Chaucers the House Of Fame The Cultural Nature Essay Example For Students

Chaucers the House Of Fame: The Cultural Nature Essay Chaucers the House Of Fame: The Cultural Nature Of FameChaucers The House of Fame: The Cultural Nature of FameQUESTION 7. DISCUSS THE CULTURAL NATURE OF FAME AND ITS TEXTUAL EXPRESSION WITH REFERENCE TOONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: ORAL HEROIC POETRY, CHAUCERS DEPICTION IN THEHOUSE OF FAME AND THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANON OF ENGLISH LITERATURE. YOU SHOULD FOCUS YOUR ANALYSIS ON THE INTERPLAY OF ORAL AND LITERARY TRADITIONSIN THESE CONTEXTS. Many critics have noted the complexities within Chaucers The House of Fame,in particular, the complexities between the oral and the literary. Thedifferences between these methods are constantly appearing; Chaucer is wellaware of rapidly changing communicative practises and contrasts the preservationof utterance with the longevity of literary texts. He achieves this bydiscussing the nature of Fame and the difficulties that arise from it. Famecan both destroy and create. It can result in the eternal preservation of greatworks and their creators. However, Chaucer is quick to note the precariousnature of fame noting the unreliable process of attaining it and itspotentially momentary existence. Every creator with their respective work/snaturally crave and desire fame; they want their subjects to remain fresh inthe minds of their audience. Chaucer, while neither totally praising the writtennor the oral, reveals how essentially the written word is far more likely tobecome eternal as opposed to the oral. The relative fame of any work isdependent on many factors. Many traditional and classical ideas result in theformation of the English canon, yet as Chaucer indicates, the fame of theseworks can easily become annihilated. The arrival of new readers with differentideals and thereby changing tradition, can reject classical or canonical workand their fame will melt into nothingness. Most stories, histories and legends that emerge from oral heroic poetry areto herald the achievement of the powerful and wealthy so that their historieswill not fade from the memories of the population. The stories of Beowolf are aclear example of this, as within these stories, (whether embellished or no),Beowolfs fame and legend reaches the modern reader hundreds of years later. Clearly, Beowolf is still very much dependant on the conventions of oraltraditions and written to leave a permanent reminder of Beowolf, to enforceBeowolfs fame. The use of Hwaet to mark the start of an oration, emphasisesthe continuation of oral tradition. Most oral cultures (usually illiterate),pass on stories and legends learnt from the previous generation, basically usingthe authority of recalled memory, not as an actual witness; rather I have heardit said than I know this to be true. The importance of the terms auctor and auctoritas is noted by A.J. Minnis. Minnis states the importance of the auctoritas, quoting Aristotle whodefines this as the judgement of the wise man in his chosen discipline. Thegreat reverence and respect shown towards writers of antiquity is clearlyevident in Chaucers The House of Fame, yet there remains a definiteinconsistency within Chaucers work. While Chaucer is clearly familiar with manyclassical writers and their works, such as; Virgils Aeneid, several works ofOvid , Boccacio and Dante, Chaucers work raises several questions about theclassical writers, the nature of written texts and the complexities of fame. The term fame had a myriad of meanings in Middle English, it could meanreputation, renown, or rumour. Chaucer plays on all these meanings and itsimplications, yet his ideas are clouded and obscured so it is difficult todefine whether his arguments are mocking, condemning or celebrating. J. Stephenagrees with Shelia Delanys argument in her book, The House of Fame: The Poeticsof Skeptical Fidelism and believes that The House of Fame is indeed asceptical poem. However, Russell is rather extreme in his view, believing thatChaucer is writing to deconstruct the tyranny of the written word. It isdifficult to agree with this view, and although there are elements to suggestthis may be the case, one would tend to agree with Delanys argument, thatChaucer preferred to transcend the choice between traditions rather than tocommit himself whole heartedly to a single intellectual position or a consistentpoint of view. Chaucer, in his description of Virgils Aeneid decides to alter the eventswithin Virgils narrative. There is always the problem of what can be consideredtrue,the problems of authenticity and originality remain. These great writersthat Chaucer often references, like Virgil, Ovid, Boccacio, Boethius and Danteare auctors who carry great weight and authority, yet , as this is Geffreysdream he is able to manipulate the events within The House of Fame. Thus Geffreyhas the power of both the oral and written auctor, he has heard the storiesbefore, (in Ovid and Virgil) yet can retell these events to the reader withperhaps even more auctoritas as he can also state to the reader that I wasthere so I can tell you the truth. However, Chaucers auctoritas isdiminished because even though he was an actual witness, it was still a dream, ahazy and unpredictable area which can neither be totally rejected nor believedand accepted. These implications show that Chaucer was perhaps rejecting theauctoritas o f these writers, revealing the possible discrepancies within anytext, written or oral, and how narrative events are able to change depending onthe reliability of the auctor. The mocking of Geffrey and his scholarly lifeand ambitions would also indicate Chaucers dislike of the scholarly andacademic world of the 14th century. Geffrey is caricatured as a book-worm,unable to comprehend events outside the world of books. The Eagle speaks toGeffrey of the futility and emptiness of a scholar ; Thou goost hom to thy housanoon,/And, also domb as any stoon,/Thou sittest at another book/Tyl fullydaswed ys thy look;/And lyvest thus as an heremyte,/Although thyn abstynence yslyte. (655-660) During the Eagles impressive monologue the intelligentGeffrey can only answer in rather dull-witted monosyllables; Gladly,Noo?why?, Yis and Wel. Geffrey is also portrayed as a rather weak and stupidfellow, despite his scholarly habits. When one compares him to the classicalheroes of classical mythology, he re alises that he is a mere mortal and afraid;Oh God, thoughte I, that madest kynde,/Shal I noon other weyes dye?. Unlikethe heroes of old, Geffrey is aware that he is no brave hero; nether am Ennock,ne Elye,/Ne Romulus, ne Ganymede. (557-558) Despite these negativerepresentations, there still remains elements of respect and awe towardsclassical writings and the strong belief entrusted in these works as containedin the line, In certeyn, as the book us tellis. (426) The same respect isreflected in a speech made by the Eagle to Geffrey; Loo, this sentence ysknowen kouth/ Of every philosophres mouth,/ As Aristotle and daun Platon,/ Andother clerkys many oon;/ And to confirme my resoun,/Thou wost wel this, thatspech is soun, (757-762) It seems as though Chaucer is exploring both elementsof what is the true auctor and questions the idea of auctoritas. Weathering, Erosion, and Deposition.The spoken word is carried away in the wind, the constant mutterings oftenforgotten whereas the written word has endured for many hundreds of years. Clearly Chaucer has mixed feelings toward the power of literacy and orality. Both can be enduring, but in an increasingly more literate society, the use oforality to immortalise narrative events is rarely used. As Chaucer indicates,the written word does remain in The House of Fame whereas the spoken word ismore likely contained within the constantly changing murmurings in The House ofRumour. However, although Chaucer is himself a scholarly and academic man likeGeffrey, he is still rather mocking of the academic society and the scholars whoseem to be permaently fixed within the world of literature and relying entirelyon book-learning, rather than experiences from the events in the outside worldof reality. Chaucer within his description of The House of Fame also questionsthe relevance of literary works, proving that the fame of authors and theirworks is a tenative one. Chaucer is clearly reveals the beginnings of theEnglish canon and the works contained within it. He stresses the fluctuations offame and how works can become a part an elite grouping. The modern readerknows, that the books within the English canon may gradually disappear or canreemerge, depending on the attitudes of people like Geffrey, the readers andscholars, and of institutions that continually study the classical texts. According to Chaucer, fame is not considered a noble accomplishment and theresult of chance rather than any literatary merit or virtue.