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

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.