I have tried to decipher Strohm. I hope I did him and his work justice.
Crystal Dill
January 23, 2008
Response to Theory and The Premodern Text
(Strohm Pages 6-23)
Paper #2
Antidisciplinarity and Practice Theory
Strohm explains antidisciplinarity as a way for medieval theorists to “interest ourselves—and actively to prefer—those knowledges which are unrecognized within existing disciplinary terms” (33). He wants theorist to look beyond the usual norms of their field. He wants them to look closely at the obscure and the profound. I understood this portion of the text to be his way of pleading with his academic contemporaries to look at other forms of medieval media beside literature—to literarily go “outside” of their comfort zone and delve into the realm of art and anything else that might lead to a greater understanding of the period.
He goes on to say that most medievalists do not want to go outside of their comfort zone because they have a fear of the unknown and that is why some pieces of the puzzle are often left unseen. With this in mind, Strohm introduces the idea of practice theory: “At the heart of practice theory lies an understanding of human activity, as what Bourdieu calls, ‘regulated improvisation,’ as activity occurring within structure, but not structurally determined” (35). This simply means that not everything falls into neat and straight lines, and most of the time those things that are not considered “normal” are of greater importance than ritualized events.
Strohm then gives a list of practice theory’s positive attributes:
1. Expands the field of analysis. This means that practice theory gives a medievalist tools that allow them to see historical events in a wider spectrum.
2. Rejects the tyranny of structure. This attributes allows a researcher to go beyond the mundane and look at events and people that shatter societal norms etc.
3. Outflanks the question of intent. Authorial intent can not be known unless an author actually writes, “This is my intention.” With practice theory, a researcher is encouraged to look at the strategy of the text (what the text is doing of saying) instead of assuming what the author was trying to reveal about his or herself in a text.
4. Opens a theory of resistance. This is the idea that “change may result from ‘failed reproduction.’” Historically, great changes occur when a person or a group of people seek to go against societal rules and ceremonies. The outside forces that cause the resistance allow change to occur through subverting the dominate paradigm or regime. (35-37)
To expound on his thoughts about practice theory, Strohm gives three examples of historical people and events that caused change.
His first example is of Richard II and his coronation. He describes a moment when Richard is hoisted atop a knight’s shoulders and loses his shoe; Strohm then gives two interpretations of that event. The first interpretation is from a monk who is disturbed by the loss of the young king’s shoe, because it goes against the normal ritual of the coronation. The second interpretation explains how Richard’s shoe escalated to other events that would lead to Henry IV usurping the throne.
The next example he gives is of Henry IV’s coronation. Henry changed many things about the ceremony. Using a legend about anointing oil and the bumbling adventures of the previous king, Henry made himself into a mythical figure who seemed to deserve the throne of England far more than his predecessor. This was a strategic move put into place to make his own coronation appear to be far more important than Richard’s and increase the influence of his power as the new king of England.
Finally, Strohm briefly discusses, Joanne of Navarre, HenryIV’s wife. He discusses a painting that depicts her in an interesting and innovative way compared to other medieval portraits of monarchical women. She as painted as powerful and separate from her husband’s patriarchal influence. It is interesting and empowering to imagine a woman in a patriarchal society being so powerful that she is seen as her own women. From a historical stand point, this is makes her a figure of proto-feminine interest.
Essentially, I think Strohm is asking researchers to open their eyes to the small events that happened in history: a shoe dropping, a simple change in ceremony, or a painting of a female figure. Yes, the larger historical events are interesting and important, but more often, it is the small pebbles of history that make the largest ripples.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Amanda's Paper
Amanda Hulsey
EN 620/ Atkinson
15 January 2008
The Allegory of Meed
In the second passus of Piers Plowman, the author introduces the allegorical character of Meed. The text relays that the meaning behind the name portrays numerous connotations throughout the verse and is a constant source of debate as to whether the name is classified as good or evil. The text glossary notes that the term “meed” means a “reward, recompense, the profit motive,” but the term can also include ideas such as “bribery, gift, just compensation, and heavenly salvation” (631). In this essay, I will provide examples that justify Meed as a representation of evil through her actions of dishonesty and bribery.
From the first description of Meed, Holy Church describes her as someone who has a background of dishonesty. She states that Meed has hurt her and criticized her husband, Lewte, to law officials. She also explains the deceitfulness of Meed’s father stating that he, “nevere soothe seide sithen he come to erthe,” meaning that he did not utter an honest word the entire time he was alive (II. 26). To add to the evidence of untruthfulness, Holy Church states that Meed is to be married to False Fickle-Tongue. Liar unites these two which shows that dishonesty reigns over the marriage (II. 41-44).
Conscience also attests to the dishonesty of Meed when he is called upon by the King to be her husband. He testifies “For she is tikil of hire taile, talwis of hir tonge” (II. 131). This statement suggests that she has a quick, or lying, tongue. He states that her deceitful tongue has influenced many young women to follow her example, and it also lures men into her bed and causes them to lose all of their belongings. Conscience continues to berate Meed as a false woman. He states “For she is favorable to the Fals and fouleth Trewthe ofte” (II. 154). For these insincere actions, Conscience refuses to marry Meed.
In addition to dishonesty, bribery floods the actions of Meed. In Will’s dream, he witnesses the marriage of Meed. He notes that many types of men gather to win her affections and the chance of being her husband. Of all the men present, she is enamored with Simony and Civil. The text associates Simony with, “buying and selling the functions, spiritual powers, or offices of the Church” and Civil with, “civil (as opposed to criminal) law, especially noted for its bribery and corruption in the later Middle Ages” (27). Her interest in these two men over the others displays Meed’s interest in these corrupt manners.
Meed continues her practice of bribery when she is taken to the King’s palace to find a husband. The King’s men show kindness to Meed and promise to protect her and she repays them by giving them each, “coupes of clene golde and coppis of silver” (III. 22). Subsequently, a friar enters and offers to resolve Meed of her sins and act as a liaison. For this care, she bestows the friar with a noble. She also asks the friar to forgive those who engrave their good deeds on the stained-glass church windows even though it is seen as an abomination of God. Meed promises the friar if he will forgive these people, she will provide him with monies to invest in the church. She vows “And I shal kevre yowre kirke, yowre cloystre do maken,/Wowes do whitten and wyndowes glasen” (III. 60-61). This promise includes a new cloister, white-washing of the church walls and a new roof for the church in exchange for his loyalty to her.
Even the extravagant dress of Meed contributes to the practice of bribery. Will places heavy focus on the dress Meed, and describes her attire in intricate details. Translated, Will notes
I looked on my left side as the lady told me/And was aware of a woman wonderfully dressed./ Her gown was faced with fur, the finest on earth;/ Crowned with a coronet-the king has none better./ Her fingers were filigreed fancifully with gold,/ And rich rubies on them, as red as hot coals,/ And diamonds most dear of cost, and two different kinds of sapphires,/ Pearls and precious water-stones to repel poisons./ Her robe was most rich, dyed with red-scarlet,/ With ribbons of red gold and with rich stones (II. 7-16).
The emphasis on the rich, extravagant clothing of Meed illustrates her desire for money and the benefits it provides for her in life.
Meed takes the opportunity to defend her actions to the King to try to prove that the vices she obtains are no worse than those of Conscience. She notes all of the positive, redeeming qualities she possesses. Being that only a small portion of the dream of Meed contains these honorable traits, one can see that the focus of the text is the deceitful qualities of this lady which are meant to be the dominant traits of this allegorical character.
EN 620/ Atkinson
15 January 2008
The Allegory of Meed
In the second passus of Piers Plowman, the author introduces the allegorical character of Meed. The text relays that the meaning behind the name portrays numerous connotations throughout the verse and is a constant source of debate as to whether the name is classified as good or evil. The text glossary notes that the term “meed” means a “reward, recompense, the profit motive,” but the term can also include ideas such as “bribery, gift, just compensation, and heavenly salvation” (631). In this essay, I will provide examples that justify Meed as a representation of evil through her actions of dishonesty and bribery.
From the first description of Meed, Holy Church describes her as someone who has a background of dishonesty. She states that Meed has hurt her and criticized her husband, Lewte, to law officials. She also explains the deceitfulness of Meed’s father stating that he, “nevere soothe seide sithen he come to erthe,” meaning that he did not utter an honest word the entire time he was alive (II. 26). To add to the evidence of untruthfulness, Holy Church states that Meed is to be married to False Fickle-Tongue. Liar unites these two which shows that dishonesty reigns over the marriage (II. 41-44).
Conscience also attests to the dishonesty of Meed when he is called upon by the King to be her husband. He testifies “For she is tikil of hire taile, talwis of hir tonge” (II. 131). This statement suggests that she has a quick, or lying, tongue. He states that her deceitful tongue has influenced many young women to follow her example, and it also lures men into her bed and causes them to lose all of their belongings. Conscience continues to berate Meed as a false woman. He states “For she is favorable to the Fals and fouleth Trewthe ofte” (II. 154). For these insincere actions, Conscience refuses to marry Meed.
In addition to dishonesty, bribery floods the actions of Meed. In Will’s dream, he witnesses the marriage of Meed. He notes that many types of men gather to win her affections and the chance of being her husband. Of all the men present, she is enamored with Simony and Civil. The text associates Simony with, “buying and selling the functions, spiritual powers, or offices of the Church” and Civil with, “civil (as opposed to criminal) law, especially noted for its bribery and corruption in the later Middle Ages” (27). Her interest in these two men over the others displays Meed’s interest in these corrupt manners.
Meed continues her practice of bribery when she is taken to the King’s palace to find a husband. The King’s men show kindness to Meed and promise to protect her and she repays them by giving them each, “coupes of clene golde and coppis of silver” (III. 22). Subsequently, a friar enters and offers to resolve Meed of her sins and act as a liaison. For this care, she bestows the friar with a noble. She also asks the friar to forgive those who engrave their good deeds on the stained-glass church windows even though it is seen as an abomination of God. Meed promises the friar if he will forgive these people, she will provide him with monies to invest in the church. She vows “And I shal kevre yowre kirke, yowre cloystre do maken,/Wowes do whitten and wyndowes glasen” (III. 60-61). This promise includes a new cloister, white-washing of the church walls and a new roof for the church in exchange for his loyalty to her.
Even the extravagant dress of Meed contributes to the practice of bribery. Will places heavy focus on the dress Meed, and describes her attire in intricate details. Translated, Will notes
I looked on my left side as the lady told me/And was aware of a woman wonderfully dressed./ Her gown was faced with fur, the finest on earth;/ Crowned with a coronet-the king has none better./ Her fingers were filigreed fancifully with gold,/ And rich rubies on them, as red as hot coals,/ And diamonds most dear of cost, and two different kinds of sapphires,/ Pearls and precious water-stones to repel poisons./ Her robe was most rich, dyed with red-scarlet,/ With ribbons of red gold and with rich stones (II. 7-16).
The emphasis on the rich, extravagant clothing of Meed illustrates her desire for money and the benefits it provides for her in life.
Meed takes the opportunity to defend her actions to the King to try to prove that the vices she obtains are no worse than those of Conscience. She notes all of the positive, redeeming qualities she possesses. Being that only a small portion of the dream of Meed contains these honorable traits, one can see that the focus of the text is the deceitful qualities of this lady which are meant to be the dominant traits of this allegorical character.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Jaime's paper
Jaime McMeans
EN 620/Dr. Atkinson
16 January 2008
The Ladies of Good and Evil
In William Langland’s Piers Plowman, Lady Meed seems to represent evil and all that keeps man from living a life of virtue. In contrast to her, Holy Church encompasses goodness and wisdom that all men should emulate. As the Dreamer encounters these two women, the reader is led to wonder whether these obvious, outward roles represent the true character that lies beneath the surface.
The first lady that the Dreamer becomes acquainted with is Holy Church. She appears to him and begins to explicate the strange dream that the man has been experiencing. She points out right from wrong and insists that the Dreamer pay heed to her words. In doing so, this character represents authority, such as the church, and its persistence in governing the lives of its members. For every action, there is an explanation and a reason why the follower should be for or against what has taken place. Holy Church quickly speaks of the three necessities that man should strive to balance in his life. She states, “Arne none nedful but tho, and nempne hem I thinke. / […] That one is vesture from chele the to save; / [That other is] mete atte mele for myseise of thiselve, / And drynke whan thow dryest" (I.21-5). Again, Holy Church is presenting her ideas as the law that men should follow and fully expecting the Dreamer to obey her commands. Through her knowledge of all of the “good” in life and her willingness to share it with others, Holy Church is seen as a positive influence on the Dreamer.
Later, the Dreamer seems to question the validity of Holy Church, as he is yet to know her identity. He says, “Thanne had I wonder in my witt what woman it were / That such wise wordes of Holy Writ shewed, / And asked hir on the hieghe name, ar heo thennes yeode, / What she were witterli that wised me so faire” (I.71-4). She then introduces herself as Holy Church, and the Dreamer immediately repents and seeks her knowledge for further guidance in the ways of his life. Here is where critic C. David Benson begins to find fault in Holy Church’s disposition. He states, “The ultimate message of Holy Church is the love and mercy of Christ, but, not unlike the real Church, her tone can be harsh and her emphasis is often on the negative power of sin. […] Holy Church tells the Dreamer what he should do, but not how he can go about accomplishing it” (196). The Dreamer discovers no true help in this character, and at times, even fears her.
Soon afterward, the Dreamer struggles to determine how he is to use this overwhelming knowledge bestowed upon him by Holy Church. He questions his own ability to differentiate between the good and evil that he faces in life. He states, “’Yet have I no kynde knowing, […] yet mote ye kenne me better / By what craft in my corps it comseth and where’” (I.138-9). The manner in which she responds seems completely out of character for one who presents herself as so good and kind. Holy Church states, “’Thow doted daffe […] dulle arne thi wittes: / To litel Latyn thow lernedest, lede, in thi youthe’” (I.140-141). Her scolding here damages her reputation with the reader, and she further complicates her image when she leaves the Dreamer to fend for himself against those she considers evil without ever truly telling him how to deal with such a situation. Benson states, “Her role is that of a strict, chiding mother” (195). She may know what is best for the Dreamer, but she frightens him and seems to reprimand him more than using her valuable knowledge to teach him how to battle the evil in his life.
In complete contrast to Holy Church is Lady Meed. From the beginning of Passus I, the reader is led to view Lady Meed as the epitome of tribulation. As soon as the Dreamer catches a glimpse of Lady Meed, he is enraptured by her appearance, but Holy Church is quick to point out various negative traits that accompany Lady Meed. She states, “’That is Meed the maid who has harmed me very often’” (II.20). She mentions lies and ill-fated manners as well as the numerous sexual sins that Meed commits on a seemingly regular basis. To further prove her point, Holy Church informs the Dreamer that Meed is soon to be married to False Fickle-Tongue. This further implicates Meed as a questionable woman. As a warning to him, Holy Church says to the Dreamer, “Don’t let your conscience be overcome by coveting Meed” (II.51). Holy Church presents Meed as nothing more than a common whore who brings destruction upon all of the lives she touches.
However, Meed becomes a quite complicated figure to assess when considering her concern for others. While her obvious flaws lead the reader to judge her harshly, Benson feels that Lady Meed’s actions reveal a surprisingly redeemable character. Though her wrongs are many, Lady Meed is still an incredibly kind woman. She begs the Friar to have mercy on several different individuals, and, in return, she promises to supply the funds for improvements to the church. While still an act of bribery, Meed is attempting to make a better way for others. Benson states, “Meed is trying to buy a way out for the wicked from the consequences of their sins. But what Meed does for lecherous folk with money is exactly what Christ has done for all mankind with his life. He has bought us, paid for our sins through death, and Langland reminds us of the payment throughout the poem” (198). Whether the reader agrees with her method, the meaning behind her actions stems from the goodness of wanting to help those who cannot help themselves.
Benson quotes, “The allegory of Meed and Holy Church is a dynamic one, each figure is much more than merely the equal and opposite of the other, and neither is quite what she seems on the surface” (195). There is no doubt that Holy Church is meant to represent good and that Meed is meant to represent evil. However, the characteristics of each of the women can at times be mirrored in the other. It is very likely that Langland meant for his readers to look beyond the obvious and to truly see the characters for all the good and bad that each possesses.
Works Cited
Benson, C. David. “The Function of Lady Meed in ‘Piers Plowman.’” 193-205. Literature
Resource Center. Tanner High School Lib., Tanner, AL. 14 January 2008.
Langland, William. Piers Plowman. New York: Norton, 2006.
EN 620/Dr. Atkinson
16 January 2008
The Ladies of Good and Evil
In William Langland’s Piers Plowman, Lady Meed seems to represent evil and all that keeps man from living a life of virtue. In contrast to her, Holy Church encompasses goodness and wisdom that all men should emulate. As the Dreamer encounters these two women, the reader is led to wonder whether these obvious, outward roles represent the true character that lies beneath the surface.
The first lady that the Dreamer becomes acquainted with is Holy Church. She appears to him and begins to explicate the strange dream that the man has been experiencing. She points out right from wrong and insists that the Dreamer pay heed to her words. In doing so, this character represents authority, such as the church, and its persistence in governing the lives of its members. For every action, there is an explanation and a reason why the follower should be for or against what has taken place. Holy Church quickly speaks of the three necessities that man should strive to balance in his life. She states, “Arne none nedful but tho, and nempne hem I thinke. / […] That one is vesture from chele the to save; / [That other is] mete atte mele for myseise of thiselve, / And drynke whan thow dryest" (I.21-5). Again, Holy Church is presenting her ideas as the law that men should follow and fully expecting the Dreamer to obey her commands. Through her knowledge of all of the “good” in life and her willingness to share it with others, Holy Church is seen as a positive influence on the Dreamer.
Later, the Dreamer seems to question the validity of Holy Church, as he is yet to know her identity. He says, “Thanne had I wonder in my witt what woman it were / That such wise wordes of Holy Writ shewed, / And asked hir on the hieghe name, ar heo thennes yeode, / What she were witterli that wised me so faire” (I.71-4). She then introduces herself as Holy Church, and the Dreamer immediately repents and seeks her knowledge for further guidance in the ways of his life. Here is where critic C. David Benson begins to find fault in Holy Church’s disposition. He states, “The ultimate message of Holy Church is the love and mercy of Christ, but, not unlike the real Church, her tone can be harsh and her emphasis is often on the negative power of sin. […] Holy Church tells the Dreamer what he should do, but not how he can go about accomplishing it” (196). The Dreamer discovers no true help in this character, and at times, even fears her.
Soon afterward, the Dreamer struggles to determine how he is to use this overwhelming knowledge bestowed upon him by Holy Church. He questions his own ability to differentiate between the good and evil that he faces in life. He states, “’Yet have I no kynde knowing, […] yet mote ye kenne me better / By what craft in my corps it comseth and where’” (I.138-9). The manner in which she responds seems completely out of character for one who presents herself as so good and kind. Holy Church states, “’Thow doted daffe […] dulle arne thi wittes: / To litel Latyn thow lernedest, lede, in thi youthe’” (I.140-141). Her scolding here damages her reputation with the reader, and she further complicates her image when she leaves the Dreamer to fend for himself against those she considers evil without ever truly telling him how to deal with such a situation. Benson states, “Her role is that of a strict, chiding mother” (195). She may know what is best for the Dreamer, but she frightens him and seems to reprimand him more than using her valuable knowledge to teach him how to battle the evil in his life.
In complete contrast to Holy Church is Lady Meed. From the beginning of Passus I, the reader is led to view Lady Meed as the epitome of tribulation. As soon as the Dreamer catches a glimpse of Lady Meed, he is enraptured by her appearance, but Holy Church is quick to point out various negative traits that accompany Lady Meed. She states, “’That is Meed the maid who has harmed me very often’” (II.20). She mentions lies and ill-fated manners as well as the numerous sexual sins that Meed commits on a seemingly regular basis. To further prove her point, Holy Church informs the Dreamer that Meed is soon to be married to False Fickle-Tongue. This further implicates Meed as a questionable woman. As a warning to him, Holy Church says to the Dreamer, “Don’t let your conscience be overcome by coveting Meed” (II.51). Holy Church presents Meed as nothing more than a common whore who brings destruction upon all of the lives she touches.
However, Meed becomes a quite complicated figure to assess when considering her concern for others. While her obvious flaws lead the reader to judge her harshly, Benson feels that Lady Meed’s actions reveal a surprisingly redeemable character. Though her wrongs are many, Lady Meed is still an incredibly kind woman. She begs the Friar to have mercy on several different individuals, and, in return, she promises to supply the funds for improvements to the church. While still an act of bribery, Meed is attempting to make a better way for others. Benson states, “Meed is trying to buy a way out for the wicked from the consequences of their sins. But what Meed does for lecherous folk with money is exactly what Christ has done for all mankind with his life. He has bought us, paid for our sins through death, and Langland reminds us of the payment throughout the poem” (198). Whether the reader agrees with her method, the meaning behind her actions stems from the goodness of wanting to help those who cannot help themselves.
Benson quotes, “The allegory of Meed and Holy Church is a dynamic one, each figure is much more than merely the equal and opposite of the other, and neither is quite what she seems on the surface” (195). There is no doubt that Holy Church is meant to represent good and that Meed is meant to represent evil. However, the characteristics of each of the women can at times be mirrored in the other. It is very likely that Langland meant for his readers to look beyond the obvious and to truly see the characters for all the good and bad that each possesses.
Works Cited
Benson, C. David. “The Function of Lady Meed in ‘Piers Plowman.’” 193-205. Literature
Resource Center. Tanner High School Lib., Tanner, AL. 14 January 2008.
Langland, William. Piers Plowman. New York: Norton, 2006.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
I hope I posted correctly this time.
Susan Norton
EN 620
Dr. Atkinson
16 January 2008
Search for Truth and Salvation
One of the main themes in William Langland’s medieval, poetical work Piers Plowman is the search for Truth and salvation. In the poem the narrator William is wandering the English countryside in search of “wonders” (p3 ln 4). In the process he reclines by the side of a brook and is lulled to sleep and a dream then ensues. At first he dreams of his present society and its sinful behaviors. As the dream continues, William is granted an interview with the personified Holy Church, which will be referred to hereafter as the Sacred Lady or She, in which he inquires as to how he can receive salvation.
At the beginning of the dream William mentions two towers, one on a hill-top and the other in a dungeon. The tower on the hill symbolizes Truth or God and Heaven. The tower in the dungeon represents a Lie or the Devil and Hell. All sorts of people are located between the two towers in a field which would represent their current condition on earth as being between Heaven and Hell. William proceeds to address the corrupt nature of his present society, particularly that of church officials. The corruption of the church officials would certainly have led to a hindrance for individuals seeking Truth as they would have been practicing false doctrines as well as hypocrisy. Of course, behind the corruption is the root of all evil, money. Several instances are mentioned in which the people are misled by church officials for their own personal acquisition of money. Prevalent among the corrupted religious figures are the friars who are “[p]reaching to the people for their own paunches’ welfare,/ [m]aking glosses of the Gospel that would look good for themselves;/ [c]oveting copes, they construed it as they pleased” (p5 lns 59-61). William goes on to say that they sell their services, particularly those of confession and forgiveness of sins, which cannot be purchased with man’s money. I find the role of the pardoner most humorous because it implies that it is acceptable to sin as long as a person pays to do so. (I can hear them now: “What’s the going price for a good drinking binge these days?”) William contributes much of society’s fault of letting this corruption exist, as well as that in the government, to the people’s lack of education and state of being unlearned. “[I]lliterate men lacked/ [t]he jargon or judgment to justify themselves,/ [and] can only suffer and serve” (p9 lns 129-131).
Later in the dream in “Passus I” while he is still on his spiritual journey, William is provided the opportunity to interview the Sacred Lady herself and ask Her how he may acquire salvation. At first William is unaware of who She really is. Perhaps this is symbolic of the fact that the church had become unrecognizable due to the corruption of its inner workings. She begins by telling him that most people are content while in this world as long as they have their health. Then, She directs William’s attention to the tower on the hill and proclaims it the embodiment of Truth and allegorically, God. She next points out that there are only three necessities in life: food, clothing/shelter, and drink. However, She cautions William on drinking to excess. When William next asks Her to whom money belongs, which obviously the people had been deceived in this area, She directs him to the Gospel for his answers and not to corrupt church officials. William then inquires about the second tower in the dungeon in which She explains it is the dwelling place of Wrong or allegorically, Satan.
It is not until the preceding events have transpired that William begins to question who his wise acquaintance and mentor is. She lovingly reprimands him for not recognizing her since She befriended him first and taught him the faith. William immediately drops to his knees in an act of reverence and begins to pray and seek counsel on how to achieve salvation and find Truth. The Sacred Lady’s answer is Truth, in the allegorical form meaning God. She responds, “And who end , as I said earlier, in Truth that is the best/ [m]ay be certain that their souls will ascend to Heaven” (p21 lns 131-2).
William’s response to the Sacred Lady not only agitates Her but also brings up another interesting paradoxical idea. He professes that he has no “natural knowledge” of Truth and wishes to be taught (p21 ln 138). The Sacred Lady seems to contradict Herself somewhat because She had just said, prior to William’s response, that unlearned men have to be taught that Truth is the way whereas learned men already know this (p21 lns 135-7). So why does She become angry with William when he says he has no “natural knowledge”? She exclaims that this knowledge is natural and therefore instinctive and does not have to be taught. She tells William, “It’s a natural knowledge that’s nurtured in your heart/ [t]o love your Lord more dearly than you love yourself…” (p21 lns 143-4). The resulting paradox is, can William be taught something that is supposed to be natural because if he is taught something that is supposed to be natural or instinctive, can it continue to be considered so? William’s disagreement with the Sacred Lady indicates he believes there is some reasoning involved in acquiring knowledge of Truth which leads to salvation. Both of these arguments imply somewhat that man has the ability to save himself because one indicates that man is instinctively born to know Truth, which would negate free will, and the other implies that through rationalization on his own, man can know Truth and needs no help from Truth in the acquisition of knowledge about Truth.
Works Cited
Langland, William. Piers Plowman. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.
Susan Norton
EN 620
Dr. Atkinson
16 January 2008
Search for Truth and Salvation
One of the main themes in William Langland’s medieval, poetical work Piers Plowman is the search for Truth and salvation. In the poem the narrator William is wandering the English countryside in search of “wonders” (p3 ln 4). In the process he reclines by the side of a brook and is lulled to sleep and a dream then ensues. At first he dreams of his present society and its sinful behaviors. As the dream continues, William is granted an interview with the personified Holy Church, which will be referred to hereafter as the Sacred Lady or She, in which he inquires as to how he can receive salvation.
At the beginning of the dream William mentions two towers, one on a hill-top and the other in a dungeon. The tower on the hill symbolizes Truth or God and Heaven. The tower in the dungeon represents a Lie or the Devil and Hell. All sorts of people are located between the two towers in a field which would represent their current condition on earth as being between Heaven and Hell. William proceeds to address the corrupt nature of his present society, particularly that of church officials. The corruption of the church officials would certainly have led to a hindrance for individuals seeking Truth as they would have been practicing false doctrines as well as hypocrisy. Of course, behind the corruption is the root of all evil, money. Several instances are mentioned in which the people are misled by church officials for their own personal acquisition of money. Prevalent among the corrupted religious figures are the friars who are “[p]reaching to the people for their own paunches’ welfare,/ [m]aking glosses of the Gospel that would look good for themselves;/ [c]oveting copes, they construed it as they pleased” (p5 lns 59-61). William goes on to say that they sell their services, particularly those of confession and forgiveness of sins, which cannot be purchased with man’s money. I find the role of the pardoner most humorous because it implies that it is acceptable to sin as long as a person pays to do so. (I can hear them now: “What’s the going price for a good drinking binge these days?”) William contributes much of society’s fault of letting this corruption exist, as well as that in the government, to the people’s lack of education and state of being unlearned. “[I]lliterate men lacked/ [t]he jargon or judgment to justify themselves,/ [and] can only suffer and serve” (p9 lns 129-131).
Later in the dream in “Passus I” while he is still on his spiritual journey, William is provided the opportunity to interview the Sacred Lady herself and ask Her how he may acquire salvation. At first William is unaware of who She really is. Perhaps this is symbolic of the fact that the church had become unrecognizable due to the corruption of its inner workings. She begins by telling him that most people are content while in this world as long as they have their health. Then, She directs William’s attention to the tower on the hill and proclaims it the embodiment of Truth and allegorically, God. She next points out that there are only three necessities in life: food, clothing/shelter, and drink. However, She cautions William on drinking to excess. When William next asks Her to whom money belongs, which obviously the people had been deceived in this area, She directs him to the Gospel for his answers and not to corrupt church officials. William then inquires about the second tower in the dungeon in which She explains it is the dwelling place of Wrong or allegorically, Satan.
It is not until the preceding events have transpired that William begins to question who his wise acquaintance and mentor is. She lovingly reprimands him for not recognizing her since She befriended him first and taught him the faith. William immediately drops to his knees in an act of reverence and begins to pray and seek counsel on how to achieve salvation and find Truth. The Sacred Lady’s answer is Truth, in the allegorical form meaning God. She responds, “And who end , as I said earlier, in Truth that is the best/ [m]ay be certain that their souls will ascend to Heaven” (p21 lns 131-2).
William’s response to the Sacred Lady not only agitates Her but also brings up another interesting paradoxical idea. He professes that he has no “natural knowledge” of Truth and wishes to be taught (p21 ln 138). The Sacred Lady seems to contradict Herself somewhat because She had just said, prior to William’s response, that unlearned men have to be taught that Truth is the way whereas learned men already know this (p21 lns 135-7). So why does She become angry with William when he says he has no “natural knowledge”? She exclaims that this knowledge is natural and therefore instinctive and does not have to be taught. She tells William, “It’s a natural knowledge that’s nurtured in your heart/ [t]o love your Lord more dearly than you love yourself…” (p21 lns 143-4). The resulting paradox is, can William be taught something that is supposed to be natural because if he is taught something that is supposed to be natural or instinctive, can it continue to be considered so? William’s disagreement with the Sacred Lady indicates he believes there is some reasoning involved in acquiring knowledge of Truth which leads to salvation. Both of these arguments imply somewhat that man has the ability to save himself because one indicates that man is instinctively born to know Truth, which would negate free will, and the other implies that through rationalization on his own, man can know Truth and needs no help from Truth in the acquisition of knowledge about Truth.
Works Cited
Langland, William. Piers Plowman. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.
figurative language and melanie's contribution
I think you should all take a long at the interpretation of PP in Melanie's paper. She's done a really good job of looking at the allegory. Plus she worked with a the middle English, something you are need to do--even if it is just bit by bit here in the beginning. Her comparison with Shakespeare's use of lunatic critiques of an oppression political system is very appropriate too.
An important line in the cat/rat metaphor is about the cat being a kitten. This is a direct reference to Richard II, who is a child when he takes the throne. What makes it important is that England doesn't have one leader; rather, it's got many different people advising a boy king, and that type of internal division is always very harmful to the poorest.
An important line in the cat/rat metaphor is about the cat being a kitten. This is a direct reference to Richard II, who is a child when he takes the throne. What makes it important is that England doesn't have one leader; rather, it's got many different people advising a boy king, and that type of internal division is always very harmful to the poorest.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Melanie's Paper
Melanie Smith
15 January 2008
Dr. Nancy Atkinson
EN 620
Figurative Language in Piers Plowman
The prologue of Piers Plowman instantly introduces the reader into a world that is filled with figurative language. The main character, Plowman, opens the prologue with a simile and the figurative language continues throughout the first section of the poem. This complex poem discusses the ideas of innocence, a basic foundation of right and wrong, and possible corruption in the highest ranks.
“In a somer seson whan soft was the sonne/I shope me in shroudes as I a shepe were…” (Prologue 1-2). These lines begin the prologue, instantly causing a flurry of thoughts to enter the reader’s mind. First, the obvious comes to mind. The plowman needs to layer his clothing in order to keep warm during a time when the summer months did not provide enough heat. The layering of the clothing will keep the plowman warm just as a sheep’s wool keeps it warm. However, one has to wonder at the meaning of the comparison. Many times a sheep is thought to be an innocent creature, completely void of corruption and sin. Perhaps Langland is implying that before the plowman’s slumber he is an innocent creature who has not yet been exposed to the evils of the world, but as he dreams Holy Church begins to make him aware he is made aware of the possible corruptions and sins that he may soon face.
“And thane cam Kynde Wytte, and clerkes he made/For to conseille the kyng and the comune save” (114-115). Kind Wit is personified in the poem and given a sort of comforting yet intelligent aurapersonality. According to the poem each person is born with wit or a basic intelligence. This is basically the foundation for each human being. Kind Wit allows each person to know, without being taught, the difference between right and wrong, how to take care of themselves, and how to take care of others. Building on the idea that Kind Wit is the basic foundation of each human, Plowman goes on to say that it created clerks. The clerks are the intellectuals responsible for making the ultimate decisions in regards to counseling the king and keeping society safe. “The kyng and knyghthode and clergye bothe/Casten that the comune shulde [here communes]/fynde” (116-118). Assisting Kind Wit, the king, clergy, and knights decide the common people of society should be able to supply food for themselves. Providing oneself with food goes back to the basic intelligence that a person is born with, the basic foundation for survival that is provided by “Kind Wit”.
Deeper into the prologue the reader stumbles upon a more complex piece of figurative language, an extended metaphor.
“With that ran there a route of ratones at ones,
And smale mys with hem, mo then a thousande,
Comen to a conseille for here comune profit;
For a cat of a courte cam whan hym liked
And overlepe hem lyghtlich and laughter hem at his wille,
And pleyde with hem perilouslych, and possed aboute” (146-151).
In this metaphor the cat represents the king, the rabble of rats are the king’s men (such as knights and clergy), and the mice represent the common people of the kingdom. The king has been given ultimate authority over all people who expect him to do God’s will. It seems as though no one questions his authority until the lunatic speaks up and tells the king, “Crist kepe the, sire Kyng, and thi kyngriche/ And lene the lede thi londe so Leute the lovye/ And for thi rightful rewlyng be rewarded in Hevene”(126-128) “Si jus nudatur, nudo de jure metatur” (137). The king will be rewarded on the basis of how he uses his power and how he treats his people. The king is the great, powerful cat that can pounce on a rat or mouse at any given time and there is nothing the vermin can do about it. If the king decides to use his power for good, the commons will prosper; nevertheless, if he decides to use it for evil the commons can do nothing but suffer. It is interesting that the lunatic is the character that speaks the truth in this section of the prologue. However, no one listens to what he says until the angel comes down and reinforces his declaration. “O, qui jura, Regis, Chrisi specialia regi. Hoc quod aga melius Justus es esto pius” (133-134). The angel reinforcing the lunatic’s words stresses that whatever actions the king takes he will reap the just rewards. Although this is written in a very serious tone, the same type of thing is seen later on Shakespeare’s works when he uses the jesters and fools to speak the truth even though everyone laughs at them and disregards their words.
One has to marvel at the truths that are found in Piers Plowman. It is scary to imagine that one man can be given complete control over so many people and expected to always do the right thing no matter what the consequences are. Anyone in that position is set up for failure from the very beginning. It raises an important question. Can any one person resist all the temptations in the world for the greater good of his kingdom, country, or society? It is very doubtful.
Works Cited
Langland, William. Piers Plowman. New York: Norton & Company, 2006.
15 January 2008
Dr. Nancy Atkinson
EN 620
Figurative Language in Piers Plowman
The prologue of Piers Plowman instantly introduces the reader into a world that is filled with figurative language. The main character, Plowman, opens the prologue with a simile and the figurative language continues throughout the first section of the poem. This complex poem discusses the ideas of innocence, a basic foundation of right and wrong, and possible corruption in the highest ranks.
“In a somer seson whan soft was the sonne/I shope me in shroudes as I a shepe were…” (Prologue 1-2). These lines begin the prologue, instantly causing a flurry of thoughts to enter the reader’s mind. First, the obvious comes to mind. The plowman needs to layer his clothing in order to keep warm during a time when the summer months did not provide enough heat. The layering of the clothing will keep the plowman warm just as a sheep’s wool keeps it warm. However, one has to wonder at the meaning of the comparison. Many times a sheep is thought to be an innocent creature, completely void of corruption and sin. Perhaps Langland is implying that before the plowman’s slumber he is an innocent creature who has not yet been exposed to the evils of the world, but as he dreams Holy Church begins to make him aware he is made aware of the possible corruptions and sins that he may soon face.
“And thane cam Kynde Wytte, and clerkes he made/For to conseille the kyng and the comune save” (114-115). Kind Wit is personified in the poem and given a sort of comforting yet intelligent aurapersonality. According to the poem each person is born with wit or a basic intelligence. This is basically the foundation for each human being. Kind Wit allows each person to know, without being taught, the difference between right and wrong, how to take care of themselves, and how to take care of others. Building on the idea that Kind Wit is the basic foundation of each human, Plowman goes on to say that it created clerks. The clerks are the intellectuals responsible for making the ultimate decisions in regards to counseling the king and keeping society safe. “The kyng and knyghthode and clergye bothe/Casten that the comune shulde [here communes]/fynde” (116-118). Assisting Kind Wit, the king, clergy, and knights decide the common people of society should be able to supply food for themselves. Providing oneself with food goes back to the basic intelligence that a person is born with, the basic foundation for survival that is provided by “Kind Wit”.
Deeper into the prologue the reader stumbles upon a more complex piece of figurative language, an extended metaphor.
“With that ran there a route of ratones at ones,
And smale mys with hem, mo then a thousande,
Comen to a conseille for here comune profit;
For a cat of a courte cam whan hym liked
And overlepe hem lyghtlich and laughter hem at his wille,
And pleyde with hem perilouslych, and possed aboute” (146-151).
In this metaphor the cat represents the king, the rabble of rats are the king’s men (such as knights and clergy), and the mice represent the common people of the kingdom. The king has been given ultimate authority over all people who expect him to do God’s will. It seems as though no one questions his authority until the lunatic speaks up and tells the king, “Crist kepe the, sire Kyng, and thi kyngriche/ And lene the lede thi londe so Leute the lovye/ And for thi rightful rewlyng be rewarded in Hevene”(126-128) “Si jus nudatur, nudo de jure metatur” (137). The king will be rewarded on the basis of how he uses his power and how he treats his people. The king is the great, powerful cat that can pounce on a rat or mouse at any given time and there is nothing the vermin can do about it. If the king decides to use his power for good, the commons will prosper; nevertheless, if he decides to use it for evil the commons can do nothing but suffer. It is interesting that the lunatic is the character that speaks the truth in this section of the prologue. However, no one listens to what he says until the angel comes down and reinforces his declaration. “O, qui jura, Regis, Chrisi specialia regi. Hoc quod aga melius Justus es esto pius” (133-134). The angel reinforcing the lunatic’s words stresses that whatever actions the king takes he will reap the just rewards. Although this is written in a very serious tone, the same type of thing is seen later on Shakespeare’s works when he uses the jesters and fools to speak the truth even though everyone laughs at them and disregards their words.
One has to marvel at the truths that are found in Piers Plowman. It is scary to imagine that one man can be given complete control over so many people and expected to always do the right thing no matter what the consequences are. Anyone in that position is set up for failure from the very beginning. It raises an important question. Can any one person resist all the temptations in the world for the greater good of his kingdom, country, or society? It is very doubtful.
Works Cited
Langland, William. Piers Plowman. New York: Norton & Company, 2006.
lashay's paper
In Paul Strohm’s text “Three London Itineraries: Aesthetic Purity and the Composing Process,” he seeks to explain the importance of the relationship between the plot and the setting in medieval literature. Strohm examines three different works from the medieval era demonstrating the importance of the setting to each work. He relates the setting to social standing and by extension society in general. He makes good points about the relation to setting and social standing in medieval literature that still hold true in literature and society today.
One of the first things Strohm points out is the initial desire of the person to be alone. In all three of the narratives he examines the protagonist sets out on a lone journey; however in none of the narratives does the protagonist finish his journey alone. Chaucer finds himself in the middle of a chivalry court case, Usk finds himself charging his one time friend with “treasonous designs against Brembre’s rival candidacy and the common good of the city of London” (8), and Hoccleve finds himself broke and penniless because he likes the way the boatmen treat him. All three of these men initially set out on a sojourn, however they all end up in a large company of people leaving us to wonder if they ever really wanted to be alone. This quandary is even more perplexing because of the common location which all choose to visit in their sojourn.
The first thing I want to examine in this paper is the common denominator of place in these three works. All three of these men end up at a tavern of some sort during the work, and usually this is where the sojourn ends and the dialogue begins. Strohm writes, “An impending occasion of social redefinition is, in fact, signaled by all these taverns lurking in and around our three narratives” (10). Chaucer’s new found socially defining episode occurs when he notices a set of arms, belonging to someone other than the man he supposed, displayed outside an inn. This brings him into the court case about the coat of arms between Scrope and Grosvenor. Usk goes to a tavern, namely Willingham’s tavern, known for its shady political dealings and becomes a co-conspirator against and old friend. Hoccleve goes for a drink after work and leaves the boat he took home empty handed because he is trying to keep up appearances. It is very interesting that all of these texts center on taverns because they are such an integral part of society then and now. All I can think about when reading this text is the TV show “Cheers” and the line in the song, “Where everybody knows your name.” These men seek out, possibly inadvertently, a place where they can find companionship. They desire the dialogue that will redefine their position in life. Even today when someone wants to meet someone or just talk to someone, be it the bartender, they go to their favorite watering hole. By making the tavern the center of their narratives all of these men send the subconscious message that they really desire a dialogic relationship, however they also send the message about where those relationships can lead.
Strohm points out that Chaucer’s newfound relationship lands him in the position of a witness for Scrope in the chivalry trial. Strohm writes, “But Chaucer’s testimony also accomplishes an additional bit of status enhancement” (12). This “enhancement” comes about because the man he asks about the arms calls him “sieur” (12). Since this term was reserved for men of substance, then it stands to reason that it made Chaucer feel more important to be addressed in this way. Usk’s newfound relationship makes him more socially mobile. Strohm points out, “In heading for ‘the Bowe’ [the location of Willingham’s tavern], Usk was inserting himself in a zone of political volatility, a place where careers and reputations rose and fell with heightened rapidity” (9). Unlike Chaucer, who knows not what he is doing when he asks about the arms, Usk knows exactly what will happen when he enters Willingham’s tavern. He will become more socially mobile. He will gain the favor of the new mayor, and it will eventually lead to “his royal appointment as undersheriff of Middlesex with its accompanying title of sergeant of arms of King Richard” (14). Usk has political aspirations in mind when he goes to the tavern, and he succeeds in accomplishing them. Unlike Chaucer or Usk the only thing Hoccleve has in mind when entering the tavern is a drink to take his mind off his troubles. However, this drink leads him to more trouble when he lets the sarcastic mockery of the boatmen effect his judgment. Hoccleve admits that the practice of the boatmen calling him “maistir” when he is in the range of hearing makes him empty his pockets in tipping them when his voyage down the river is complete. Strohm writes, “It proceeds from a dream of advancement, energized by a situation of social difference, in which he is perceived . . . as something beyond his station, as something closer to what he would like to be” (15). All of these narrators find something they desire at the tavern, be it recognition as a more important person than they actually are or be it social mobility, they become something more than they are in reality.
Strohm’s text helps us to analyze medieval literature in a new way looking at social mobility and its relation to place. In examining the works in the way that he did he takes the normal everyday activities of these people and puts them in the context of social standing and society. He also helps us to realize that the actions of people today are not any different than the actions of people in the medieval period in regard to society and social standing. Everyone wants to be something better or more respectable, and Strohm proves that it has always been this way.
One of the first things Strohm points out is the initial desire of the person to be alone. In all three of the narratives he examines the protagonist sets out on a lone journey; however in none of the narratives does the protagonist finish his journey alone. Chaucer finds himself in the middle of a chivalry court case, Usk finds himself charging his one time friend with “treasonous designs against Brembre’s rival candidacy and the common good of the city of London” (8), and Hoccleve finds himself broke and penniless because he likes the way the boatmen treat him. All three of these men initially set out on a sojourn, however they all end up in a large company of people leaving us to wonder if they ever really wanted to be alone. This quandary is even more perplexing because of the common location which all choose to visit in their sojourn.
The first thing I want to examine in this paper is the common denominator of place in these three works. All three of these men end up at a tavern of some sort during the work, and usually this is where the sojourn ends and the dialogue begins. Strohm writes, “An impending occasion of social redefinition is, in fact, signaled by all these taverns lurking in and around our three narratives” (10). Chaucer’s new found socially defining episode occurs when he notices a set of arms, belonging to someone other than the man he supposed, displayed outside an inn. This brings him into the court case about the coat of arms between Scrope and Grosvenor. Usk goes to a tavern, namely Willingham’s tavern, known for its shady political dealings and becomes a co-conspirator against and old friend. Hoccleve goes for a drink after work and leaves the boat he took home empty handed because he is trying to keep up appearances. It is very interesting that all of these texts center on taverns because they are such an integral part of society then and now. All I can think about when reading this text is the TV show “Cheers” and the line in the song, “Where everybody knows your name.” These men seek out, possibly inadvertently, a place where they can find companionship. They desire the dialogue that will redefine their position in life. Even today when someone wants to meet someone or just talk to someone, be it the bartender, they go to their favorite watering hole. By making the tavern the center of their narratives all of these men send the subconscious message that they really desire a dialogic relationship, however they also send the message about where those relationships can lead.
Strohm points out that Chaucer’s newfound relationship lands him in the position of a witness for Scrope in the chivalry trial. Strohm writes, “But Chaucer’s testimony also accomplishes an additional bit of status enhancement” (12). This “enhancement” comes about because the man he asks about the arms calls him “sieur” (12). Since this term was reserved for men of substance, then it stands to reason that it made Chaucer feel more important to be addressed in this way. Usk’s newfound relationship makes him more socially mobile. Strohm points out, “In heading for ‘the Bowe’ [the location of Willingham’s tavern], Usk was inserting himself in a zone of political volatility, a place where careers and reputations rose and fell with heightened rapidity” (9). Unlike Chaucer, who knows not what he is doing when he asks about the arms, Usk knows exactly what will happen when he enters Willingham’s tavern. He will become more socially mobile. He will gain the favor of the new mayor, and it will eventually lead to “his royal appointment as undersheriff of Middlesex with its accompanying title of sergeant of arms of King Richard” (14). Usk has political aspirations in mind when he goes to the tavern, and he succeeds in accomplishing them. Unlike Chaucer or Usk the only thing Hoccleve has in mind when entering the tavern is a drink to take his mind off his troubles. However, this drink leads him to more trouble when he lets the sarcastic mockery of the boatmen effect his judgment. Hoccleve admits that the practice of the boatmen calling him “maistir” when he is in the range of hearing makes him empty his pockets in tipping them when his voyage down the river is complete. Strohm writes, “It proceeds from a dream of advancement, energized by a situation of social difference, in which he is perceived . . . as something beyond his station, as something closer to what he would like to be” (15). All of these narrators find something they desire at the tavern, be it recognition as a more important person than they actually are or be it social mobility, they become something more than they are in reality.
Strohm’s text helps us to analyze medieval literature in a new way looking at social mobility and its relation to place. In examining the works in the way that he did he takes the normal everyday activities of these people and puts them in the context of social standing and society. He also helps us to realize that the actions of people today are not any different than the actions of people in the medieval period in regard to society and social standing. Everyone wants to be something better or more respectable, and Strohm proves that it has always been this way.
christian tradition
I am responding to Tina's post, especially this statement:
"According to Christian tradition, the society has failed because of the corruption of the church where they are suppose to take money for charity for the sufferings of the poor but use it for their own gain."
I'm not quite clear which tradition Tina's talking about, but I'd like to stress that we need to begin our understanding of medieval Christianity by getting rid of the notion that everyone was corrupt and that the society is a "failure". Christianity was very very multifaceted, just as it is today. We will study many devout people's works. Look at the character of Holy Church in PP. She is the most positive character. Langland depicts certain bad actors (pardoners, etc.). But the institute cannot be more positively represented.
"According to Christian tradition, the society has failed because of the corruption of the church where they are suppose to take money for charity for the sufferings of the poor but use it for their own gain."
I'm not quite clear which tradition Tina's talking about, but I'd like to stress that we need to begin our understanding of medieval Christianity by getting rid of the notion that everyone was corrupt and that the society is a "failure". Christianity was very very multifaceted, just as it is today. We will study many devout people's works. Look at the character of Holy Church in PP. She is the most positive character. Langland depicts certain bad actors (pardoners, etc.). But the institute cannot be more positively represented.
On Richard II's language
I just wanted to make a point of clarification in response to Crystal's comment about Richard II learning French first.
When William the Conqueror took over the British Isles in 1066, he established his language (French, from Normandy, a province). French became the courtly language; English was the language of the commoners. In Richard's time, all the court spoke French first and all court documents were done in French. Also we must'nt think of England and France with hard and fast boundaries (national boundaries are a much later phenomenon). The line of William the Conqueror held territory in France for hundreds of years (and sometimes the monarch kept his court in France). It wasn't usually an England vs French war; it was a territory accumulation type of war).
When William the Conqueror took over the British Isles in 1066, he established his language (French, from Normandy, a province). French became the courtly language; English was the language of the commoners. In Richard's time, all the court spoke French first and all court documents were done in French. Also we must'nt think of England and France with hard and fast boundaries (national boundaries are a much later phenomenon). The line of William the Conqueror held territory in France for hundreds of years (and sometimes the monarch kept his court in France). It wasn't usually an England vs French war; it was a territory accumulation type of war).
Friday, January 18, 2008
Crystal's paper
I hope this is posted correctly. I pushed a bunch of random buttons that should have pointed me in the right direction.
See you all next Wednesday.
Crystal Dill
January 16, 2008
Response to Richard II
(Saul Pages 6-23)
Paper #1
Richard’s Early Years
According to Saul, “Richard’s upbringing in his years of boyhood or ‘pueritia’ would probably have followed the pattern usual among the aristocracy (14)[1].” From here he goes on to explain that at the early age of six, Richard was handed over to tutors and masters. It would seem that there was no direct involvement from either of his parents in his education. With this interpretation the reader is left to surmise that the progression of childhood in the English aristocracy is that the child is born, the child is weaned, and finally the child is groomed for their future purpose. In order to understand Richard’s childhood years better, I wanted to explore the concept of Medieval child rearing.
Barbra Hanawalt suggests that the modern perception of medieval parenting as being cold and distant is inaccurate. Hanawalt argues that the conception of a nurturing and loving childhood is a modern conception. She says:
By concentrating our attack on one front only, definitions of childhood, we have neglected the two-way relationship between parents and children, and we have overlooked entirely the importance of community in raising and protecting children. It is time to turn our attention toward the dynamics of the relationships among the three. We have followed Ariès too closely in trying to point to a clearly defined concept of childhood, to a parental attitude toward children that can only be loving if it is cast in the mold of twentieth-century sentimentality about childhood. Our interest in community responses to children and childhood has been limited to cultural expressions of love of children rather than to the discipline, training, and oversight that the community might be willing to assume in rearing children. (Hanawalt)[2]
This suggests that although our modern minds cannot fathom such a concept that perhaps in medieval society a nurturing childhood was frivolous and unnecessary. However, what was necessary was the involvement of the community to help raise the child to become a logical and determined leader.
For Richard to become a good leader by medieval standards, it would have been appropriate for his parents to step aside and allow tutors and masters to take their place. In a time period where wars were as common as church services a child did not need to be doted on by watchful parents; he needed to learn how to strategize logically and effectively.
I also found it interesting to note that Richard’s first language was not English. Through the appropriation of Aquitaine, Richard had people on staff who were of French ancestry and according to Saul, he most likely acquired English later childhood (14). Considering that England was in a perpetual state of war with France during this time period, it would appear to some that his acquisition of the language would be inconsequential perhaps even seditious, but for a future king learning the language of the enemy can be advantageous. This theory made me think of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis which says:
…a particular language's nature influences the habitual thought of its speakers. Different language patterns yield different patterns of thought. This idea challenges the possibility of representing the world perfectly with language, because it acknowledges that the mechanisms of any language condition the thoughts of its speaker community. (wikipedia)[3]
Perhaps it was beneficial for Richard to learn the French language before his mother tongue because it would help him understand the thought process or perhaps even the cognitive process (given the grammatical structure of the French language) of his country’s greatest enemy.
Richard II’s childhood would seem strange and lonely by modern standards, but in order to survive in the medieval world it would have been the only option he would have to survive. Hopefully, medieval children were loved by their parents, but affection and kindness were not emotions they had time to display. They dealt with harsh weather, wars, and an unpredictable political climate; they wanted their children to survive.
[1]Saul, Nigel. Richard II. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1997.
[2] http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL12/hanawalt.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis
See you all next Wednesday.
Crystal Dill
January 16, 2008
Response to Richard II
(Saul Pages 6-23)
Paper #1
Richard’s Early Years
According to Saul, “Richard’s upbringing in his years of boyhood or ‘pueritia’ would probably have followed the pattern usual among the aristocracy (14)[1].” From here he goes on to explain that at the early age of six, Richard was handed over to tutors and masters. It would seem that there was no direct involvement from either of his parents in his education. With this interpretation the reader is left to surmise that the progression of childhood in the English aristocracy is that the child is born, the child is weaned, and finally the child is groomed for their future purpose. In order to understand Richard’s childhood years better, I wanted to explore the concept of Medieval child rearing.
Barbra Hanawalt suggests that the modern perception of medieval parenting as being cold and distant is inaccurate. Hanawalt argues that the conception of a nurturing and loving childhood is a modern conception. She says:
By concentrating our attack on one front only, definitions of childhood, we have neglected the two-way relationship between parents and children, and we have overlooked entirely the importance of community in raising and protecting children. It is time to turn our attention toward the dynamics of the relationships among the three. We have followed Ariès too closely in trying to point to a clearly defined concept of childhood, to a parental attitude toward children that can only be loving if it is cast in the mold of twentieth-century sentimentality about childhood. Our interest in community responses to children and childhood has been limited to cultural expressions of love of children rather than to the discipline, training, and oversight that the community might be willing to assume in rearing children. (Hanawalt)[2]
This suggests that although our modern minds cannot fathom such a concept that perhaps in medieval society a nurturing childhood was frivolous and unnecessary. However, what was necessary was the involvement of the community to help raise the child to become a logical and determined leader.
For Richard to become a good leader by medieval standards, it would have been appropriate for his parents to step aside and allow tutors and masters to take their place. In a time period where wars were as common as church services a child did not need to be doted on by watchful parents; he needed to learn how to strategize logically and effectively.
I also found it interesting to note that Richard’s first language was not English. Through the appropriation of Aquitaine, Richard had people on staff who were of French ancestry and according to Saul, he most likely acquired English later childhood (14). Considering that England was in a perpetual state of war with France during this time period, it would appear to some that his acquisition of the language would be inconsequential perhaps even seditious, but for a future king learning the language of the enemy can be advantageous. This theory made me think of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis which says:
…a particular language's nature influences the habitual thought of its speakers. Different language patterns yield different patterns of thought. This idea challenges the possibility of representing the world perfectly with language, because it acknowledges that the mechanisms of any language condition the thoughts of its speaker community. (wikipedia)[3]
Perhaps it was beneficial for Richard to learn the French language before his mother tongue because it would help him understand the thought process or perhaps even the cognitive process (given the grammatical structure of the French language) of his country’s greatest enemy.
Richard II’s childhood would seem strange and lonely by modern standards, but in order to survive in the medieval world it would have been the only option he would have to survive. Hopefully, medieval children were loved by their parents, but affection and kindness were not emotions they had time to display. They dealt with harsh weather, wars, and an unpredictable political climate; they wanted their children to survive.
[1]Saul, Nigel. Richard II. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1997.
[2] http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL12/hanawalt.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis
Piers Plowman
Tina Barnett
En 620
16 January 2008
Piers Plowman
Piers Plowman starts out with a poet who falls asleep in the
Some of the themes in this section of the story are about social class, poverty, and appearance versus reality. One major theme is about Christianity. According to Christian tradition, the society has failed because of the corruption of the church where they are suppose to take money for charity for the sufferings of the poor but use it for their own gain.
Langland shows the plight of the poor and the commoners in his poem by using satire against the corrupt church and the wealthy. The theme of appearance versus reality is seen in the poet’s vision of what he dreams. He dreams about the land and the people but the reality is about good and evil, heaven and hell, God and the Devil.
Pier’s Plowman can be compared to Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales in several ways. In Passus I the lady, The Holy Church, speaks to the poet to explain to him truth and refers to God as “The tower on the hill-top.” She says that people should live modestly and be glad for clothes, food, and a little drink but warns not to drink too much or the devil will take over and be ready to destroy the soul and lead them to hell. This is similar to Chaucer’s “Pardoner’s Tale” when the Old Man warns the men that death, referring to Greed, will be found under a tree. The
Passus II, III, and IV deals with the identity of Meed. Meed seems to be symbolic of a scarlet woman who can not be trusted and who is entirely corrupt and evil. But Meed seems more to be symbolic of “the power of money” which during this time period, those who were in control misused money. Meed represents all those who are taking money from the mouths of the poor to use for sordid gain. And God is very displeased with this. Passus III, line 83 and 84 says, “They get rich through their retail-sales and buy rental property / With what the poor people should be putting in their bellies.”
Langland’s Meed is similar to Chaucer’s Wife of Bath in her dress (the wearing of red) and the fact that she is a lover of men. As the Wife of Bath is searching for a husband, so is Meed. Meed is able to get a husband because of her wealth. In Passus II, line 76 it says, “Meed is married more for her property / Than for any goodness or grace or any goodly parentage.” Chaucer’s Wife of Bath is also able to choose a good husband because of her wealth and not because of her beauty or good charms.
Meed wants to be married to Conscience. But Conscience knows evil deeds that have been committed by Meed, but if Meed repents and turns to a righteous life and gives to the poor, God will forgive her of her evil deeds. Passus III line 67 says, “For God can see your conscience and the kindness of your will.”
The king asks Conscience if he will marry Meed, but he thinks Meed is too evil. In Alexander G. Mitchell’s Lady Meed and the Art of ‘Piers Plowman’, Mitchell says that Meed is neither entirely evil nor entirely moral though Conscience seems to think Meed entirely evil. Meed defends herself against Conscience saying that if it wasn’t for her some things would not go right. Conscience causes people to recognize fear and causes them to give up, but Meed gives them courage to get things done. Meed may be Conscience seared.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The
Langland, William. Piers Plowman.
pgs. 2-63.
Mitchell, Alexander G. Lady Meed and the Art of ‘Piers Plowman’.
Libraries Press, 1956, pgs. 3-13.
revised paper
I realized I had a few mistakes in my paper after I had already posted it. I have edited it and reposted it, so you may want to read it again.
Renee
Renee
interpretation
Renee's done a good summary. Look at her last paragraph for the quotes from Strohm How do you interpret them?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Renee's paper for Jan 16
Hi everyone! This is my first attempt to post anything to a blog, so if you don't get my paper, please let me know. I went the easy route and did a summary. The reason is that I went home after class and came down with the plague. (Just kidding!) I think it was actually a virus, but I felt really terrible all weekend.
Have a great day!
Renee
Have a great day!
Renee
Cynthia Renee Allred
EN 620
January 16, 2008
Summary of Three London Itineraries
“Three London Itineraries” main theme is social self-representation in the writings of Chaucer in Friday Street, Usk on his way to Willingham’s tavern, and Hoccleve making his trip home via the Thames to Privy Seal. The essay begins by describing what an ordinary walker might experience during the medieval period. Strohm states that in the writings of the three authors, there is a walker that sets out with a specific itinerary in mind. He claims that although each writer has a different destination and end result, all three have some things in common in the social aspect.
One of the first things in common, is the three writers are either on their way to or returning from a tavern. Strohm claims that taverns were often considered places of neutrality, and people would often arrange to meet at taverns for various reasons. It may to meet with others and relax or to talk business. Strohm states that almost every city had at least one tavern, and it was usually in a central location, making it a good place for these meetings to be conducted. The fact that there was food and drink probably helped as well.
Strohm points out that although all three men had an itinerary that involved a tavern, their reasons for being there were not the same. For Chaucer, it was in regard to a dispute in the court of chivalry between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor and the discovery that the two bore identical arms. Strohm claims that Chaucer’s visit to this particular tavern on Friday Street could have been a way for Chaucer to claim his loyalty and support to Scrope by questioning the sign of arms in front of the tavern.
For Usk, his visit to Willingham’s Tavern was business purposes of a different kind. Strohm states that Usk may have met at the tavern to discuss and write an accusation against John Northampton. Usk had been persuaded to assist in the indictment of Northampton and since the tavern was in the center of the city, it was the perfect place for the men to meet and “hatch designs” against Northampton (8).
In Hoccleve’s writings, he explains that he had already paid a visit to the tavern and was on his way home. His visit was not for business purposes, but for a more personal reason. Hoccleve writes that as he headed home from work, he was overcome by the heat and thus stopped by the tavern before completing his journey to his home at Privy Seal. Thus, as Strohm claims, he probably stopped in for a little “liquid refreshment.”
After explaining the possible reasons for the three writers to visit the tavern as well as the significance of the tavern itself, Strohm goes on to describe the social encounters of each writer and explains the symbolism of each. Strohm points out that although all three men are writers, they never mention so in these “memoirs.” He claims that the fact that the men never identified themselves as writers and were not recognized as such caused a type of “social redefinition.”
Strohm goes on to state that each writer momentarily has a movement in social space. Strohm explains that as each writer has an encounter with other people, they are addressed by terms that are normally reserved for the higher class. This momentarily gives each writer a feeling of importance or authority.
For Chaucer, his "social movement" comes when he encounters the stranger and questions the sign of arms in front of the tavern. The stranger addresses Chaucer as “sieur.” Strohm states that this term is a form of “sire” and was usually reserved for noblemen. He goes on to say that the stranger may have used the term because he thought Chaucer was of a higher class, or it could have been out of politeness.
Thomas Usk’s social redefinition was a more obvious and outward one. Strohm claims that the reason behind Usk’s meeting at the tavern was the “tendency to expand and diversify his role” and possibly his position in parliament (13). Usk has his social mobility in mind the entire time.
Strohm describes Hoccleve’s social redefinition as a social drama. He states that Hoccleve’s itinerary is a “moral drama, cast in the mold of the ‘riotous prentice,’ in which a dissolute civil servant yields to temptations of ease and excessive expenditure” (14). Strohm explains that after leaving the tavern Hoccleve decides to take a boat instead of walking the remaining way to his home. On the boat ride, the boatmen sarcastically call him “maistir.” Even though he knows they are being sarcastic, Hoccleve likes the title and claims it gives him a brief feeling of importance. Because of this, he pays the boatmen more than what is actually due. Hoccleve states that he was “tickled into excessive largesse” (15).
Strohm concludes his essay by stating that the three narratives suggest a “daily experience.” He explains “daily experience” is not a list of activities but “the realization of a self within a social setting already delineated and written over by collectively devised symbolizations” (18). He states that each writer “engages in a broad spectrum of ‘symbolizing activities’ within compositional practice” (19). He ends by saying that the interpretation of these “symbolizing activities” requires the critics to have openness in their response to them.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
hi everyone
I'm glad this is set up. Our Bible class did it last term and it was great. Please cut and paste your papers here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)