Abstract
These are the opening and closing lines of the Proem to Book I of Troilus and Criseyde. In the Retraction to the Canterbury Tales Chaucer refers to the poem as ‘the book of Troilus’. This introduc¬tion gives the same emphasis. The story is to be about Troilus and his double sorrow. The parabola of his fortunes ‘fro wo to wele, and after out of joie’ (I 4) places him, according to a medieval definition, among the ranks of tragic heroes. Appropriate rhetoric, an invoca¬tion to one of the Furies, heralds the relation of the fall of a great man. Already it stirs profound emotion in the narrator: even the verses weep as he writes. As the Proem develops, the story of Troilus is invested with a quasi-religious significance, an occasion for prayerful contemplation in the audience. The narrator presents himself as a priest of love and delivers a kind of bidding prayer for lovers in their various circumstances, happy or sorrowful. He is apparently thinking mainly of male lovers: ‘Have he my thonk, and myn be this travaille! … preieth for hem that ben in the cas / Of Troilus … sende hem myghte hire ladies so to plese’ (I 21, 29–30, 45), though he does specifically include women when he considers lovers as the victims of slander, ‘that falsly ben apeired / Thorugh wikked tonges, be it he or she’ (38–9).
The double sorwe of Troilus to teilen,
That was the kyng Priamus sone of Troye,
In lovynge, how his aventures feilen
Fro wo to wele, and after out of joie,
My purpos is, er that I parte fro ye.
Thesiphone, thow help me for t’endite
Thise woful vers, that wepen as I write.
now wol I gon streght to my matere,
In which ye may the double sorwes here
Of Troilus in lovynge of Criseyde,
And how that she forsook hym er she deyde.
TC I 1–7, 53–6
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Ian Bishop, Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde: A Critical Study (Bristol, 1981) pp. 19–31, gives a perceptive analysis of the ‘epiphanies’ of Criseyde.
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant’s Woman (London, 1967) p. 68.
I owe this point to David Aers, Chaucer, Langland and the Creative Imagination (London, 1980) p. 120.
Charles Muscatine, Chaucer and the French Tradition: A Study in Style and Meaning (Berkeley, Cal., 1957) notices consideration of role and stereotype (though he does not use the terms) as part of the cynicism of Pandarus’s approach to her: ‘As Troilus appeals to her highest and most intangible standards of value, Pandarus addresses himself to the widow, the niece, the traitor’s daughter, and the lonely female’ (p. 155).
Stephen Knight, Geoffrey Chaucer (Oxford, 1986) ch.2, pp. 32–65, analyses the poem as a dialectic between public and private forces: ‘Criseyde is … not only a step towards feminism. She is a figure of a new self-consciousness for both men and women; it is because women were in so many ways excluded from the authority of a patriarchal public order that Chaucer is able to exploit them as a terrain for the exploration of privacy’ (p. 36).
On the question of determinism in Troilus see Howard R. Patch, ‘Troilus on Determinism’, Speculum, 6 (1931) pp. 225–43;
M. W. Bloomfield, ‘Distance and Predestination in Troilus and Criseyde’, PMLA, 72 (1957) pp. 14–26;
W. C. Curry, ‘Destiny and Troilus and Criseyde’ in Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences (New York, 1926, 2nd edn 1960).
All three are reprinted in Chaucer Criticism, ed. R. J. Schoeck and J. Taylor (Notre Dame, Ind., 1961) vol. II.
See also Jill Mann, ‘Chance and Destiny in Troilus and Criseyde and the Knight’s Tale’, The Cambridge Chaucer Companion, ed. Piero Boitani and Jill Mann (Cambridge, 1986) pp. 75–92.
Alastair Minnis, Chaucer and Pagan Antiquity (Cambridge, 1982), makes this distinction: The pagans regard their supposed destinies as necessary facts; the Christian historian regards them as conditional facts. By being so utterly convinced that their actions are fated, the pagans determine their actions’ (p. 70).
Marvin Mudrick discusses the bird symbolism of Book II in ‘Chaucer’s Nightingales’, On Culture and Literature (New York, 1970) pp. 88–95, reprinted in Chaucer’s Troilus: Essays in Criticism, ed. Stephen Barney (London, 1980) pp. 91–9.
See also Beryl Rowland, Birds with Human Souls: A Guide to Bird Symbolism (Knoxville, Tn, 1978).
There are fine accounts of the garden and nightingale scene by A. C. Spearing, Criticism and Medieval Poetry (London, 1964) pp. 100–8 and Donald R. Howard, ‘Experience, Language and Consciousness: “Troilus and Criseyde”’, II, 596–931, in Barney, Chaucer’s Troilus, (London, 1980), pp. 159–80.
A phenomenon discussed with relation to LGW by Richard Firth Green, in ‘Chaucer’s Victimized Women’, SAC, 10 (1988) pp. 3–21.
Copyright information
© 1996 Priscilla Martin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martin, P. (1996). Criseyde. In: Chaucer’s Women. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378636_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378636_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-64142-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37863-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)