I want to respond to Kathryn Lynch’s statement in the introduction to Norton’s version of the House of Fame: “ultimately, the poem seems determined to avoid a coherent synthesis of topics, or any philosophical or literary position beyond a bantering mockery of earthly fame.” We discussed the parodic qualities and the dull narrator (an ignorance which is put in the frame of a clear erudition on the part of the author). But do these comic elements automatically preclude a serious message? The Canterbury tales were also very funny, with a powerhungry host and hilariously oblivious narrator, but many of them had serious themes. Chaucer’s commentary on fame is very funny, but does this does not make it merely a “bantering mockery.” It may be a less direct warning against reliance on fame and fortune for happiness than Boethius’ work (Boethius’ poet needs to be told that fortune is inconstant), from which it derives inspiration, but nevertheless, it gets that point across (though Geffrey does not need consolation because he does not lament his fame or fortune) by showing the reader “where that Fame dwelt [and] the ordre of hir dome” (Chaucer 1902-5). Lynch’s assertion that the poem avoids a “coherent synthesis of topics” is an overstatement. There are obviously some choppy transitions, as can be expected in a dream, sweven, drem, or, in verb form, mette. But it wasn’t so fragmented as to interfere with the coherence of his themes. Book one presented the story of Dido and Aeneas. Dido is left alone and complains that all men will betray women. The transition comes when she laments that she will forever be ashamed of being left by Aeneas because Fame will spread the word of this quickly: “alle myn actes red and songe/ over al this long, on every tonge./ O wikke Fame” (Chaucer 347-9). This sets up the connection between love and happiness and Fame’s iniquity. In “The Unity of Chaucer’s House of Fame,” Paul Ruggiers writes, “by structural analogy with The Book of the Duchess and The Parliament of Fowles where Chaucer’s method is to juxtapose a preliminary reading from a book with the ensuing vision for purposes of profounder implication and meaning, the House of Fame provides us with a specific account of Dido caught in the contrivances of Venus, or the fortunes of love, and of Fame, as an introduction to what “Geffrey” is to behold in the third book.” (Ruggiers 263) Between Dido’s bad fortune in love and Geffrey’s lack of love but continued belief in the concept, Chaucer creates a strong connection between love and fame, the two major concepts in the poem, despite its fragmented structure.
1 comment:
Response: The House of Fame
I want to respond to Kathryn Lynch’s statement in the introduction to Norton’s version of the House of Fame: “ultimately, the poem seems determined to avoid a coherent synthesis of topics, or any philosophical or literary position beyond a bantering mockery of earthly fame.” We discussed the parodic qualities and the dull narrator (an ignorance which is put in the frame of a clear erudition on the part of the author). But do these comic elements automatically preclude a serious message? The Canterbury tales were also very funny, with a powerhungry host and hilariously oblivious narrator, but many of them had serious themes. Chaucer’s commentary on fame is very funny, but does this does not make it merely a “bantering mockery.” It may be a less direct warning against reliance on fame and fortune for happiness than Boethius’ work (Boethius’ poet needs to be told that fortune is inconstant), from which it derives inspiration, but nevertheless, it gets that point across (though Geffrey does not need consolation because he does not lament his fame or fortune) by showing the reader “where that Fame dwelt [and] the ordre of hir dome” (Chaucer 1902-5).
Lynch’s assertion that the poem avoids a “coherent synthesis of topics” is an overstatement. There are obviously some choppy transitions, as can be expected in a dream, sweven, drem, or, in verb form, mette. But it wasn’t so fragmented as to interfere with the coherence of his themes. Book one presented the story of Dido and Aeneas. Dido is left alone and complains that all men will betray women. The transition comes when she laments that she will forever be ashamed of being left by Aeneas because Fame will spread the word of this quickly: “alle myn actes red and songe/ over al this long, on every tonge./ O wikke Fame” (Chaucer 347-9). This sets up the connection between love and happiness and Fame’s iniquity. In “The Unity of Chaucer’s House of Fame,” Paul Ruggiers writes,
“by structural analogy with The Book of the Duchess and The Parliament of Fowles where Chaucer’s method is to juxtapose a preliminary reading from a book with the ensuing vision for purposes of profounder implication and meaning, the House of Fame provides us with a specific account of Dido caught in the contrivances of Venus, or the fortunes of love, and of Fame, as an introduction to what “Geffrey” is to behold in the third book.” (Ruggiers 263)
Between Dido’s bad fortune in love and Geffrey’s lack of love but continued belief in the concept, Chaucer creates a strong connection between love and fame, the two major concepts in the poem, despite its fragmented structure.
Post a Comment