, this encounter is de facto life-affirming. The guilt and feelings of death you speak of are religious overlays you have imposed, along with your artificial ontological distinctions
More passive aggressiveness. If you have a problem with my answer to you, take it up directly with me, not as some side snark to another person. And this, friend, is why I consider you a woman.
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.”
-Proverbs 26:4
According to you, men are incapable of practicing this proverbial wisdom. Einstein you aint
All you’ve done is offer snark and ad hominem. Then you go catty passive aggressive. What else is one to think of you?
Here, let me help you since you want attention. Given your druthers, what kind of articles would you see on this site that would soothe your tender feelings?
Sorry, to be more specific:
When contingent being rises to the level of encounter with absolute Being.
“thoughts and desires are themselves rooted in ontology” Yes, that’s a good point which Jung also mentioned in his writings. You cannot experience a state of pure being apart from the ontological substratum of reality because you couldn’t or perhaps more accurately wouldn’t be able to recognize let alone know it as you’d have absolutely no reference points from the world of our everyday senses.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Christianity teaches that you can come into direct contact with pure Being, and, as you point out here (and as I’ve also said in the comments), this puts us into contact with something essentially unintelligible to us, naturally speaking. It is an alien and dread experience.
The use of the word alien is very interesting. The question is then what distinguishes the Christian and unintelligible experience of God from the equally dread, traumatic experience encountered in the Shamanic rituals in Siberia or those who take ayahuasca and experience alien, frightening,but,ultimately often sublime and rewarding encounters with the Divine in the jungles of Ecuador ? These experiences and rituals can put travelers whom the Shaman guides in contact with the pure being of God and the Divine. Surely,this God is larger and more expansive than our Christian definition of Him?
Well, two things.
First, in my Catholic bigotry, I believe “the gods of the nations are demons.” I believe there are many supernatural experiences open to man, and not all of them are good merely because they are supernatural. I believe there are demons, devils, malevolent entities that also have an interest in influencing man. I also believe that many drugs induce mind-bending experiences that are purely the result of natural phenomena, but because they are so foreign to our regular experience, people interpret them as spiritual experiences.
Second, it is actually a doctrine of the Church that God is much greater than the Christian definitions of Him can express. The Church teaches that there is a “via negative,” an “apophatic” element of theology, which acknowledges that we come closer to God by stripping away the insufficiency of our definitions, than we do by making those definitions in the first place. But this doctrine is often abused to negate the importance, even the necessity (or the truthfulness), of the positive definitions. So, sometimes faithful Catholics shy away from it.
Ghost of Jefferson is a good guy, and I would not reckon him amongst the company of fools.
I think the state of being transcends the ephemeral contingent sense of our everyday desires and thoughts, but, this state is not something external or remote to us. It’s more a state of pure disinterested freedom and expansiveness that we experience at moments of full consciousness and attention while “being” present to everything in the world. I don’t necessarily subscribe to the notion that ascetics once did, that you have to deny, perhaps even detest and hate this world for one to experience this state of gratitude.
I’ve never felt that sense of fear you mention regarding the separation we feel in this state because, logically, we are by definition beings who are intrinsically divorced from the world at an array of diverse levels in the first place, and, accepting this separation is a crucial part in discovering a wider sense of transcendence while being still a part of the world all around us.
Well said
Sorry, I realize I’m speaking in ways that a Catholic philosopher would understand, but not necessarily others.
I meant the encounter with Being, with God, the Absolute Being upon whom our being depends. This encounter lifts us beyond everything we know, which can be a kind of death, and is often terrifying.
You don’t have to apologize. I like what you write, it makes interesting food for thought.
It takes more of a man than you are to openly bare your faults , especially in a manner where abunch of faceless avatars can attempt to criticize with having no real grasp on what is being presented.
Just want to point out…
I’m much obliged to the editor for including a link to a short version of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The full story is much longer, is written in Middle English (and in the obscure Cheshire dialect, so even Middle English buffs may find it difficult to read), and was very well translated by Tolkien. A version of his translation is here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjDuMDLyazKAhXGKWMKHRS8BwkQFggrMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjessicasladechms.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F5%2F1%2F7%2F4%2F51740093%2Fsir_gawain_complete_large_text.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH4sB-H_X6Wj8zsWRlJ8s6vvrWyFA
Curious, do you have a link to the original manuscript perchance? I’ve an interest in Middle and Old English (as in Anglo-Saxon, all dialects), and might well be able to read the Middle English version.
EDIT: Nevermind, found one.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/Gawain?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Gorgeous.
” Þaȝ Arþer þe hende kyng at hert hade wonder,
He let no semblaunt be sene, bot sayde ful hyȝe
To þe comlych quene wyth cortays speche,
‘Dere dame, to-day demay yow neuer;
Wel bycommes such craft vpon Cristmasse,
Laykyng of enterludez, to laȝe and to syng,
Among þise kynde caroles of knyȝtez and ladyez.
Neuer þe lece to my mete I may me wel dres,
For I haf sen a selly, I may not forsake.”
This seems earlier than Chaucer, still using eth, thorn and wynn judiciously.
Sure. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/Gawain/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
Often, the text is easily intelligible to someone with some English linguistics training. In these opening lines, everything is clear enough.
SIÞEN þe sege and þe assaut watz sesed at Troye,
Þe borȝ brittened and brent to brondeȝ and askez,
Þe tulk þat þe trammes of tresoun þer wroȝt
Watz tried for his tricherie, þe trewest on erthe:
Hit watz Ennias þe athel, and his highe kynde,
Þat siþen depreced prouinces, and patrounes bicome
Welneȝe of al þe wele in þe west iles.
But in the following lines, the only one I fully understand is the penultimate (“Hunterez wyth hyȝe horne…). I think I understand the first and fourth, as well, but I’d have to look ’em up to be sure my instincts were right. In the rest, there is at least one word (sometimes more than one) that I can’t understand, and this makes it impossible to read it in a connected way without consulting a dictionary or translation. Kudos to you if you can go from start to finish without an hitch!
Þer myȝt mon se, as þay slypte, slentyng of arwes–
At vche wende vnder wande wapped a flone–
Þat bigly bote on þe broun with ful brode hedez.
What! þay brayen, and bleden, bi bonkkez þay deȝen,
And ay rachches in a res radly hem folȝes,
Hunterez wyth hyȝe horne hasted hem after
Wyth such a crakkande kry as klyffes haden brusten.
Without a hitch? I wish. Further than a lot of other men? Probably. I’ve been fascinated with Germanic languages since I was in high school, and took to Anglo-Saxon quite readily. Most of the time I can get a fair meaning by falling back on common Germanic words that no longer are used in English, or were used but are now archaic.
To hazard a guess (and I’ll wager some of it is off base by a long shot):
There must men say, as they slept, dreaming of arrows—
At each traveled yonder/under(?) twanged and flew—
That greatly(?) brought deliverance/help on with full brown broad heads.
What! They brayed and bled by(covering?) their days(??),
And they ?? in a ??, “”, them (folies?) (this sentence stumped me)
Hunters with their horn hoisted them after/(overhead?)
With such a cracking/deafening cry as to make the cliffs burst
I like this kind of thing because it brings me back to my books, which I’ve forsaken for far too long. I suspect 80% of this is utterly rubbish and wrong, but it was off the cuff.
My guess:
There might man see, as they let slip, a course [slanting] of arrows,
As each went under a branch, twanged [a flone].
That greatly bit on the brown (fur?) with full, broad heads.
Lo! They brayed and bled, they died with blows
And always [rachches in a res] skilfully follow them;
Hunters with high horn hastened after them
With such a piercing cry as if they had burst over a cliff.
Tolkien’s:
there could be seen let slip a sleet of arrows;
at each turn under the trees went a twanging shaft
that into brown hides bit hard with barbéd head.
Lo! they brayed, and they bled, and on the banks they died;
and ever the hounds in haste hotly pursued them,
and hunters with high horns hurried behind them
with such a clamor and cry as if cliffs had been riven.
In hindsight, I should have grasped the grammar of the last line, as you did, and realized they were in a subjunctive mood to describe the quality of the cry, and not to liken the cry to something they had done. Good eye.
I should have referenced Tolkien. Oh well, it’s fun to take blind stabs at this kind of thing. Chaucer’s dialect as well as his placement on the timeline makes his much easier to grok in its raw form with nary a need to reference anything.
No, you’re right; it is fun to do that, and I took a stab before referencing Tolkien myself – I only posted him so we could check ourselves against him.
I got so irritated with the kids in my Middle English courses; they wouldn’t even read the Middle English, they just read modern translations. How can one learn, unless he tries with the Middle English first?
I also shocked many of them, by simply suggesting that they pronounce the stuff out loud to themselves while reading. Many of them were stunned at how they were instantly able to understand much of it. I was mystified that they hadn’t even made the attempt! Too few people will push themselves, anymore.
I think it’s actually contemporary with Chaucer. I imagine the retention of the archaic letters has to do with it being in Cheshire dialect. Chaucer, as you obviously know, wrote in the East Midlands dialect that became the dialect of London just before his own time. I would imagine that the more cosmopolitan nature of the big city had regularized their alphabet to the standard, Latin characters, and that they looked upon the retention of the archaic letters as an un-Norman, Saxon-bumpkin thing to do!
I don’t know that for sure; it’s just a guess.
I’m not a Christian but Marcus Aurelius discusses your troubles in meditations quite often . To be a man who has truly mastered himself beyond just the physical being is a daunting task . One becomes aware of the truth behind everything.. primal urges , his insignificance in this world , and his ultimate. End . Very deep and scary thoughts
the idea is you are rewarded with eternal life in a heaven, therefore it’s not scary at all, as life is a temporary simulation.
But I don’t see why giving into your animal urges in the physical world warrants eternal punishment.
The idea that life is an illusion means all earthly pursuits are in vain which leads one to the conclusion that life is rather meaningless, that is a scary thought when it is first encountered. You either go two ways , become depressed or realize that is this life means nothing you are free to do as you wish in it . As stated before I’m not Christian so heaven is not promised to me .
And, really, heaven is promised to no one. Steve’s idea that there is no element of trepidation because the reward of eternal glory is proffered, comes from the misunderstanding of a late-Protestant society. Hell is threatened, as well; Christianity is no “get out of jail free” card, in the sense of granting us certainty of salvation simply in exchange for intellectual assent to the doctrines of the Faith. Therefore, we have on the one hand an heavenly mode of life that itself terrifies us and stretches us when we first encounter it, and on the other hand, the open maw of hell.
The spiritual life is not a walk in the park.
Meaning is subjective, so the meaning of life (if any) is determined by the individual
But, the other question which I’ve always found intriguing relates precisely to those people who are not religious and don’t believe in any type of God or afterlife. What is the fate from a Christian perspective of those whom act in an ethnically honorable manner throughout their lives, sometimes, even in a far superior way than people who believe in God, but, profess no belief in a transcendental deity or any resultant heavenly reward because of this.
It seems incongruous and ethnically reprehensible that such people should be denied admittance to any type of benevolent posthumous existence, if it exists of course, because they, for whatever reasons when alive couldn’t accept the notion of the God they were asked to have faith during their earthly lives.
I find it difficult to belief that the road to God can only be obtained through a particular version of Christianity, although Jesus states that “there are many houses in his Father’s Kingdom”. Could this cryptic phrase not imply that the kingdom could not also house many non-Christians too, like the good pagan/atheist?
Yes but there are inherit ideas that ring with certain types of people . Musashi and Aurelius contemplated much the same thoughts and arrived at the same answers . I think as you read of men of old you chip away at what doesn’t ring with you and what does enough chipping and you have what you are and you may or not be ok with that.
Christ is very explicit in many places, about His exclusive mediation of salvation to all mankind. The statement about many mansions was used to encourage Christians to hope that there was room for them in the heavenly palace, and to strive to get one of the better rooms!
The Church teaches that we will experience degrees of bliss or of torment befitting our actual state of soul. The first and most fundamental thing, is whether the soul is in the state of grace, whether it is reborn and alive in Christ. If it is not, the heavenly climates are unbearable to it; it cannot flourish in those realms. We gravely err, if we assume that accidental ethical goodness is what God desires for us, rather than integral and radical righteousness, such as may fittingly wear a crown of glory.
Those who die with very light sins, or none, can expect that their afterlife will be different from wicked people. For example, unbaptized children or mentally retarded persons, etc., can look forward to something so good as limbo, a place where the fullness of the joy of heaven is not experienced, but they nevertheless experience a place of complete, natural happiness, wherein the only thing lacking to them is the supernatural joy of the beatific vision.
Coming into the inheritance of the sons of God, is something no man deserves; no deeds will win it; heaven is not a reward for personal worthiness or ethical standards. It is bestowed by grace upon the regenerate, according to God’s good pleasure and decree, which are just and irrevocable. That said, the Church does teach that those who are alienated from the preaching of the Gospel – i.e., those who never have the opportunity really to hear it – can be saved if they cooperate with the graces given to them by God. They shall be saved by responding to graces that elicit perfect contrition and charity. To the extent that other people draw nigh to humility, charity, contrition, etc., I am sure their situation will be similarly improved; but one mustn’t forget that even these are given by God. Man accomplishes nothing of lasting value of himself, so he should not assume that he is personally able to become good, any more than he personally is able to merit heaven. Man must open himself to receive what is given him by God; those who do this sincerely, cooperating with God’s grace, will be brought to a good end in due time.
A moment’s reflection will reveal this to be true; how can a man be good, except by participating in the Good? We depend on the good to attain unto the fullness of being; the good does not depend upon us to bring itself into being. Left to ourselves, there is no possibility except defection from the Good, from what Is.
This is not quite true. Shakespeare had a meaning in mind when he wrote his plays. Man’s subjectivity can lead him to misunderstand the meaning of his plays, but that doesn’t nullify the fact that they were written with an objective meaning in the mind of the playwright.
Thanks. I’m not sure if I agree with everything you write,but, I like the notion of grace which in my mind is similar to the notion of one’s own gratitude despite the world with all it travails.
Sure, and there was a time when I would not have agreed with everything I said. There is much study to be done even to understand what is meant by all of it, just as I would have to study a great deal to understand the point of view of a practicing Hindu. I don’t mind disagreement at all, so long as a man is being honest with himself.
Because your animal urges are usually a detriment to society and thus by extension to the species in general. We are a social race of beings, if we all become anti-social and do “whatever” we lose the real advantages of strength through numbers. Humans are not physically strong, have no natural weapons and cannot fly or even swim that well. We have our mind. You might figure out a spear on your own, but it takes a group of spears with your friends to get rid of the cave bear.
And such.
If it were every man for himself, do whatever you want, shit on the sidewalk as you please, etc. then we’d disintegrate into chaos pretty quickly and badda bing, we’d either get much worse via warlords, or we’ll eventually just stop existing. We need each other, and I don’t mean that in the same way that the repellent socialists do, I mean it from a very keen survival vantage.
And that’s why anti-social behaviors are and have always been discouraged, at its root. Some religions treat it one way, others another way, but the goal is to discourage such behavior. Just how it goes.
Shitting on t he sidewalk is cultural. Here you’d go to jail, but other place it’s a routine activity.
Even eternal life is terrifying, when we meet it.
The Stoic belief that virtue is the sole compnent of happiness was pretty effectively demolished by Aristotle in the the Nicomachean Ethics.
That said, your point is valid, because Christianity pretty much ripped off Stoic virtue ethics wholesale to appropriate as its own–with a few tweaks of course.
I haven’t read that book but I will after this . Philosophy at the end of the day is what aligns with the self , Aurelius states that himself . Now what is the self , the true self , I think that answer varies based on time , place , culture , and so on .
Aristotle still regards its importance as fundamental. One cannot have eudaimonea without virtue, though (Aristotle thought) a man with virtue could nevertheless be unhappy.
Also, I believe Aristotle was wrong. The Saints showed that when true and complete eudaimonia came, natural and supernatural, it was indeed possible for man to possess an inviolable joy and contentment in spite of, sometimes even because of, sufferings.
I was reading this and I had a “eureka” moment. Everybody in this country is uncircumsized!
Could some Catholics give me their opinion on Society of Saint Pius X ?
Sorry, man. I’ve written an email reply to you and several others; working on proofreading it and maybe shortening it, because it’s fairly long.
Oh don’t worry, take your time.
I’m not in a hurry, just curious.
And thank you in advance for your reply.
My pleasure!
Was your email [email protected]?
Yes. I’ve written one standard reply that will go out to several men who had the same question, and then I’ll send individual emails addressing whatever was personal.
I’ve read Malory’s tales of Arthur a few times, but I’m suddenly having trouble recalling if Gawain’s encounter with the Green Knight was in it. Strangely enough, I’ve been thinking about reading those stories again, and then this article shows up.
No, the tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is found in the Pearl manuscript, a 14th century manuscript containing three tales (Sir Gawain, Pearl and Cleanness), all spiritual allegories. The author is anonymous, but appears to be the same for all three tales.
Great article and thank you! This is kind of silly, but did any of you ever see the movie based on this story? I think it was produced in the 70’s or 80’s and has a low rating on IMDB, but I watched it with my dad several times as a kid and was inspired in high school to read the aforementioned tale of The Green Knight in high school. Pretty incredible.
Here is the link to the movie: http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0084750/ It was produced in 1984 and had Sean Connery (of all people!) as the Green Knight.
Great! I’m going to have to watch it, though I hope it’s not too badly done. SG&TGK is such a great story, it deserves a good cinematization.
It isn’t neccesarily great, but you’ll probably enjoy the adaptation irregardless because it is kind of unique and it does have Connery, which is pretty cool!
I’ve watched the first half, so far. My gosh, it is very much changed from the book.
I can understand what they’re doing with some of it – trying to emphasize the elements of a youth’s rite of passage, overcoming vice, etc., which they assume (probably correctly) may be over most men’s heads when reading the book. I like the book so much that I may not be able to remain objective in my appraisal of the changes they make!
The chick Linet was super hot ! If my super horny youngster brain remembers right. Saw it on late night TV once.
Nice article
Best author on the site.
Far too kind; I think most of the regulars write better than I do, and that Quintus stands out for his excellence. But, thanks!
This was refreshing. Thank you.
Always glad to read a new article of yours on ROK!
Have you been thinking of writing more articles on your blog?
Thanks! I have been thinking about it; I’m always fairly busy, and Christmastide has been more so. It’s on a back-burner, but not entirely forgotten…
I’ll be looking forward to the future articlss.
One of the best articles published on ROK so far. Aurelius’ deep theological and historical understanding always helps to make his articles particularly special. Next week’s discussion on the “how” is eagerly awaited.
Thanks for the kind words; I hope I won’t disappoint!
Registered for Disqus just to tell you that I look forward to the article series on Gawain. A truly great work, one that I’ve been able to enjoy both in translations and Middle English. Thanks to wasteful college reading lists and curricula, I’ve got multiple anthologies kicking about that all include Gawain, the pages now also filled with little notes and translation assignments.
Tolkien made a translation (which I haven’t read), but he also edited a scholarly Middle English version of the poem in 1925, revised in 1975, which I believe is still highly esteemed.
On YouTube, if you search for “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, you’ll find a decent documentary about it by Simon Armitage, who translated it more recently (another translation that I haven’t read). Not a groundbreaking interpretation by any means, but he gives a good, accessible introduction to the poem.
I don’t go in for religion much, but I will certainly re-read Sir Gawain in some form or another and reflect on some of the interpretations offered here.
Yes, so much of the tale involves religion, and obviously assumes a familiarity with the customs and meaning of the Christian feasts held during the 12 days of Christmas, the New Year, etc.
Somewhere in the comments, I’ve given a link both to a .pdf of Tolkien’s translation, and to the Middle English text he edited. One can order a ca. $550 facsimile of the whole Pearl Manuscript, as well.
Great post. I always find your writing inspiring. Anxiously awaiting the next one on prayer. Keep up the good work!
One of the best weekends on ROK. We get both a fill up of Aurelius Moner wisdom and the good old Kratom jokes. Happy new year everyone.
No religion is dogma to me, but I “see” “God” as self evident and logical. God lies inbetween and around all dualities. He is the rules, and the rules are apparent. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Time/Space vs Matter/Energy. We’re stuck in the middle, but we’re part of the whole.
Now this is a worthy spiritual challenge – One sorely missed in Anglican churches. I thank you for this. I’m steeling myself at the door, readying myself to step out and onto this quest.
In British Legend Arthur will return in her greatest hour of need. I pray that’s true.
Thank you for this article. I myself always try to remember, when confronted with such concepts, that faith in God’s truth is highly important: just remember that in all things, God wants what is best for us. Facing these truths, whilst terrifying, is what God wants us to do, because he loves us and he knows its true value – even if we don’t fully understand.