Реферат: Chaucer And The House Of Fame Essay

whisprynges;/ And over alle the houses angles/ Ys ful of rounynges and of jangles.”

(1956-1960). These various rumours obviously contain embellishments to the truth, if

not a complete fabrication. It seems that the negative rabble contained within the

House of Rumour is more severe than the relative mocking of the written word and

its scholarly institutions. It seems that the written word, despite its many faults, is still

more commendable and “true” than that of the spoken word which is far less reliable

than the ‘auctoritas` of classical writers.

When one looks at the flaws within The House of Fame it brings to question the

construction of the modern English canon and how it is formed. Obviously, Minnis’

claim that the oldest texts were generally considered the best is an idea that is

prevalent even today. Certainly the academic institutions were still a main factor

regarding the formation of the English canon. Like Geffrey and Chaucer who studied

classical writers like Virgil, Ovid and Dante, students studied this at school as it was

considered the most “valuable” of the texts, again reflecting the “older is better” idea

of ‘auctoritas`. According to Kaplan and Rose, Dr. Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the

Poets was the beginning of the formation of the English canon. Dr. Johnson chooses

the books that he personally felt was admirable and worthy of his praise. Already there

is the presence of an “elitist” society. Originally, as only the wealthy and privileged

were able to read and write, the process of the English canon was decided by the key

academic and scholarly figures, who decided to choose what the “right” type of work

would go into the English canon and repeatedly studied at institutions, therefore

making it cyclical, ever-renewing and therefore a permanent text that was entrenched

within The House of Fame. Just as the early oral heroic poetry was created to make

characters like Beowolf famous and therefore a permanent reminder to the population,

the written texts also serve as the anchor of “fame”. However, there is also the

ephemeral nature of “fame”, just as names melt into oblivion in The House of Fame,

the modern reader’s disinterest in a text can also disintegrate the “fame” of a text.

Suddenly the various canonised texts may not be considered relevant; an obvious

example of this would be the arrival of feminist theories, eventually emerging in