Реферат: Chaucer And The House Of Fame Essay

resoun,/Thou wost wel this, that spech is soun,” (757-762) It seems as though

Chaucer is exploring both elements of what is the true ‘auctor` and questions the idea

of ‘auctoritas`.

It is important to scrutinise the depiction of “fame” within Chaucer’s work as it

remains a crucial point in the formation of the modern canon of English literature. As

noted earlier, fame has many meanings and can mean “reputation”, “renown” or

“rumour”. Chaucer describes the more negative effects of fame, how it is granted to

people with little or no merit and how transient the nature of “fame” can be. When

Dido feels despairing and states, “O wel-awey that I was born!” she is not churlish

with Aeneas or Virgil, but curses, “O wikke Fame!”. According to Russell, it is Virgil’s

Fame that has “immortalised” the infamous behaviour of Dido and she is made the

eternal villain, continually playing her wicked role whenever one opens and reads the

Aeneid. In this way Dido is riding a cyclical machine where she is destined to a life of

ever-renewed “fame”and Dido’s clearly despises this. The nature of “Fame”, is often

transient and momentary. Chaucer takes note of the huge blocks of ice with the

engraved names of the famous. However, some of these names are exposed to the sun

and are melting away, clearly these are the people who will lose their “Fame” and

disappear into obscurity. Other names are preserved as they are protected from the

heat of the sun. The way in which the personification of “Fame”, the figure of the

goddess of Fame, grants “Fame” is haphazard and illogical. People of little merit, are

granted “Fame” by achieving infamous deeds, while others of merit are bluntly refused

“Fame”. In this way “Fame” is shown as a complete mystery, a strange and

uncontrollable force, not granted on the status of value and logic, more to do with

chance than reason.

One can then ponder what Chaucer considered the greater evil, the “tyranny of the

written word” or the “tyranny of orality”. One obvious example that refutes the earlier

claims of Russell is the negative portrayal of Chaucer’s House of Rumour. Within this

place is great confusion and disorder, “And therout com so gret a noyse” (1927). The

idea of noise and confusion is again repeated in; “No maner tydynges in to pace./ Ne