|
< Previous Page | Next Page > Chapter 1b: Reason and Sensuality in The Assembly of GodsReason and Sensuality as portrayed in The Assembly of Gods fit the typical characterization of them in the Middle Ages. They are part of the microcosm of the human soul. Reason promotes the cause of Virtue and works to bring the soul into harmony with higher or divine things while Sensuality aids Vice by distracting the soul with baser things. When Reason has lordship over Sensuality the soul follows Virtue and prospers. The narrator brings up the conflict between reason and sensuality in the opening stanza, but it is not until the second episode of the poem, in the field of Microcosm, that the characters Reason and Sensuality are introduced. Vice and Virtue make their first appearances outside the field. They are sent for, gather their hosts for the battle and then travel to Microcosm. But Reason and Sensuality are not listed among the hosts assembled outside the field. Upon arriving in Microcosm Virtue and Vice find that, “The Lord of Macrocosme and rewler of that fee/ [is] callyd Frewyll” (995-96), and each sends three ambassadors to invite Freewill to side with him. Reason acts as an ambassador for Virtue and Sensuality goes to represent Vice. As the battle commences, Sensuality, while not directly involved in the fighting, continues to play an important role. Vice sends Sensuality to the field in advance of his host, “in maner of a spy,/ Whyche sewe the felde with hys vnkynde seede” (1022-23). The seeds quickly grow into slippery weeds which, “encombryd Vertew./ Yet natwithstandyng, Vertew hys men all/ Nobully theym bare and faught myghtyly./ Howe be hyt, the slepyr grasse made many of he fall” (1070-74). The success of the weeds encourages Vice’s army and causes Freewill to decide to forsake Virtue. After the battle Prescience is sent from heaven and, “She neuer left Vyce, ne nooñ that wold hym folow,/ Tyll they we commyttyd by the diuine sentence/ All to peyne perpetuell and infynyte sorow” (1164-66). But Sensuality is not punished with Vice and those who follow him. He is left in Microcosm under the control of Reason and Sadness who are directed by Virtue to, “Kepe hym short tyll hys lust be spent” (1307). In this first appearance, the connection between Sensuality and Vice is unusually close and is made more confusing by the lack of explicit introduction to the characters. The list of warriors in Vice’s host is so long that it is easy to lose track of the individuals, and when Sensuality appears as an ambassador, and then sows his unkind seed in the field at Vice’s request, it seems that he must be a part of the host. But this Sensuality is the same as those in the other works of the period. He does not gather with Vice’s host, but is already in Microcosm when they arrive. He is part of the soul and acts as an advisor to Freewill. The earthy image of the weeds and their ability to make Virtue’s men fall to the earth effectively represents Sensuality’s connection to the physical world. His differentiation from Vice is emphasized when he is not punished by Prescience, but allowed to have his liberty within Microcosm. Perhaps the surest evidence that this Sensuality is the same as those in other medieval works is his relationship to Reason and the problems that ensue when that relationship is turned “up-so-doun.” When the slippery weeds of Sensuality influence Freewill’s decision making, Microcosm is overrun by Vice. Later Freewill mourns his decision and must repent, and Sensuality is subjected to Reason. Reason acts only to counsel Freewill during the course of the battle. When Freewill decides to enter the battle on the side of Vice, Reason says, “Y-wis, . . . that ys nat for the beste," but he cannot force Freewill to follow Virtue. Reason does not get involved in the fighting, but when it is over he instructs Virtue, is made “lyeftenaunt” and given “a gret charge Macrocosme to kepe” (1254-55). He and Sadness work to see that Sensuality is “ay kept vndyr foote” and not allowed to help Recidivation stir up trouble. Reason and Sadness take
Reason’s introduction, like that of Sensuality, is confusing, but he is distinguished from the battling hosts by being present in Microcosm when they arrive. Like his rational counterparts in other medieval works, he represents and supports Virtue as an adviser to Freewill. After the battle Freewill is made “bayll[e] vndy Reson” (1259) and Sensuality is “ay kept vndyr foote” (1350). When Reason rules Microcosm under Virtue’s direction the field is cleansed and filled with light. This first appearance of Reason and Sensuality, unlike their introduction in the morality plays and works by Lydgate, Langland and other medieval authors, does not include a formal introduction to the characters, but it provides enough information to connect them with established medieval representations. The focus is on their conflict and although there is no indication of an accord, their interaction effectively dramatizes the need to let reason rule sensuality and the problems that arise when sensuality is not controlled. The only other appearance of Reason and Sensuality as characters in the poem comes in the arbor of Doctrine. When Doctrine finishes her interpretation of the first two episodes of the dream and of the paintings on the walls of her arbor, without mentioning the accord of Reason and Sensuality, the dreamer asks her to “determyne that doute.” Doctrine responds, "Oo Lord God! canst thow nat with oute / Me that conclusioñ bryng to an ende? / Ferre ys fro the wytte & ferther good mende" (1929-32). Doctrine seems to believe that something in the vision, or in her interpretation of it, should have given the dreamer the information necessary to answer his question. But rather than explain how the dream should be interpreted, the she extends the allegory with a short drama. Death, Reason and Sensuality appear in the arbor, the dreamer hides in fear of Death, and Reason and Sensuality agree that people should be afraid of Death. The dreamer still does not understand, so Doctrine explains that,
Here again, Reason and Sensuality are depicted as counselors who are “in euery mane.” They are constantly opposed to each other as in other literature of the time, but in this one case, and, according to Doctrine, in this one case only, both apply their influence in the same direction. The poem offers enough internal explanation of Reason and Sensuality to connect them with the medieval tradition regarding them, but they only make these two appearances on the surface of the poem, and the accord, as it is explained by Doctrine, is anticlimactic at best. There seems to be a conscious effort to de-emphasize the specific details of these two figures who are at the heart of the question that prompted this vision. As a result, the poem seems unfocused and disproportionate. For Gordon Teskey this is a defining characteristic of allegory:
In The Assembly of Gods this process is most evident in relation to the accord of Reason and Sensuality. That theme is the genesis of the dream and yet so little of the dream seems related to it. The incoherence of the narrative is exaggerated when the dreamer finally asks Doctrine to determine his doubt and we think that she will reveal an underlying coherence, but instead she adds another episode and produces an interesting, but unsatisfying conclusion. At the same time she increases our desire to move “inward and upward” by suggesting that something in the dream holds the answer if only the dreamer knew how to interpret it properly. All the attention of the poem is focused on this moment, in hopes that Doctrine will explain the accord of Reason and Sensuality, and she asks, haven’t you figured out how to interpret an allegory? The poet uses the characters Reason and Sensuality and their conflict to invite the reader to look beyond what is said explicitly in the poem. He sets their conflict at the center of his poem, neglects the topic for most of the vision and then brings it back only to give an overtly unsatisfying explanation. He gives no physical description of Reason and Sensuality and no explanation of the nature of their conflict. The characters would be familiar enough to medieval readers that no explanation would have been necessary, but this simple depiction of Reason and Sensuality takes the focus off them as characters and highlights their role as representations of a larger idea. To understand the characters, readers are forced to become more involved by bringing knowledge that they already possess to the interpretation of the poem. The dreamer’s reintroduction of the conflict at the climax of the poem and Doctrine’s suggestion that the dreamer should have been able to understand the accord from the preceding vision invite the reader to reconsider the poem and look for clues to the nature of the characters, their conflict and its resolution in areas of the poem that do not plainly seem to address these issues. In order to make sense of the central theme of the poem, readers must look beyond the surface of the narrative. < Previous Page | Next Page > |
ContentsChapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3: Literary, Visual and Dramatic Allegories Chapter 4: Death and the accord of Reason and Sensuality Appendix 1 Appendix 2: Critical response to The Assembly of Gods |
Copyright © 2010 ThirstyBob. All Rights Reserved. |
|