Piers Plowman and Assumptions
I want to attribute the narrator in Piers Plowman in part to its author, who must have had some sort of education and literacy, whether through noble upbringing or through the Church. Although, keeping the content of the narrative thus far in mind, I'd really love to say it's the latter. After reading the prologue, I began to make relationships in my head. What was the religious and historical context of this time period? Did this have anything to do with the Martin Luther Reformation? What was the state of the Church at this time?
There are so many assumptions I want to make and questions I want answered. Did the author write with a purpose in mind? Does the narrator embody the author's feelings about the state of the Church? The historical context provides valid reason for this conclusion (pages 29 through 31 of the introduction), yet I think I am being too rash. In the same way the narrators of Porphyria's Lover and My Last Duchess were not representations of the character of the author (Browning), I don't think it would be completely appropriate for me to assume that the author had the same motivations as the narrator.
Page 28 and 29 of the introduction makes this even more complicated, bringing up a point I had not considered - not only is the author separate from the narrator, but the narrator is, in a sense, separated by yet another layer.
The narrator's dreaming. Well... whether the events thus far are still a dream, that's still a bit ambiguous. If we assume that the narrator is still dreaming after he passed out near that stream and that the translation "dream" means dream in the literal sense (as per our current definition) and not something closer to "flashback", can we even attribute what the narrator dreamed to what the narrator actually believes? Do we have to put our faith in him, should we?
What can I assume?
There are so many assumptions I want to make and questions I want answered. Did the author write with a purpose in mind? Does the narrator embody the author's feelings about the state of the Church? The historical context provides valid reason for this conclusion (pages 29 through 31 of the introduction), yet I think I am being too rash. In the same way the narrators of Porphyria's Lover and My Last Duchess were not representations of the character of the author (Browning), I don't think it would be completely appropriate for me to assume that the author had the same motivations as the narrator.
Page 28 and 29 of the introduction makes this even more complicated, bringing up a point I had not considered - not only is the author separate from the narrator, but the narrator is, in a sense, separated by yet another layer.
"Ther gan I to mete a merwelous swovene:"
Piers Plowman, Prologue line 11.
The narrator's dreaming. Well... whether the events thus far are still a dream, that's still a bit ambiguous. If we assume that the narrator is still dreaming after he passed out near that stream and that the translation "dream" means dream in the literal sense (as per our current definition) and not something closer to "flashback", can we even attribute what the narrator dreamed to what the narrator actually believes? Do we have to put our faith in him, should we?
What can I assume?
In my FWS last semester we read a story by Chaucer in which he uses a dreamscape to explore a lot of strange ideas without conclusively communicating an opinion on anything. In a dream in literature, the narrator can only retell the events of their visions to us, and they're probably only an observer during the dream. If Piers Plowman is the kind of dream story when the narrator only reports his visions, it is difficult to extrapolate his beliefs if he even has any.
ReplyDeleteIt is always good to make sure you do not assume too much as you read, but I think that as we read along we will begin to see the author's opinion come out, rejecting the narrator's opinion or nuancing or affirming it through tone. Usually you can figure out the author's opinion by the time you get to the end.
ReplyDelete