Wynnere and Wastoure

Wynnere and Wastoure:

This (likely) fourteenth century Middle English poem is somewhat perplexing from a generic perspective. Like many of the Middle English texts I've covered thus far, Wynnere and Wastoure (Or  Earner and Waster for the non Middle English inclined) is relatively short at just over 500 lines (and I was seriously not trying to front-load short texts; now I need to make myself read longer ones so I don't go insane closer to my exam). Wynnere and Wastoure opens with a calling back to classical ties in England, in much the same way as the opening lines of Sir Gawain and the Greek Knight, and then shifts into a brief commentary on the nature of story telling, lamenting how the fool who can perform a tale comically receives more praise than the author who penned said tale, a tension still alive today with the low public notice of song, movie/TV, and ghost writers. After the first fitt, however, the narrative shifts into a dream vision, very similar to William's in The Vision of Piers the Plowman, and witnesses a fantastical scene with opposing armies lined up to face one another. After the narrator, who is not given any defining characteristics and is for all intents and purposes a floating microphone that simply witnesses the following events. After the opposing barons are forced to come to a hearing before the king (who puts great emphasis on solving these sorts of problems through legal channels rather than martial), the narrative picks up as the titular characters are given the chance to verbally spar back and forth.

Wynnere (Earner):

While I have some issues with the seemingly anti-semitic aspects that can be seen in the Dickens' A Christmas Carol (or at least film adaptations thereof), the image of Ebeneezer Scrooge is effective for describing the character of Wynnere in this text. Specifically, Wynnere is a rich man (or is the term "job creator" these days?) and his arguments demonstrate a concern for fiscal responsibility and preparedness against future financial hardship. The image above, however, shows part of the problem with figures such as Wynnere's position: hoarding up wealth disallows the spending of that wealth, leaving the individual in question living as if they were financially destitute despite the means to do otherwise. Scrooge alone in his house before being visited by the three ghosts, refusing to burn more than a single candle or use any more fuel than is necessary to heat the house, is a prime example of this type of lifestyle.

Wastoure (Waster, or perhaps Spendthrift): 

Wastoure, on the other hand, advocates living large, hosting extravagant feasts and gifting those around him, with special emphasis of helping the poor. There are some similar currents running with Wastoure as in Sir Amadace, but if anything Wastoure is more focused on living large. That practice rather reminds me of the spending habits of young celebrities, specifically when involved in the music industry:

 

I'll be the first to point out that Lil Romeo isn't the best example as both of his parents were rappers of at least moderate success, but the extravagance with which his house is filled is beyond necessity, overly wasteful, and (if he didn't have his parents' wealth to fall back on) financially irresponsible. Wastoure is similarly indicative of a trend to spend irresponsibly, leaving little care to future financial shortfalls and trying to live as well as possible in the now. 

At this stage, the text becomes an intellectual debate between representatives of two opposing perspectives, with a great deal of derogatory name calling thrown in. At stake in this debate is the proper method of living, leading to Aristotle's Golden Mean as the obvious solution. What is further being discussed, however, is the proper method of exchange. In many ways, this ties to issues I've been seeing in John Gower's Confessio Amantis Book V, where the first argument against avarice is primarily against the act of hoarding (full disclosure: I wrote a term paper on this topic last semester and haven't yet received feedback yet, so I could be completly off my rocker on the following). I would argue that what's at stake here is the maintenance of healthy exchange economies; if money is prevented from circulated, the entire economy is detrimentally affected. For the hoarder, currency that one is unwilling to exchange loses, by definition, its exchange value, a point Wastoure pings Wynnere on; "What scholde worthe of that wele if no waste come?" (253). Furthermore, a tight money supply caused by hoarding inhibits the ability of other participants of the exchange economy to engage in trade as either they or their trading partners have less money to spend. Diana Wood and Joel Kaye (in his introduction to Economy and Nature in the Fourteenth Century) discuss how, in response to regular destabilization of currency from monarchs, hoarding began to become a problem in local economies of late medieval Europe. Thus, by actively withholding himself from spending, Wynnere is harming the exchange economy at large. 

Wastoure's actions don't seem to have as widespread of a detrimental effect, but in addition to leaving himself destitute over spending leads to incurred debt, the selling of patrimonial lands, and, according to Wynnere, a destabilization of proper social order. Comparing the two arguments, it seems that Wynnere is mostly concerned with stability and order, while Wastoure is interested in maintaining homosocial bonds and supporting the poor. In the end, the king does not cast judgment so much as he lauds each for their respective beneficial aspects, and sets them to tasks that highlight those qualities. Leaning on the Golden Mean,  Wynnere and Wastoure seems to suggest that both extremes harm proper methods of exchange, and in either case disrupts social order.