Argument Master

Argument/Thesis: Gawain fulfilled his obligations to the Rule of Benedict where it

applies to him.

First witness to be called: Historical Witness

Why/What main argument can this witness support?
The historical witness will argue that because Gawain is not strictly a monk, the rule of benedict
does not apply in full to Gawain. Furthermore, he fulfills the word of the law.

What evidence is needed to support this argument? Please order your exhibits:

1. Evidence A2- “The Rule of Benedict” Chapter 1

2. The Rule of Benedict Chapters 40 and 7 from the prosecution’s charges

 Argument Master

Argument/Thesis: Sir Gawain fulfilled his contractual obligation to give Lord

Bertilak his daily winnings.

First witness to be called: Textual Witness

Why/What main argument can this witness support?
The Textual Witness will be here called to present the evidence and arguments that Gawain
fulfilled the actual wording of his verbal contract to Lord Bertilak by giving him what was won
rather than given.
Second witness to be called: Chivalry Witness
The Chivalry Witness will introduce more evidence for the claim that Gawain fulfilled his end of
the contract with Lord Bertilak.
Final witness to be called: Historical
The historical witness will provide further evidence to this claim.
The historical witness with introduce even further evidence for the above claims.
What evidence is needed to support this argument? Please order your exhibits:

1. DT1- SGGK Burton Raffel Translation page 89

2. DT3- SGGK Burton Raffel Translation page 129

3. DT4: SGGK page 112-113

4. DC1: “Sir Gawain and The Green Knight” and The Illusion of Clarity pg. 8

5. DC2: “Sir Gawain and The Green Knight” and The Illusion of Clarity page 6

6. DH1- “The Medieval Knighting Ceremony in ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’”
 Argument Master

Argument/Thesis: Because Lord Bertilak’s actions and motivations are on the

whole benevolent, Gawain is not bound to destroy him as an evil.

First witness to be called: Chivalry Witness

Why/What main argument can this witness support?
The Chivalry Witness will argue that, because the motivations Bertilak describes are net
beneficial to Arthur’s court, the knights there-in, and the church and because the worst offence
is at worst mischievous, Lord Bertilak does not qualify as a form of evil which would need to be
destroyed under the code of chivalry.
What evidence is needed to support this argument? Please order your exhibits:

1-DC3: “Gawain and The Gift” pg. 491

2- DC4: SGGK pg 129-130 Translated by Burton Raffel