The famous gender reversal of Jesus is such an interesting turning point in the work. I believe that alongside suggesting that the relationship between the mother and the child is in every aspect the same as the relationship between Jesus and his children, Julian is making the figure of Jesus less earthly, less human like. To assign Jesus a gender is to suggest that men can be more so like him than women, and it is a powerful statement to be made by Julian, that a man is no closer to his image than a woman, and thus instead of saying Jesus is more woman like in the context f motherhood, Jesus is unlike humanity because he is not a father, nor a mother, and the gender role being made fluid is in an attempt to make such a statement.

Of course this is in reference to desire to be like Christ and to be with him in all things, but I feel as if a larger statement on suffering is being told here. She does not long to walk with Jesus, nor to be in heaven with him, she longs to suffer with him. The alter that pain and suffering is put on in religious text has always been the highest, and suffering is seen as a necessity in life, a state in which growth occurs. However, as the rest of the text goes on, I wonder if this is a healthy relationship she may have with the ideas of suffering, and that if to want such a terrible thing is positive or negative.

It is interesting how once the transfer occurs, and Jesus takes the place of the Devil, the tone shifts dramatically. So suddenly she is saved, and still there is an importance placed on the Devil, and the need for temptations. One must be in need of saving before one can be grateful for being saved, and so it seems that this is the Devil's place, and it is recognized to be his place.

Not only is the imagery here very detailed and horrific, but it is interesting to think on why exactly is the imagery so horrific and detailed, and what point is trying to be made? Of course it centers around the issue of good works, and repenting/penance for one's sin. It is interesting to see however, that the argument for repent and for good deeds is now being made in contrast to something terrible, rather than in hopes that one may stand alongside something beautiful. The Devil taking a larger role in this issue seems to have some sort of pull towards repenting, and the use of fear is an interesting turning point.

This is an interesting dynamic for this character, having the Devil speak to her, and having this fact contrast God. I definitely picture the Devil on one shoulder and God on the other, and this woman caught in the middle trying her best to figure out how best to be saved.

This is the trickiest part of the Pardoner's Tale for me, who is this old man? What/who does he symbolize? Is he death? Is he God? Is he man as sin? I think he man before sin, and that, much like Adam or Eve, would get to live forever. Without sin, death does not come for you, because death is a punishment for sin. Especially at this time, death was rampant and seen as God's wraith, but to man before sin, he knows where death is but cannot be taken by it.

I'm sure to the audience of these times, this would be blasphemous to consider that man can intervene with such a thing like death. This would be putting man, or rather suggesting that man has the capability to interfere and dictate things like death, which are things that only God could control.

He gives his wife the one thing that women want, and this is why the story gives him both. However, this is where the problem lies for me, because if the man did not give her the power, would she have stayed foul and old? It seems to me, that this story's flaw is found in a happy ending being the result of the husband still having the power over the woman, where it should have been the other way around. Only because the man allowed it, did a happy ending take place, the woman still declaring to the man that it is whatever he would like. The story seems to have an ending that contradicts the message in my eyes.

To the husband, it seems that he needs beauty, and that the lack of beauty makes him sad, where love suggests that he should be happy she is faithful. It's also sad to see her call herself foul.

He gives the queen the power, what she wants, and perhaps why she sent him on this quest to begin with, whether she knew it or not. Perhaps this is why he is spared?

It's interesting that a woman sends him on this quest. Knowing that the answer is that they want the same power over her husband as they have over their lover, I wonder if this a critique on the mental enslavement woman suffered at this time. It feels as if this idea over equal power is so foreign to her, and the knight, and all in this story except for the future wife, that the answer must be found over a lengthy quest. To me the queen represents a woman not having what all woman want, and represents the woman separated from their natural right.

I'm sure some would pity the carpenter, and perhaps this was an extreme response, but the man was a creep who would not leave the two lovers alone, and he should have expected some kind of response. Besides, if he was so enamored with the woman, I'm surprised he did not think of this as a victory.

As one says

This is for sure a very strange line. I think that (considering the lines before) her falling for Nicholas over Absalom is at face value a sign of how the nice guy finishes last kind of deal. This Nicholas must be very attractive, for him to do really nothing to win her over, and the carpenter to do all he can and end up with nothing. Any normal man, I assume, would leave the two be, but the carpenter does no such thing, and thus becomes an ape, or a clown that serves and follows her around.

Such a grand proclamation for a story so fixated on the butts of others.

It's interesting that this is a great quality to both the knight's story, and Miller's story, because they are so different, yet in this way they are the same. You could argue that the absurdity f Miller's will do better at staying in the memory of the travelers, which is an interesting way to one up the knight's story.

This is definitely a critique of how greed has (at this time) seeped deep into the blood of the church and of religion. God has taken a grave fall, and it is greed that has pushed him down. I believe this is the author's way in saying that Greed and Money have become the new God of man.

A luxury to having money

This is kind of like a live by the sword, die by the sword kind of moment. This entire merchant section seems to be a critique on man's relationship to money, and how it can really be an unquenchable thirst you lose yourself in.

It's as if somebody who completely makes their life about money loses their identity in the process.

Saying that hunters are not holy men contrasts the later imagery of the man dressed in fur sleeves, fat and roast loving. I'm confused as to whether or not this man and the monk are different men or the same. Either way, the contrast between nature, keeping it as it is and loving it, and the gutting of it, getting fat off of it and making it your clothing is interesting.

The Knight is being set up as a model of humanity, with ideals held up so that other men below him can pursue such goals. Thinking about how Arthur was fictitious and wondering why, I feel like this description of the Knight feeds more into the answer being people needed something to follow, a human that wasn't God, but close to it. Contrary to Arthur, the knight seems to be something easy to achieve. He is not defined by only his battles, but by being wise, and noble, which are things much easier to obtain than victory in battle.

Not the brightest idea to invade a country who's population is getting cut in half by disease. I wonder if they were just oblivious to the severity , or if they truly did believe that they would be immune to the revenge of God? Either way, it is interesting that they decided to go, and that they hated the British to such a point that a disease of this magnitude would not make them seek peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEoc

The disease being such a complex and hard to understand plague, it becomes easier to see why the population would begin to see it as God's wrath on man. The severity would be hard to grapple with, and the fear would make it near impossible to try and truly understand why, or how something like that could happen to you and your people.

It's interesting that the cause of the plague was seen as the judgment of God, and at the same time the cure was to be found in the worshiping of God, and by praying to him. This really creates a master-slave complex in the religious people of this period for they must love, and beg for mercy from what they see as the creator of this crisis. Personally, I would find it difficult to maintain faith and love in something that was killing almost half of my country's population, yet here they see no other way out, again highlighting the true devastation of the plague.

Here, his love for Iseult is not broken due to their not being together, but it is in fact strengthened because it is withstanding a great and crushing weight. A fair argument can be made that love is not showing its nature, but fate is actually creating the test in which their love for each other will be revealed. Fate has separated them, and their love could have been revealed as false, were they to not feel such strong emotions. However, I feel that in love's nature, is its need to push and test those covered in it, and fate waits for love to do so, and this is what we see here in Tristan's need for Iseult to know of his love for her.

As this story often comments on the nature of love and the nature of fate being either at war with one another, or dependent on one another, I think that most could argue that their fatal separation is a larger comment on fate being at war with love. Their love longs to be together in this moment, but fate says otherwise, keeping them at bay. However, I feel this is love dictating fate, not the other way around. The nature of love is not as kind as most would think, and I believe that this key point to the story, the separation, is a comment on love being cruel alongside beautiful. It is because love demands tests through separation, that this moment is a comment on love and not fate.

This might be reaching, but seeing this from the perspective as love personified through the maiden, this is to say that love without a center (the father) and without wealth (a true origin among the people) it will either be ruined and end (the sword) or it will be mined for its perceived goods and those alone, and unnaturally it will transform into lust (sold into slavery). Often is love falsely perceived as lust, and love being sold into slavery, is an excellent way of putting it.

Seeing Milon as a manifestation of mankind itself, I think that we can begin to see the maiden as a manifestation of love. The effects of love on man would be the same effects on Milon. One major pillar that suggests this, is that the reputation of mankind and love alone propels the bond further. They have not met, and it has not flourished through natural connections yet, it has only been conjured by desire and by reputation. This, to me, is a comment on the bond of love and humanity, and how it often begins unnaturally, as it does here,

I feel like this is a bigger statement as to the greatness of one does not stand above the greatness of all. As the author goes on to describe Milon, this statement here will provide a context and something for us to remember as we hear about the greatness of Milon. He is not separated from humanity, he is, in a way, a comment on humanity itself. There are many other things to take out of this, but I feel for me, it is a way of saying to think of what is said about Milon, as being said of all.

The greatest prison it would seem is that of her friend's absence. She once said, if she were to lose him, or if she were to take another love, she would want no joy, and it appears that this is the pain that defines this prison. She is in turmoil because she is without her love, and again love is given a great definition, in that due to its absence, it creates a prison, suggesting that in its presence, it is a giver of freedom.

This love has nearly taken the highest seat in terms of what will be severely punishable if broken is the very thing that will be held most sacred. To say that if this love is broken let there be no rest, no peace, no joy, it is safe to say that this love is most important to her. Yet while saying this, her heart tells her that he will leave her, and yet these things will not fall upon him. In a way, it seems that this bond is made out of fear, rather than trust.

In relation to Beowulf, it seems that warriors have come a long way from wanting to die honorably by fighting and killing what threatens there people in open combat. It seems that love and these ideals of an individual's heart have begun to outweigh certain battle given ambitions.

In misery, in this sorrowful harshness of winter, man cannot own himself, nor wealth, nor friends, nor family perhaps because the sorrow has yet to old man into the wise man. If this sorrow fails to mold weakness into strength, it will only waste away the foundation.

I feel as if this is commenting on how sorrow, in the form of harsh winter, shapes the world because sorrow is what shapes the wise man. Darkness upon the earth is what will shape the hatred of men into more so the qualities of the ideal wise man.

Of course it's not surprising to see that a wise man must be a strong warrior, but it is much more interesting to see things such as patience, or the ability to form your speech in a careful manner is held just as high as being a warrior. In fact, the majority of characteristics we see here are not of what would make a wise man a good warrior, but rather characteristics of the heart, of the well tempered human. We see greed, intelligence, humility, bravery and strength of the heart more so than the strength of the body.

The emphasis on Sorrow is interesting, especially as a gift giver, and a lesson teacher in this context. The difficulties of a harsh winter, and a sorrowful time is not what helps to break down the character of a wise man, but it is in fact what helps forge a man to be wise.

There is a striking difference here between the glorious and victorious Beowulf, and the evil, cowering dragon, in that the battle must be honorable by being fought in the open. Beowulf has made a life out of fighting in the open, with nothing to hide behind so any gory that is received is owed to him, his character and his ability, and not to anything else that may have aided him. It is only fitting that in his final boast, he calls for this fight to be no different than any of his others.

Victory is seen as prize worthy, for being a successful warrior is honorable and recognized by all men during this time. Value of life is placed on one risking their own life for others, and in this sense not much has changed today, except for the fact that this stands alongside other great acts, whereas during Beowulf's time, this seemed to be worth everything.

Again we see the dragon labeled as an enemy due to his destruction of their triumphs, their "earthworks" that were in the form of buildings that stood in honor of warriors. They hold the destructions of such things to be evil, yet in their battles they commit the same kinds of acts.

This loss of a home throwing Beowulf into such a fit of emotion really helps to signify just how important homes, or rather a sense of security and belonging a place can deliver, were to these people. It will also serve as a great test to Beowulf's heroic sense of duty, leaving any wondering how such a hero should respond to such a sorrow.

It almost seems uncharacteristic to speak as if death is something to be suffered, if it is to be such an honorable thing to die in battle, serving and avenging a king and a loved one of his. It would seem that there is some value and sadness to loosing your life on earth.

Much like how the Danes would display their acts of avenging lost loved ones as trophies.

When the mother of Grendel holds this exact behavior, she is deemed a monster of evil, yet if man is to act in this way, it is honorable.

Again, its ironic that they deem these monsters at such a place below them, when they themselves are guilty of all the same crimes. Would the Danes not be monsters for killing the wildlife around them? Yet they are not of demons and ghosts, but when they are the victims, their predators become demons and ghosts, fatherless and unknown.

It's interesting how when Aeschere dies, it is a sorrowful death that demands an act of revenge. Because the mother of Grendel kills him, she is a monster, much like how Grendel was a monster of evil. However, the Danes act in the exact same manner, Hrothgar acting like the dragon mother, as if his son were Aeschere. He says she was driven to avenge her kinsman's death, and this makes her a monster, yet they plan to avenge their kinsman Aeschere's death.

It seems that Grendel's evil in the world was to dismantle what the humans held to be so significant. He destroyed the mead-hall that held what mankind held higher than all else, a symbol of accomplishment. Knowing that Beowulf slays Grendel, defines Beowulf as the protected of such accomplishment, and still this in itself is the kind of accomplishment Grendel sought to dismantle. This is what made him a demon from hell in their eyes.

It seems that the definition and significance of Hrothgar defines the significance and purpose of the mead-hall. Thus if the mead-hall were not as significant, Grendel would not have held such importance as a beast to be slain. Beowulf received great praise due to his killing of such a significant beast, yet were Hrothgar to hold no significance, Beowulf's own importance would have been less than. This seems to be yet another point in which this epic defines the nature of things, and how they are connected.

Although this line suggests that this life on earth is not the only one, and indeed the rest of the poem suggests this as well, this life on earth is not diminished in any way. This life, and how it is lived, still holds great importance, and perhaps suggests that it can dictate what the next one will give.

This seems to suggest that the existence of Grendel is defined in contrast to what defines men. Grendel's worth is proved by his powers in "wreck[ing] mead-benches" and Beowulf's worth is defined by killing these beasts. This can be seen as an interesting pillar to how this epic defines not only mankind, but beings that exist outside of mankind.

A great novel on Grendel was written by John Gardner in 1971

An acceptance of the challenge, his ambition answering the suggestion.

Again it seems that accomplishment, and any sort of action that would contribute to fame, outweighs any action that could guarantee ease. The ambition of these men control them more than their basic needs. It is even more interesting to wonder on when this began to switch within us, as our needs seem to outweigh our ambitions in a modern sense.

I feel as if he is not only talking about his need for sleep, but he is also talking about his thirst for ambition. A few does not grant him the fame, nor accomplishment he desires, but many would give him both of these desires.

It seems that fame is placed on some form of pedestal, and that there exists an idea that a meaningful life is one that is famous, and echoes after death rather than one that is long lived without accomplishment. I think that this has lasted throughout history, however I believe that we have grown to long more for a long life alongside a meaningful one, which seems very distant from Cuchulainn's way of thinking.

This idea seems to run throughout a lot of myths, that a hero accepts the price of what is perceived to be a great gift, not knowing that it may be a terrible price for a terrible curse.