Taking into account chapter 2 of Vibrant Matter, can you highlight a section in Sir Orfeo where an assemblage comes together to cause movement or change in the plot of the narrative? Consider the scene when the underworld king makes the bargain with Orfeo and must uphold it or when the steward’s loyalty to Sir Orfeo is tested in the end of the narrative. What are the actants coming into play in these instances?

“In emphasizing the ensemble nature of action and the interconnections between persons and things, a theory of vibrant matter presents individuals as simply incapable of bearing full responsibility for their effects.” (Bennett 37)

How does Bennett’s statement on the responsibility of actants reflect the previously stated concept of assemblages in the chapter? Why is it that Bennett comes to this statement on responsibility towards the end of the chapter? How does “thing-power” work into these ideas?

In Jane Bennett’s introduction to her book, Vibrant Matter: a political ecology of things, she emphasizes that “we need to cultivate a bit of anthropomorphism—the idea that human agency has some echoes in nonhuman nature” (Bennett xvi). How have we seen this theory at work in texts we have already encountered in class thus far? How does this related back to Bennett’s idea of “thing-power” (Bennett xvi)?

The tale of Sir Cleges makes a strong dichotomy between the rich and those “in poverté bare” (Sir Cleges 17). In what ways, and to what extent, does this factor into the interactions and exchanges Sir Cleges has on his way to speaking with King Uther?