Chaucer’s House of Fame

CHAUCER'S HOUSE OF FAME 79 CHAUCER'S HOUSE OF FAME' Sheila Delany's explanation of Chaucer's House of Fame is coherent and plausible . It does not deny the existence of features which have traditionally baffled the critics; nor does it invalidate the findings of J.A.W. Bennett, L.K. Shook, and others concerning the most important levels of meaning in the poem. It offers a philosophical explanation: at the heart of the work are indisputable evidences of a critical and sceptical attitude, a consciousness of the unreliability of traditional knowledge which Fame herself epitomizes. In her chapter on sceptical fideism, Professor Delany deals with the conflict between faith and rationalism, and with the various attempts to resolve it. The only alternative to agnosticism as the end of sceptical inquiry was, paradoxically, an anti-rational fideism. Doctrinal truth was absolute and superior to any other; scientific truth was separate and unrelated . In the author's opinion, the House of Fame shows that while Chaucer felt the dilemma which made the separation of truths necessary, he preferred to transcend the choice between traditions rather than to commit himself wholeheartedly to a single intellectual tradition or consistent point of view. He was, profoundly, a Laodicean, despite the late Professor Loomis's effort to clear him of that charge. Understandably, Chaucer's reluctance to commit himself troubles some readers; yet that same pluralistic impulse also generates the irony and richness of perception that constitute Chaucer's main appeal. Chaucer's stance both pleased and troubled Matthew AITlOld, who granted his art 'largeness , freedom, shrewdness, benignity' but denied it 'high seriousness.' The House of Fame takes us to what, for the poet, is the heart of pluralism: tradition itself. Not incoherency but incongruity is characteristic of the HOllse of Fame; indeed it is its subject, because incongruity is the essence of fame. These observations conclude the second chapter and they signal the point of view which is to be adopted in examining the work. The Proem to the dream vision strikes at the heart of the matter, with Chaucer deliberately raising questions which cannot be answered by reason alone. The narrator appeals to a supra-rational authority- 'God tum us every dream to good,' juxtaposing various theories and then abandoning choice. As Professor Delany correctly observes (p 41) the structural pattern introduced here remains constant throughout the work. Particular importance is attached to the dreamer's bewildered prayer in the wilderness: a Christ! ... that art in blysse, Fro fantome and illusion Me save! [492-4) Fantome, as she convincingly demonstrates, means more than a bad dream: it is particularly associated with the deception of the written word. In the Temple of Venus the dreamer has confronted a conflict of values within the medieval literary tradition. Virgil's heroic version contrasts with Ovid's sentimental revi- "'Sheila Delany, Chaucer's HouseofFame: The Poetics ofSkepticai Fideism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press "973· Pp "34' $7.50 80 BERYL ROWLAND sian. Chaucer undercuts his traditional material and his reader's security. He then adopts a typical mode of resolution: he makes no attempt at reconciliation. The work is admirably competent and must be read by all serious students of the poem. The author manages to say a great deal in 122 pages, without any hint of strain, and, not surprisingly, even the index is extremely comprehensive. The thesis is clear, the organization unfaltering and uncluttered, and the prose trips along easily and economically. Professor Delany's findings help to explain the ethos of Chaucer's final stance which, as Charles Muscatine has observed, 'emerges from a lifetime of feeling and of coming to grips with the alternative valus systems that his culture offered.' (BERYL ROWLAND) ...