Petrarch and Chaucer on Fame
33
In this sense, Chaucer regards the function of writers as somewhat
akin to that of historians, as witnessed by the narrator’s
observation that in addition to the statues of the most famous
authors, the palace of Fame is also strewn with the statues of
lesser-known writers, whose function is to preserve “the olde
gestes” (1997: 1515). Though not a systematic treatise on the
function of literature, the
House of Fame
implicitly demonstrates
that literature can help preserve the memory of the great, and that
literature outclasses other forms of art in the fulfillment of this task.
In this respect, Howard similarly maintains that for Chaucer even
though all worldly things will eventually fade away, what is
preserved in poetry stands the best chance of finding a place in
eternity (1987: 251).
IV. Conclusion
From previous analysis, it is not difficult to find similarities
between Petrarch’s and Chaucer’s conceptions of worldly fame.
Both are acutely aware that fame is no more than an indiscriminate
verdict of an unwise horde. Petrarch, as mentioned earlier, in
My
Secret Book
reveals his intimate understanding that fame is merely
“the breath of many people” (2002: 83), a thing not even remotely
worthy to be pursued. Even so, Petrarch’s obsession with literary
fame is keenly felt throughout his corpus, in particular his
Coronation Oration. Admittedly, both the
Africa
and “A Draft of a
Letter to Posterity” bear eloquent testimony to Petrarch’s ideas
pertaining to literary fame and “the power of letters to project
one’s presence in the future”; the oration, however, holds the key
to understanding these topoi (Looney, 2009: 133).
42
It is the most
systematic exposition of the profession of poet prior to the
Renaissance, not only elevating the poetic enterprise over other
forms of art, but pragmatically enumerating the hurdles that a poet
42
For the link between the
Africa
and the Oration, see Murphy (1997: 74-127).
