Poetics of the Past, Politics of the Present: Chaucer, Gower, and Old
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Poetics of the Past, Politics of the Present: Chaucer, Gower, and Old Books Malte Urban Presented to the University of Wales, Aberystwyth for the qualification of PhD in English, October 2005 This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed…………………………………………(candidate) Date……………………………………………. This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed…………………………………………(candidate) Date……………………………………………. I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be available to outside organisations. Signed…………………………………………(candidate) Date……………………………………………. Abstract This thesis examines the poetics and politics of ‘olde bokes’ (Legend of Good Women, G, 25) in selected works by Chaucer and Gower, paying particular attention to the way in which both writers appropriate their sources and the theories of history and political ideas informing these appropriations. It argues that Chaucer eschews metanarratives in his appropriations of the past and its writings, emphasising the multiplicity of voices that are contained in written discourse across time. In contrast, Gower, while acknowledging the presence of multiple voices, appropriates the writings of the past in an attempt to arrive at a harmonised poetic voice of his own. These poetics of the past result in different politics of the present in both writers’ works. While Gower’s politics are generally nostalgic and conservative, Chaucer is apolitical and primarily interested in the processes of political discourse. In this respect, Gower is a writer who strives to make sense of history and tradition and formulate poignant political statements in the face of contemporary struggles, whereas Chaucer does not offer unambiguous statements, but rather creates a multi-facetted poetic voice that highlights the reasons why such statements are impossible to achieve in the face of discursive heterogeneity. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................... II NOTE ON THE TEXTS ...............................................................................................................................III INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 1 WHY CHAUCER AND GOWER?............................................................................................................4 CHAUCER AND GOWER IN RICARDIAN ENGLAND .............................................................................20 READING THE PAST AND ITS TEXTS..................................................................................................31 CHAPTER OUTLINE ...........................................................................................................................46 1 GOWER’S VOX CLAMANTIS AND THE AUTHORITY OF HISTORY ................................ 51 PAST AND PRESENT, CENTO AND SCHOLLBOY PLAGIARISM .............................................................54 LATIN AND ITS AUDIENCES...............................................................................................................65 THE POLITICS OF HISTORY ...............................................................................................................71 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................78 2 CHAUCER’S DREAMS: AUTHORITY IN WRITING AND SOCIETY................................. 79 THE NUN’S PRIEST’S TALE: PARODY OR EARNEST GAME? ................................................................81 THE HOUSE OF FAME AND THE FABULATION OF HISTORY................................................................88 THE SOCIAL APPROPRIATION OF AUTHORITY IN THE PARLIAMENT OF FOWLS...................................99 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................110 3 TIME PAST AND TIME PRESENT IN CHAUCER’S TROILUS AND CRISEYDE ............ 113 TROILUS AND CRISEYDE AND HISTORIOGRAPHY............................................................................115 ‘SAVE OURE TONGES DIFFERENCE’: TROY AND LONDON ..............................................................129 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................140 4 GOWER’S TROJAN MEMORY: A SELECTIVE INHERITANCE...................................... 142 TROY AND THE STATE OF ENGLAND IN THE VOX CLAMANTIS ..........................................................144 TROY IN THE PROLOGUE AND EPILOGUE TO THE CONFESSIO AMANTIS............................................150 THE TROJAN EPISODES IN THE CONFESSIO AMANTIS .......................................................................155 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................167 5 THE TALE OF MELIBEE AND CONFESSIO AMANTIS VII: WHAT TO DO WITH KNOWLEDGE.............................................................................................................................. 169 OLD TEXTS IN A CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT..................................................................................171 NARRATIVE FRAMES AND FICTIONAL AUDIENCES .........................................................................180 ACTUAL AUDIENCES AND FICTIONAL ADVICE ...............................................................................186 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................192 6 TALES OF VIRGINIA................................................................................................................. 194 SOURCE APPROPRIATION AND POLITICS .........................................................................................197 VIRGINIA AND THE BODY OF HISTORY ...........................................................................................210 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................218 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................ 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 229 PRIMARY SOURCES.........................................................................................................................229 SECONDARY SOURCES....................................................................................................................230 Acknowledgements Without the generous funding of the Aberystwyth Postgraduate Research Fund this project could not have been started, let alone brought to a conclusion, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude for this support. I also owe a huge personal and professional debt to my supervisor, Diane Watt. She introduced me to Chaucer and Gower as intriguing subjects of study, and over the years her constant support and always fair criticism served to keep my far too disorganised and complacent mind focussed on the task at hand. She is the ideal supervisor and I am aspiring to her intellectual rigour and enthusiasm for our subject(s). Together with my second supervisor, Claire Jowitt, she has read, re-read and then read again the countless drafts of this project, and without their combined input these pages would have much less substance then they do now. Karen Stöber provided last minute—but much needed—historical advice that helped greatly in making this project work. Needless to say, I insisted on making mistakes, and all shortcomings and oversights are entirely my own. I hope I have not disappointed anyone’s faith in me. I have also been fortunate enough to find an intellectual home away from home in the postgraduate and postdoctoral community at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Bristol. In particular, I would like to thank Robert Rouse, Cory Rushton and Allan Mitchell for making me feel welcome whenever I felt the need to escape from the Welsh coast and test my ideas on those that had no obligation to listen. Closer to home, Will Slocombe has been kind enough to put aside his nihilist convictions and ‘talk shop’ with a medievalist over countless coffees and other harmful substances in the Arts Centre. Thank you for trying to keep me sane! The final debt, however, and one that I shall never be able to repay, goes to my family, especially my parents, who never questioned their son’s decision to leave for foreign shores and pursue what must seem to them the fruitless endeavour of literary criticism. Earlier versions of chapter 3 are published in Carmina Philosophiae 12 (2003): 75-90 and Riddles, Knights and Cross-dressing Saints: Essays on Medieval English Language and Literature, ed. Thomas Honegger (Bern: Peter Lang, 2004), 33-54. ii Note on the Texts All references to Chaucer’s works are to The Riverside Chaucer.