Troilus And Criseyde By Chaucer Essay, Research Paper

Chaucer? s heroic poem verse form, Troilus and Criseyde, is non a new narrative, but one Chaucer

simply expanded upon. One of these enlargements that Chaucer? s work has become

renowned for is the betterment of the characters. By and large, Chaucer? s

characters have more texture, deepness, humanity, and nuance than those of the

old narratives. Of the three chief figures in the heroic poem verse form, Troilus, Criseyde,

and Pandarus, Pandarus is the character that Chaucer took the most liberty with,

making and germinating Pandarus until he had taken on an wholly different function.

However, this is non to state that Chaucer did non add his ain manner to Troilus

and Criseyde. Chaucer? s continual development of the primary characters

decidedly impart more involvement and wit to the heroic poem verse form, Troilus and Criseyde.

The most interesting character by far is Pandarus. He serves as the supporter

and travel between for Troilus and Criseyde. In fact, one could reason if it were non

for him, Troilus may ne’er hold attained the brief fondnesss of his lady love,

Criseyde. When Pandarus comes across an uneasy Troilus and inquires as to the

cause of his problem, his address is really facile. It is this address that gives

the reader his first glance of how nuance and indirectness will ab initio

qualify Pandarus. Further along the transition, Pandarus torments Troilus into

choler, doing him to uncover the beginning of his suffering. ( Chaucer 24-5 ) . In respect to

the debut of Pandarus, Kirby concludes: “ ? Chaucer makes us experience

that here is a witty, sympathetic fellow who does non take life excessively earnestly and who

does non waver to mix friendly plants with good-natured twits. ” ( 127 )

Pandarus besides reveals that he is reasonably good educated with his allusion to Niobe.

In add-on to the disclosure of his instruction, this besides reveals Pandarus?

preference for a form of persuasion which he employs throughout his function.

“ Pandarus thinks the that manner to do a adult male do something that he does non

privation to make is non to state him bluffly and baldly what class of action he should

pursue, but instead, bit by bit to take up to the chief point, spread outing on the

impression in assorted ways and particularly by citing sufficient authorization and

testimony to demo his program is the right one, in fact, the lone 1

possible ” ( Kirby 133 ) . This demonstrates that non merely does Pandarus hold a

classical instruction, but that he besides maintains some appreciation on the construct of

psychological science. Aside from the rational side of Pandarus, Chaucer develops a

really human facet to this character. Chaucer purposefully places Pandarus in the

function of the unanswered lover, doing him look less feeble-minded. At the same

clip nevertheless, Pandarus reasserts his unlogical logical thinking in order to convert

Troilus to unwrap his bosom twisting secret. Even after Troilus? curt

dismissal, Pandarus continues to tease the beleaguered knight, showing

yet another strong personality feature: doggedness. This is supported by

Pandarus physically agitating Troilus. “ And with that word he gan hym for to

shingle, /And seyde, “ Thef/ thow shalt hyre name telle, /But tho gan sely

Troilus for to quake/As though work forces sholde Han led hym into helle, ? “ ( Chaucer

36 ) . Consequentially frightened, Troilus tells Pandarus of his love for

Criseyde, Pandarus? niece and even goes so far as to hold to enlist

Pandarus? aid in conveying his niece? s bosom to the beleaguered knight. In

his traffics with his niece, issues of Pandarus? morality comes into being,

particularly as his axial rotation of the go-between for Troilus and Criseyde. “ The

word pimp, where he has bequeathed the English linguistic communication, illuminates the

negative intensions that are put on his actions in modern significance ”

( Berkley Research 3 ) . In respect to Pandarus? merchandising of Criseyde? s award,

one bookman believes that his loose ethical motives would be suiting for person of

younger old ages, but on an older adult male, it would be a serious insult to his

morality ( Rosetti 177 ) . A somewhat more favourable position holds that as Pandarus is

beholden to aide a friend, Chaucer uses the character? s appeal to act upon

readers to see the act as less of offense. Finally, one can take the sentiment that

Pandarus? actions coincide absolutely with the thoughts of Courtly love and

hence are less abominable ( Kirby 181 ) . However inexorable these sentiments possibly,

Chaucer, and as a consequence, Pandarus, takes the bull by the nonliteral horns and

addresses the issue. Criseyde inquiries Pandarus after his declaration of

Troilus? love by stating: “ ? Alas, for wo! Why nere I deed? /For of the

universe the feyth is al agoon./Allas! what sholden straunge to me doon, /When he,

that for my beste frend I wende, /Ret me to love, and sholde it me defende? ”

( Chaucer 61 ) . Pandarus presents his place on the footing that he is helping a

friend. But with Troilus, Pandarus argues the exact antonym. He claims he is

enduring from stabs of guilt. He states that he has behaved like a procurer through

true friendly relationship and Troilus exonerates him ( Chaucer 125-6 ) . “ Thus it seems

that Pandarus? moral struggle is found non merely among bookmans, but in the

characters themselves. Both Criseyde and Pandarus realize that he is non

carry throughing his responsibility as an older relation ” and that by pleading the instance for

Troilus, Pandarus is disgracing Criseyde ( Berkeley Research 5 ) . After wheedling

Criseyde to go through the dark at his house and after concealing Troilus in a cramped

cupboard, Pandarus? actions uncover his true busy-body qualities. He is ever

nowadays during the conversations of the lover and frequently stays past the clip to

leave by unobtrusively claiming to read books. It would look that his

wonder goes beyond his desire to aide, taging him as a voyarist. However,

after the momentous dark when Criseyde takes Troilus to be her lover,

Pandarus? function diminished until the clip of Criseyde? s treachery is made

known. In his indecisiveness over what to make during the awkward disclosure of

Criseyde? s treachery, Kirby argues that “ This powerful scene, picturing

the great amusing figure at a minute of high calamity, demoing his complete

weakness, his arrant inability to make anything farther to assist his friend and

yet, with it all, his great generousity and clemency, Is the last in which Pandarus

appears ” ( Kirby 176 ) . This depicts the concluding development of the character

Pandarus. He has come full circle from the amicable, helpful friend, to the

original procurer, to the really psyche of generousness. It is in the complexness of his

character for to the full showing true human existences instead than the antique

stereotypes that the true mastermind of Chaucer is to the full realized. Unlike the

inventive character of Pandarus, Troilus follows reasonably closely with the

old beginnings. He is the prototype of the courtly lover. Paul Baum states that

“ ? Troilus has but one faith, that of Love. He is neither heathen nor

Christian, but ever a devout follower of amour courtois, an incarnation of the

best elements of the codification. He has non thought, commits no act, which is non in

perfect harmoniousness with the dogmas of his faith ” ( 152 ) . The dogmas of

courtly love are outlined by C. S. Lewis. They hold that the lover will ever

choose to function the lady he loves, bespeaking that he would be the lone one she

let to function her. Second, he must be faithful to his lady and frailty versa

one time the lady of his bosom accepts the lovestruck knight. Furthermore, the

knight will continually idolize the lady and accomplish whatever undertakings he deems

will do himself worthy of her. Lastly, and most significantly, courtly love

involves the extreme secretiveness. The love shared must be kept secret less the

lady? s award ( who the knight has sworn to continue and dutybound to protect )

becomes blemished. As seen throughout the full heroic poem verse form, Troilus duly

qualifies every last dogma of courtly love. We see him simper at those in love

before he is struck by Cupid? s pointer. At the really sight of Criseyde, Chaucer

writes “ And of hire expression in hem ther gan to quken/So gret desir and such

affeccioun, /That in his hertes botme gan to stiken/Of hir his fixe and depe

impressioun ” ( 14 ) . After Troilus has been struck by Cupid? s pointer,

“ he continues to mock all lovers in order to keep secretiveness about his

love ( Berkley Research 8 ) . Finally upon uncovering his secret to Pandarus,

Troilus dedicates himself to function Criseyde and the God of love. “ And to

the God of Love therefore seyde he/With pitous vois, “ O Godhead, now youres be./Yow

thanke I, Godhead, that han me brought to this./But whether goodesse or womman,

iwis, /She be, I non, which that ye make me function ; /But as hire adult male I wol ay lyve

and sterve ” ( Chaucer 19 ) . He proves himself worthy of his lady? s love by

carry throughing great workss in the conflict against the Greeks. & A ; quo

T ; At the same

clip, Troilus is really soft and stamp about town, exemplifying the supposed

dignifying qualities of love? In a similar mode, he hunts unsafe animals? ,

but lets the smaller one flight, therefore demoing his courage and his

tenderness ” ( Berkley Research 9 ) . Beyond these Acts of the Apostless, Troilus

demonstrates the assorted features of the courtly love by fainting at his

lady? s disapproval, going extremely agitated and distressed over his lady? s

absence. He is tormented by holding to maintain his love a secret, but is responsibility edge

to continue the secretiveness. In consequence, he is torn between his psyche? s desire and his

bosom? s desire. In add-on to all of this, Troilus seems to be rather inactive.

He follows along with the fraudulences of Pandarus, despite the fact it merely serves

to disgrace Criseyde. When Criseyde is named for the exchange, Troilus frights

that any action on his portion will ensue in the decease of his lady love.

Furthermore, Troilus ne’er doubts that Criseyde will stay faithful to him.

Even at the minute of realized treachery, Troilus treats his lady with regard as

he still loves her. He states “ Thorugh which I se that clene out of youre

mynde/Ye han me dramatis personae ; and I ne kan nor may, /For al this universe, withinne myn

herte fynde/To unloven yow a one-fourth of a twenty-four hours! /In corsed tyme I born was,

weilaway, /That yow, that doon me al this wo digest, /Yet love I best of any

animal! ” ( Chaucer 305 ) . By claiming this, Troilus proves he is the

prototype of courtly love, by keeping a love that can non be banished by the

treachery of Criseyde, which makes it an everlasting love. Thus the character of

Troilus can be defined as ideal, virtuous, and baronial in his love Criseyde,

doing him the psyche of tenderness. However at the same clip, by representing the

hero, Chaucer shows how pathetic and hapless the courtly lover is, particularly

at his most romantic minute. In contrast to Troilus, Criseyde plays the portion of

the courtly lady, but Chaucer makes her a more humanly figure. Because of her

realistic qualities, Gordon argues that the existent calamity belonged to Criseyde.

She states “ To hold developed the latent calamity of her state of affairs, her

brightness and beauty dwindling every bit shortly as she leaves Troy, her minute of

self-fulfillment in the presence of the petroleum Diomed, when she acknowledges her

failing, her lame attempt to retrieve as she slides backward, would hold made a

different verse form? ” ( 157 ) . Gordon besides claims that Criseyde? s perfidy

was a direct consequence of her male parent? s faithless actions and her uncles

dishonourable actions. When Criseyde is foremost introduced, she is dressed in

widow? s attire, mourning. She has all the honest purposes that get pushed

aside with Pandarus? aid. However, upon her first address with Pandarus,

readers gather a instead conflicting sentiments of Criseyde. Despite her explicable

choler over Pandarus? proposition, Criseyde fears for Troilus? life,

believing he will really perpetrate self-destruction over her. Her fear leads her to hold

to Pandarus? fraudulence, doing readers construe her actions as flirtation. Chaucer

seems to back up this by portraying Criseyde as a timid individual: “ Criseyde,

which that wel neigh starf for feere, /So as she was the ferfulleste wight/That

myghte be, and herde ek with hire ere/And saugh the sorwful ernest of the knyght, /And

for the injury that myghte ek fallen Moore, /She gan to rewe, and dredde hire

admiration soore, ” ( Chaucer 63 ) . Harmonizing to Gordon, Criseyde? s malaise over

the proposition demonstrates her secular apprehension. She argues that nature

of “ exchange love ” is the cardinal moral inquiry of the verse form, and that

inquiry that Criseyde continually deals with ( Gordon 157 ) . Furthermore,

Criseyde must see the inquiry of award as she is at tribunal and chitchat is a

deadly arm. Her concern here demonstrates the practical side of Criseyde. Her

rational side is shown by her consideration of Troilus? suit. She weighs the

facts that he is a boy of a male monarch, a great warrior, and deemed a good adult male by

most. She neatly traps Troilus beneath her by leting him to function her lone

under one status: he has no other crowned head except for herself. Her

intelligence is merely emphasized by her capitulation to Troilus. When he asks her

to give, she responds that if she had non yielded already, she would non be in

the room. Furthermore, she did non look surprised when Troilus showed up in

her Chamberss. All these qualities represent the humanity that Chaucer has

endowed Criseyde with. Despite the realistic qualities Chaucer endows Criseyde

with, he fulfills her function as the lady love. She does non oppugn the authorization

of work forces or destiny, as demonstrated by her reaction to the intelligence of her exchange.

Furthermore, she believes that she can non be disconnected from Troilus as her

love for him binds her to him for all clip. She upholds the renter of secretiveness

even when people assume she is shouting from joy as they congratulate her on the

exchange. Criseyde even goes so far as to contemplate a slow painful decease by

famishment in order to remain loyal to Troilus. With her great sorrow due to her

going from Troilus, Criseyde remains blind to Diomede. Her sorrow is doubled

when she fails to convert her male parent to return her to Troy. This is where the

calamity of Criseyde Begins, harmonizing to Gordon. Criseyde calamity is

self-deceit. She ne’er realized she was capable of treachery until she

really committed the act ( Gordon 137 ) . It is noted that when Criseyde is

naming all the grounds for her love to Troilus, she lists more of his manners

than his character. Furthermore, it is noted that in the first portion of the heroic poem

verse form, merely Criseyde? s looks and demeanour are commented upon, whereas in the

2nd portion of the verse form, the reader gets a more concise position of Criseyde? s

character ( Gordon 137 ) . It is non until Book V, that Chaucer refers to Criseyde

as the “ slydynge of corage ” ( 272 ) . With her credence of Diomede,

Criseyde breaks the codification of courtly love, taging her as weak and possibly a spot

of an self-seeker. In fact one can reason that Criseyde? s pick of Diomede was

one of practicality instead than of love affair ( Berkley Research 17 ) . However,

Chaucer defends Criseyde by claiming: “ Ne me ne list this sely womman chyde/Forther

than the storye wol devyse./Hire name, allas! is punysshed so broad, /That for

hire gilding it oughte ynough suffise./And if I myghte excuse engage any wise, /For

she so sory was for hire untroughte, /Iwis, I wolde excuse hire yet for routhe ”

( 282 ) . Criseyde? s autumn from grace is the ultimate grade of humanity that

offprints her from the stereotyped ideal of the courtly lady. She recognizes

she has committed a incorrect, even thought she believes she can ne’er expiate for it.

The really fact that she does interrupt a renter of courtly love demonstrates

Chaucer? s willingness to make characters that delve outside the stereotype

universe. It becomes obvious that Chaucer has given great idea and imaginativeness

to carefully picture his three characters to assist germinate his secret plan and give a

human involvement position to an otherwise old narrative. His usage of contrast is

stunningly indispensable. He shows Troilus to be the really typical courtly lover.

Whatever derivations Troilus develops merely emphasizes his singularity as a figure

of Chaucer. In contrast to the artlessness of Troilus? love, Pandarus is

portrayed as old and highly shrew. He knows how to weasel even the most

treasured secrets from a organic structure and manipulate that to foster his ain involvements.

Pandarus is arguably one of the most original and inventive character of

Chaucer. While non every bit original as Pandarus, Criseyde represents the ideal

courtly lady with a realistic turn. She aggressively contrasts with Troilus with her

reason and even her practicality. She measures every action foremost, while

Troilus merely follows whatever manner will take him to his sensed end. All

combined, Chaucer manages to make an ideal invariably embued with originality

that invokes the readers continual involvement in the heroic poem verse form, Troilus and

Criseyde.

Baum, Paul E. Chaucer: A Critical Appreciation. Durham, North Carolina: Duke

University Press, 1958. Berkeley Research. The Development of Character in

Troilus and Criseyde. Proprietary papers. San Francisco, California: Berkeley

Research, 1997. Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. Edited by R. A. Shoaf.

East Lansing, Michigan: Colleagues Press, 1989. Gordon, Ida. The Double Sorrow

of Troilus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Kirby, Thomas A. Chaucer? s

Troilus: A Study in Courtly Love. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1958.

Lewis, C. S. The Allegory of Love. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.

Rosetti, W. M. Chaucer? s Troylus and Cryseyde Compared with Boccaccio? s

Filostrato. London: Oxford University Press, 1875.