Piers Plowman Free Essays

string(23) " Great Rising of 1381\." CONTENT Abstract†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 2 Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 3 History of the title†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 4 Editorial, publication and reception history†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 7 Concluding remarks†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 2 References†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢ € ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 13 Abstract Piers Plowman or Visio Willelmi de Petro Plowman (William’s Vision of Piers Plowman) is the title of a Middle English allegorical narrative poem by William Langland. It is written in unrhymed alliterative verse divided into sections called â€Å"passus†. We will write a custom essay sample on Piers Plowman or any similar topic only for you Order Now Piers is considered by many critics to be one of the early great works of English literature along with Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight during the Middle Ages. The poem- part theological allegory, part social satire- concerns the narrator’s intense quest for the true Christian life, from the perspective of mediaval Catholicism. This quest entails a series of dream-visions and an examination into the lives of three allegorical characters, Dowel (â€Å"Do-Well†), Dobet (â€Å"Do-Better†), and Dobest (â€Å"Do-Best†). Key words 1. Middle English poem 2. Allegorical narrative poem 3. Early great work Introduction The poem begins in the Malvern Hills in Malvern, Worcestershire. A man named Will falls asleep and has a vision of a tower set upon a hill and a fortress in a deep valley; between these symbols of heaven and hell is a â€Å"fair field full of folk†, representing the world of mankind. In the early part of the poem Piers, the humble plowman of the title, appears and offers himself as the narrator’s guide to Truth. The latter part of the work, however, is concerned with the narrator’s search for Dowel, Dobet and Dobest. It is now commonly accepted that Piers Plowman was written by William Langland, about whom little is known. This attribution of the poem to Langland rests principally on the evidence of an early-fifteenth-century manuscript of the C-text of Piers held at Trinity College, Dublin, which ascribes the work to one man called, ‘Willielmus de Langlond’. Other manuscripts also name the author as â€Å"Robert or William Langland†, or â€Å"Wilhelmus W†, which could be shorthand for â€Å"William of Wychwood†. The attribution to William Langland is also based on internal evidence, primarily a seemingly autobiographical section in Passus 5 of the C-text of the poem. The main narrator of the poem in all the versions is named Will, with allegorical resonances clearly intended, and Langland is thought to be indicated as a surname through apparent puns. This could be a coded reference to the poet’s name, in the style of much late-medi? val literature. Langland’s authorship, however, is not entirely beyond dispute, as recent work by Stella Pates and C. David Benson has demonstrated. History of the title In the sixteenth century, when Piers was first printed, authorship was attributed by various antiquarians, such as John Bale and poets to John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer, amongst others. Some sixteenth and seventeenth-century persons regarded the poem as anonymous, and/or associated it with texts in the plowman tradition of social complaint, particularly the Chaucerian pseudepigrapha, The Ploughman’s Tale and Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede. The latter was appended to Owen Rogers’ 1560 edition of Piers Plowman, a degraded version of Robert Crowley’s 1550 editions. The character of Piers himself had come to be considered by many readers to be in some sense the author. The first printed editions by Crowley named the author as â€Å"Robert Langland† in a prefatory note. Langland is described as a probable protege of Wycliffe. With Crowley’s editions, the poem followed an existing and subsequently repeated convention of titling the poem The Vision of Piers Plowman, which is in fact the conventional name of just one section of the poem. Some medievalists and text critics, beginning with John Matthews Manly, have posited multiple authorship theories for Piers, an idea which continues to have a periodic resurgence in the scholarly literature. One scholar now disputes the single-author hypothesis, supposing that the poem may be the work of 2–5 authors, depending upon how authorship is defined. In keeping with contemporary scholarly trends in textual criticism, critical theory, and the history of the book, Charlotte Brewer, among others, suggests that scribes and their supervisors be regarded as editors with semi-authorial roles in the production of Piers Plowman and other early modern texts, but this has nothing to do with Manly’s argument. Piers Plowman is considered to be one of the most analytically challenging texts in Middle English textual criticism. There are 50–56 surviving manuscripts, some of which are fragmentary. None of the texts are known to be in the author’s own hand, and none of them derive directly from any of the others. All modern discussion of the text revolves around the classifications of W. W. Skeat. Skeat argued that there are as many as ten forms of the poem, but only three are to be considered authoritative- the A, B, and C- texts- although the definition of â€Å"authoritative† in this context is problematic. According to the three-version hypothesis, each version represents different manuscript traditions deriving from three distinct and successive stages of authorial revision. Although precise dating is debated, the A, B, and C texts are now commonly thought of as the progressive (20–25 years) work of a single author. According to the three versions hypothesis, the A-text was written in around 1367–70 and is the earliest. It breaks off, apparently unfinished, at Book 11 and Book 12 is written by another author or interpolator. The poem runs to about 2,500 lines. The B-text (Warner’s ur-B text) was written around 1377–79. It revises A, adds new material, and is three times the length of A. It runs to about 7,300 lines. The C-text was written in the 1380s as a major revision of B except for the final sections. There is some debate over whether the poem can be regarded as finished or not. It entails additions, omissions, and transpositions; it is not significantly different in size from B. Some scholars see it as a conservative revision of B that aims at disassociating the poem from Lollardy and the religious and political radicalism of John Ball during the Great Rising of 1381. You read "Piers Plowman" in category "Essay examples" Ball appropriated Piers and other characters in the poem for his own verses, speeches, and letters during the Rising. There is little actual evidence for this proposal, and much against it. Skeat believed that the A-text was incomplete and based his editions on a B-text manuscript that he wrongly thought was probably a holograph. Modern editors following Skeat, such as George Kane and E. Talbot Donaldson, have maintained the basic tenets of Skeat’s work: there were three final authorial texts, now lost, that can be reconstructed, albeit imperfectly and without certainty, by rooting out the â€Å"corruption† and â€Å"damage† done by scribes. The Kane, Kane-Donaldson, and Russell-Kane editions of the three versions, published by the Athlone Press, have been controversial, but are considered among the most important accomplishments in modern editorial work and theory in Middle English. A. V. C. Schmidt has also published a parallel edition of A, B, C and Z, the promised second volume containing a full textual apparatus indicating his editorial decisions was finally published in 2008, long after the first volume fell out of print. A. G. Rigg and Charlotte Brewer hypothesized the existence of a Z-text predecessor to A which contains elements of both A and C. The Z-text is based on Oxford MS. Bodley 851, which Rigg and Brewer edited and published. It is the shortest version, and its authenticity is disputed. Ralph Hanna III has disputed the Rigg/Brewer approach based on codicological evidence and internal literary evidence; consequently the Z-text is now more commonly viewed as a scribal corruption of A with C elements. More recently, Lawrence Warner has shown that what was thought of as B in fact incorporates matter produced as part of the C-revision: if B circulated before C, it looked nothing like what had been assumed . There are some scholars who dispute the ABC chronology of the texts altogether, Jill Mann foremost amongst them. There is also a (minority) school of thought that two authors contributed to the three versions of the poem. Neither of these reappraisals of the textual tradition of the poem are generally seen as very robust. Editorial, publication and reception history John Ball, a priest involved as a leader in the Great Rising of 1381 (also known as the Peasants’ Revolt), included Piers and other characters in his writings. If Piers Plowman already had perceived associations with Lollardy, Ball’s appropriations from it enhanced his and its association with the Lollards as well. The real beliefs and sympathies at work in Langland’s poem and the revolt remain, for this reason, mysterious and debatable. No doubt because of Ball’s writings, the Dieulacres Abbey Chronicle account of the revolt refers to Piers, seemingly as a real person who was a leader with Ball in the revolt. Similarly, early in the history of the poem’s dissemination in manuscript form, Piers is often treated as the author of the poem. Since it is hard to see how this is credible to those who read the poem, perhaps the idea was that Piers was a mask for the author. Or, as the ideal character of the poem, Piers might be seen as a kind of alter-ego for the poet that was more important to his early readers than the obviously authorial narrator and his apparent self-disclosures as Will. Ironically, Will’s name and identity were substantially lost. In some contemporary chronicles of the Rising, Ball and the Lollards were blamed for the revolt, and Piers began to be associated with heresy and rebellion. The earliest literary works comprising the Piers Plowman tradition follow in the wake of these events, although they and their sixteenth-century successors are not anti-monarchical or supportive of rebellion. Like William Langland, who may have written the C-Text version of Piers Plowman to disassociate himself from the Rising, they look for the reform of the English church and society by the removal of abuses in what the authors’ deem a restorative rather than an innovative project. The most conspicuous omissions from William Caxton’s press were the Bible and Piers Plowman. Both may have been avoided for political reasons. It is possible that Piers may have been banned from print under prohibitions against histories, but this is uncertain; the language and metre might also have been obstacles. However, as in the case of Adrian Fortescue, as late as 1532, hand-copying of Piers manuscripts was still going on, and a staunch Roman Catholic like Fortescue could appreciate it as a critical, reformist but not a revolutionary, Protestant text. Robert Crowley’s 1550 editions of Piers Plowman present the poem as a social-gospelling Protestant’s goad to the reformation of religion and society. The poem’s publication probably did have resonance. Many texts evoke Piers or Ploughmen for reforming purposes: one of the Marprelate tracts claims Piers Plowman for its grandfather. Many scholars assert that Piers Plowman was a banned book, that it was published as â€Å"propaganda† for reformist interests backed by Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset or other high-placed aristocrats, and that Crowley added interpretive glosses and substantially altered the text of the poem for propaganda purposes. These inferences exceed the evidence, even if Piers Plowman was politically sensitive, as many books were in the Tudor period. The political nature of the poem- its mention of and association with popular rebellion- would obviously be unacceptable to the king, Somerset, and others, reform-minded though they were. In the passus summaries in the second and third editions, Crowley emphasizes material in the poem warning of political instability and widespread corruption when the king is a child. Other contemporary Edwardian and later Elizabethan publications by Crowley show that he was at this time concerned that the elite were using the Reformation to gain power and wealth, while the common people suffered economic and spiritual malnourishment. Piers Plowman likely functioned for Crowley as a reformist text with polemic and prophetic qualities, but the text and apparatus do not overtly convey that impression. Some of Crowley’s marginal glosses and his passus summaries are clearly polemical, but there are very few glosses in the first edition. The assertion of propagandistic editorial intervention by Crowley exaggerates both his glosses, and the evidence that he deliberately deleted â€Å"Catholic† elements of Langland’s poem- a few references to purgatory, transubstantiation, and some praise for monasticism. In the econd and third editions, where the glosses were substantially increased, almost half are biblical citations. Aside from Raphael Holinshed who merely quotes John Bale, the only sixteenth-century references to â€Å"Robert Langland† as the author of Piers Plowman come from Bale and Crowley in his preface to the various impressions. In 1580 John Stow attributed Piers Plowman to â€Å"Jo hn Malvern,† a name that surfaces again with John Pitts in 1619 and Anthony a Wood in 1674. Wood also supplied â€Å"Robertus de Langland† as a possible alternative, and Henry Peacham attributed the poem to John Lydgate in 1622. Except for Crowley and Francis Meres William Webbe is the only person to comment on the alliterative Piers Plowman favorably, since he disliked verse with â€Å"the curiosity of Ryme. † However, Webbe still disparaged the poem’s harsh and obscure language. Several other writers regard the poem’s matter approvingly, seeing it as anti-Catholic satire and polemic. The Ploughman’s Tale was printed more and over a longer period of time than Piers Plowman, it was also printed as a Chaucerian text and included in many editions of Chaucer and mentioned as a familiar text in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Such associations gave it far more exposure- and positive exposure- than Piers Plowman. Yet in many cases it seems that readers read or heard of The Ploughman’s Tale or another ploughman text and thought it was Piers Plowman. Given the diffusion of different Piers/Ploughman texts, it is usually not possible to be certain about what someone means to refer to when they mention â€Å"Piers Plowman† unless they provide specific identifying details- and most writers do not. When Langland’s poem is mentioned, it is often disparaged for its barbarous language. Similar charges were made against Chaucer, but he had more defenders and was already well established as a historical figure and â€Å"authority. † Despite the work of Bale and Crowley, Langland’s name appears to have remained unknown or unaccepted since other authors were suggested after Crowley’s editions. Sometimes â€Å"Piers Plowman† was referred to as the author of the poem, and when writers refer to a list of medieval authors, they will often mention Piers Plowman as an author’s name or a substitute for one. One gets the overall impression that Langland and Piers Plowman had less existence as author and text than did the fictional figure of Piers, whose relationship to a definite authorial and textual origin had been obscured much earlier. With its old language and alien worldview, Piers Plowman fell into obscurity until the nineteenth century, particularly the latter end. Barring Rogers, after Crowley, the poem was not published in its entirety until Thomas Whitaker’s 1813 edition. It emerged at a time when amateur philologists began the groundwork of what would later become a recognized scholarly discipline. Whitaker’s edition was based on a C-text, whereas Crowley used a B-text for his base. With Whitaker an editorial tradition truly began in the modern sense, with each new editor striving to present the â€Å"authentic† Piers Plowman and challenging the accuracy and authenticity of preceding editors and editions. Then, as before in the English Reformation, this project was driven by a need for a national identity and history that addressed present concerns, hence analysis and commentary typically reflected the critic’s political views. In the hands of Frederick Furnivall and W. W. Skeat, Piers Plowman could be, respectively, a consciousness-raising text in the Working Man’s College or a patriotic text for grammar school pupils. Piers Plowman has often been read primarily as a political document. In an 1894 study, J. J. Jusserand was primarily concerned with what he saw as the poem’s psychological and sociopolitical content—as distinct from the aesthetic or literary—in a dichotomy common to all modern humanistic studies. Four years later Vida Dutton Scudder compared the poem with socialist ideas from the works of Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, and the Fabians. Concluding remarks Piers Plowman  is considered to be the biggest challenge in Middle English textual criticism, on par with the Greek  New Testament. There are 50-56 surviving manuscripts, depending on the number deemed to be fragments. None of these texts are in the author’s own hand, and none of them derive directly from any of the others. All differ from each other. Moreover, the language of  Piers Plowman  is remarkably plain. Langland went to extensive lengths to ensure that his poem was not bogged down by a dense vocabulary How to cite Piers Plowman, Essay examples Piers Plowman Free Essays Elyssa-Beth Bender British Literature Dr. Zeiger 14 March 2013 William Langland: Piers Plowman The life of William Langland is a mystery. There is very little known about the man who wrote the Middle English, alliterative poem known as Piers Plowman. We will write a custom essay sample on Piers Plowman or any similar topic only for you Order Now I did gather that he was born in the West Midlands around 1330 and may have died in 1386 (William Langland). Though much not can be found on Langland’s life, one can infer that he had many different life experiences in which he may drawn from to write Piers Plowman (Calabrese 123). Whether one looks at the elegant trial of Lady Meed at the King’s court, to impoverished life lived on Piers Plowman’s half-acre. Also the narrator in Piers Plowman seems to indicate that Langland may have been exposed to a higher education (Calabrese 123). There are three different versions of Piers Plowman, known as the A-text, the B-text, and the C-text The A-text is the earliest and shortest of the three versions and is about 2,400 lines long (Greenblatt 297). The B-text is an revision of the A-text in which the original 2,400 lines are still there but turned into a 4,000 line piece of work. During my reading of the B-Text, I found that it was more poetic in its form (Greenblatt 297). What I also found was that the C-text was almost a full revision of the B-Text with not much more added. The A-text seemed to be written in 1370 while the B-text. The C-text may have been written in 1381 during the â€Å"Peasants Revolt of 1382† (William Langland). The opening lines let the reader know what to expect: a man named Will on a religious quest that is set in a dream-like, vision state. He wakes up in Field Full of Folk in the opening scene. It is quite obvious to the reader that Will is a very righteous man as he is described to be wearing â€Å"shroudes as [he] a sheep were, / In habite as an heremite unholy of werkes. † (line 124). This indicates that Will is in clothes made of sheepskin, a symbolic meaning to The Lamb (Calabrese 4). However, it could also make the reader conclude that he may also be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The uncertainty is loathsome. The reader might think, â€Å"Is he good or evil? Will he hurt or help? † (Calabrese 124). The phrase, â€Å"unholy of werkes† seems like Will could be evil, but by the end of the poem, we see that it meant that spiritually Will was only just a child and needed to mature. In continuation with this idea, in the prologue of Piers Plowman, Will is born metaphorically into his vision and faith. In the first passus, Will is confronted by a female named, Holy Church and becomes quickly engaged in learning how to be a good Christian (line 153). Holy Church represents a holy and pure church that is uncorrupted by man (Daegman 274). She is vital for teaching Will the basics of Christianity. I found that her presence was the best way to teach Will the holy and pure way to be a Christian untouched by the corrupt hands of man. She also teaches Will that the body and soul are in constant struggle for power. Holy Church explains that Will must find the balance between physical self and spiritual self lead by the soul; what may be good for one may not be good for the other(line 209). Will must learn at this point what moderation is. Moderation is a vital step of self-control and awareness in Piers Plowman. Will is now faced with a few new characters named, Kynde Wit, who tells him the way of common sense; Reason, who tells him what reason and moderation mean; and Truth expects Will he must be truthful in speech, work, and intent of the heart and soul (700-1235). Before Will could fully comprehend what Truth meant, he need to find out what truth is not: falsity or the character â€Å"Falseness†. After meeting with these characters Will had learned everything they could instill upon him. However, since Will is in a dream-like, vision state, he fears that he will not have the capability to make the right decision with his own free will. In his early education with Holy Church, she fails to explain what Falseness means for Will. However in the story of Lady Meed, concept is explained (line 1456- 1729), Lady Meed seems to be the bastard daughter of Falseness and about to be wed to Fals Fikel-tonge (line 1464). â€Å"Whore of Babylon in Revelation,† she is described as, with her magnificent scarlett, silk robes (1468). Lady Meed represents the corruptive influence of money, bribery, prostitution, and is found in every aspect of society. In this story of Lady Meed, she represents good use of money. However, since Lady Meed can be used by anyone, she often falls into the wrong hands and used for corrupt purposes. Lady Meed’s marriage to Fals Fikel-tonge is ceased by Theology, who pursues that the King is the one who should decide whom Lady Meed marries (1475). In the royal court, Lady Meed and her follower voyage off to London at the expense of men of legal authority. The King calls upon Conscience for his advice. At this point he swears he will have nothing to do with the evil, wickedness of Lady Mead and her fate is left to the courts (1509). With the advice of Concscience, the King decides to find out what kind of person Lady Mead is. The King decides that the best thing for Lady Mead was to marry Conscience to know where the line is drawn between right and wrong (1534). Though the King’s intentions were in good reason, Lady Mead was known to be easily corrupted. The King believed Conscience was the perfect mate to control Lady Mead and make her submissive to his good morals. However, Conscience explained to the King that this would not be possible because though his morals were pure and righteous, he would soon eventually be consumed by the power of Lady Mead (1547). Since Lady Mead can be easily used by anyone, she os quickly corrupted by those around her. She is accused of corrupting the pardoners who forgive the sins of the common (not of the clergy) people. As we recall back to Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, Pardoners of this time were very ill-willed men who would only accept money and power to pardon the sins of people. This corruption is said to be the work by the hands of Lady Mead. In this part of Piers Plowman, It is the responsibility of the character Penance to steer Will away from the ill-will and corruption of Lady Mead’s influence on the pardoners’ business (1609). Before a marriage with Conscience, Lady Mead discusses her character. While she shows him all the wonderful aspects of her existence, Conscience reminds her of her malevolent ways (1613). It is clear to the King that Conscience is right, however the King is blinded by Lady Mead’s conveyed character of good will. At this point, the King orders Conscience to give her a kiss on the forehead, which is to signify there to be peace between the two characters (1645). However, Conscience would not give her a kiss of peace unless Reason was summoned to asses the pros and cons, essentially, of the situation (1647-49) . The King, a benevolent creature, decides to honor the request of Conscience and summon Reason. The King decides to bring Wrong to the court to defend Lady Mead and convince the King his ways are correct (1664-1672). He believes he should be allowed to bribe his way out of the charges of rape, murder, and theft. Reason snaps back at this and urges for hard punishment to be inflicted on Wrong. The King, swept up by all these testimonies, decides in favor of Reason and Conscience, whom were selected to be his counselors. Wrong is punished and the King’s eyes are now open to Lady Mead’s benevolent aspects. He is no longer naive. At this point, the King’s court has flourished since Conscience and Reason became his advisors. Holy Church explains to Will that Conscience and Reason are two things that every person has within them on some level. She also explains that the King is not a character that is based on royal heritage. The King is a being that represents the challenges that every common man faces (Burrow 318). Explained even further in an article by J. A Burrow every man faces the challenges of Right and Wrong, and often seeks to find Conscience and Reason in their lives. At this point, the scene fades into the Field Full of Folk once again as Will wakes up and then falls asleep shortly after. Next, Will is confronted with the character of Reason who fashions the wardrobe of a clergymen. He urges Will to repent (2573). After urging Will to confess his sins, he brings out the Seven Deadly Sins. This section of the story where Reason speaks to each of the seven and teaches Will that if he lives with The Seven Deadly Sins in his life, he will never find salvation. The next section starts with the Will waking up briefly from the vision and reflecting on his experience so far. However, our dreamer, Will quickly falls back into his dream. In this next part of his holy vision quest, he enters upon the Feast of Patience ( 2798-2906). Seven people attend the Feast, Conscience, Clergy and his wife, Scripture, Patience, Will, and The Master of Divinity. The food was simple and elegant which was to show will what penance means (Burrow 319). Later in the poem,Will is though of as a fool (3015-3016). At this point of Will still being a foolish man, he is intorduced to Anima, who tells Will the importance of putting into action all that he has learned (3025-3120). Anima prepares Will for a vision of the Tree of Charity. In a vision conveyed to Will by Piers Plowman himself, a tree is an image of fallen humanity. Piers Plowman is said to be represented as Jesus (Burrow 320). There are three kinds of fruit: human souls of wedlock, widowhood, and virginity, and it is supported by three planks. The three planks have been explained to will as the Holy Trinity (Greenblatt 399). However the Tree being threatened by Covetise, who is the Fiend of Flesh. The tree represents the tree that bore the fruit of knowledge, much like the fruit referenced in Genesis. The tree contains knowledge that is not to be consumed by man. However, in this section of Piers Plowman, The Devil is pursuing Covetise to extract fruit from the tree for evil intentions. Toward the end of the poem, Will goes to mass on Easter Sunday and, during the middle of mass, falls asleep and dreams of Piers Plowman. Piers is identified this time as the eucharistic host at the moment of consecration during the Mass when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (Greenblatt 399). The mystery of the Body and blood of Christ is mysterious to Will as he cannot understand at what point these common items become holy. The answer is conveyed appearance of Piers before the people. Will turns to Conscience for an explanation of the mystery. Conscience recalls the life of Jesus by explaining the sacrament. The miracle at Cana involves the changing of water into wine, a type of wine turning into blood in the Eucharist. Thus, the Three Lives are put into the perspective of the ministry of Christ, and the message is clear: it is impossible to do well, do better, and do best without divine grace, and this grace is available to all through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and penance(Burrow 380) . If Dowel is the sacramental wine, Dobet is the eucharistic bread, as it is paralleled to the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Greenblatt 399). That Piers is granted the power of binding and unbinding sins reflects back upon the early association of Piers and the Good Priest (Daegman 7) . Piers is a variation of Peter, suggesting the apostle and first pope. Piers remains behind after the Ascension, and it is to him that Grace gives the four evangelists and the four church leaders (3321-3364). Piers is known to be Jesus Christ whom is a part of the eternal, divine Church. Noticeably, the forces of Pride wait to attack until Piers until he has featured once more at the end of Piers Plowman. By the end of the poem there are no good clergy. (Daegman 8). The Barn of Unity that Grace tells Piers to build is another image of the whole Christian community (3433-3457). However, since the Tree of Charity is under constant threat, so is the Barn of Unity. Covetise and Pride try to confuse Conscience with their so that he can not tell the difference between a Christian and a dark worshipper. Conscience advises the Christians to leave the area to find safely form the the malevolent qualities (3458-3465). Events turn dark for Will and is in need of consulting Need. It can be a humbling factor, but it can also be a convenient excuse for doing what one wants to do rather than what one ought to do. Will falls asleep after being reproached by Need and dreams of the coming of Antichrist. Conscience consults Kynde, Old Age, and Death. Though Will has become an old man, he manages to keep somewhat in good humor. His appearance has changed dramatically. He has become bald, deaf, toothless, and a bit incompetent due to his old age. During this last part of Piers Plowman, Will is confronted by the inevitable character named Death (3502- 3696). As Will’s time is coming to an end, he begs Kynde for him to spare him. Kynde advises Will learn what love is (3757) . This could be compared to what Holy Church told Will in the first section. Though Piers Plowman is a lengthy alliterative poem, it ends considerably curtly. Conscience vows to undertake another quest, this time to find Piers Plowman, and he calls upon Grace for help. Then the Dreamer simply wakes up and that is the end. I found that the ending lines of the poem had no emotion to it. I was not able to feel if Will felt like his total experience was positive or negative. Will’s attitude does seem to show the slightest bit of positivity as he learns to find what it means to be a Christian and learns the value of good morals. Piers Plowman is a series of journeys in a dream-like vision in search for answers. The narrator named Will goes from one higher authority to another. However, as the quests move along, the main point of the journey changes. The quest was originally to find how a Christian is expected to live, however, as time goes on it becomes about finding a way to do the best and be the best one can be (Daegman 273). When the poem finishes, Will is faced with yet another quest. this indicates to the reader that a Christian’s search for salvation is eternal (Daegman 273). Works Cited Burrow, J. A. The Ending Lines in Piers Plowman. Notes Querles (2012). vol. 59 Issue 3, p 316-400. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Feb. 2013. Calabrese, Michael. Piers Plowman: A Parallel-Text Edition of The A,B,C, And Z Versions. Journal of English Germanic Philogy. (2012): vol. 35 issue 12 127-130. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Feb. 2013. Deagman, Rachel. The Formations of Forgiveness in Piers Plowman. Journal of Medieval Early Modern Studies (2010). vol. 40 issue 2 p. 273-97. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Feb. 2013. â€Å"William Langland† Encyclopedia Britannica. Britannica Online Web. 27 Feb, 2013 Greenblatt, Stepehn. â€Å"William Langland:Piers Plowman† The Norton Anthology English Literature vol. A. New York 397- 408. How to cite Piers Plowman, Papers