Piers Plowman Passus 4-5
[glad you used the text -- citations are in order, but in-line is fine]
In Chapter 4 of Piers Plowman, we get more of an idea of the personification of each of the characters. This is brought out through Mede's meeting with the king. Of particular note to me was the portrayal of the king in this passage, who, surprisingly, listens to the voice of Reason over all. This is unusual to me because in most works where a king is present, he usually doesn't ask for advice or guidance, he will simply do what he thinks is right. In this case, the king asks Reason for advice, which is allegorical to seeking guidance from a voice of reason. Typically, as stated before, this would be a voice in one's own head. However, by asking another entity for guidance, we must ask ourselves the question: Does Reason actually have a clear and clean sense of how to reason his way through a problem or dilemma?
Chapter 5 of the poem was a bit more confusing than chapter 4. Initially, the dreamer wakes up, but then I believe he falls asleep again. During his new dream, he sees the Deadly Sins going for confession, and try to confess to remove the sins innate to them. Each of them confess to Repentance, which is ironic in that they are not very likely to be forgiven. The confusing part lies in their confessions, for example Envy's statement "with werkes an with wordes, when he sey his tyme. 'Venom or verjous or vynegre, I trowe" is attempting to make a comparison to something else maybe, but it isnt clear who he's talking about. In general, Chapter 5 was much more difficult to decipher than chapter 4, and it appears to completely deviate from the story line of the first 4 chapters.
In Chapter 4 of Piers Plowman, we get more of an idea of the personification of each of the characters. This is brought out through Mede's meeting with the king. Of particular note to me was the portrayal of the king in this passage, who, surprisingly, listens to the voice of Reason over all. This is unusual to me because in most works where a king is present, he usually doesn't ask for advice or guidance, he will simply do what he thinks is right. In this case, the king asks Reason for advice, which is allegorical to seeking guidance from a voice of reason. Typically, as stated before, this would be a voice in one's own head. However, by asking another entity for guidance, we must ask ourselves the question: Does Reason actually have a clear and clean sense of how to reason his way through a problem or dilemma?
Chapter 5 of the poem was a bit more confusing than chapter 4. Initially, the dreamer wakes up, but then I believe he falls asleep again. During his new dream, he sees the Deadly Sins going for confession, and try to confess to remove the sins innate to them. Each of them confess to Repentance, which is ironic in that they are not very likely to be forgiven. The confusing part lies in their confessions, for example Envy's statement "with werkes an with wordes, when he sey his tyme. 'Venom or verjous or vynegre, I trowe" is attempting to make a comparison to something else maybe, but it isnt clear who he's talking about. In general, Chapter 5 was much more difficult to decipher than chapter 4, and it appears to completely deviate from the story line of the first 4 chapters.
I agree that the story lines from Passus 2-4 and Passus 5 are completely split. By having the Dreamer wake up briefly and go back to sleep, the author seems to suggest that this story line is completely new. My guess is that the Passus 5 story will continue moving forward, and the Passus 2-4 story was an introduction to the major characters and society that these humanoid concepts live in.
ReplyDeleteI find your analysis of the king very compelling as well. Especially during this time before the Renaissance, the king was subordinate to and dependent on the Pope and, therefore, listened to these special interests. Having a king that is willing to host debate in his court and take the words of Reason and Conscience over something as gratifying as Mede is very peculiar. It is so uncharacteristic of kings during that time period that I suspect the king in this story is not meant to represent /be a social commentary for kings during the author's time, rather he is probably meant to function as the arbitrator of the court's disputes and represent a more educated humanity.