Characterization and Courtly Love in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde

“And I ne kan nor may, / For al this world, withinne myn herte fynde / To unloven yow a quarter of a day.”1 In these lines from the final book of Troilus and Criseyde, Troilus speaks to his absent and unfaithful lover Criseyde, stating that, in spite of her betrayal, his love for her still endures. Despite her infidelity, Troilus remains in service to his lady’s honor, indicating his character as an ideal courtly lover who is completely faithful to his beloved, even when she does not reciprocate. Alongside Troilus throughout his experience of love is Pandarus, who provokes the action of the plot and manipulates appearances and circumstances to enable the lovers to consummate their love. While Troilus is faithful and completely devoted to the service of his beloved, Pandarus is committed to playing the game of love, a distinction which establishes these characters as foils to one another. This understanding reveals that Troilus demonstrates the sincerity and commitment to Criseyde as a person that Pandarus lacks, while Pandarus illustrates the shortcomings of this ideal, which leads Troilus, in his over- scrupulosity, to lose his beloved because of his failure to act to prevent her departure. In this sense, Pandarus, by his pragmatic interference, furthers the insight about courtly love which the reader receives throughout the poem by illustrating that Troilus’s strict adherence to the rules of courtly love outweighs his love and commitment to Criseyde as his beloved. Thus, an analysis of the distinctive approaches to love and the interactions of Pandarus and Troilus with one another throughout Troilus and Criseyde reveals that both a solely pragmatic and an overly idealistic view of courtly love fall short, leading the reader to consider the insufficiency of either approach to love in isolation from the other and the necessity of an alternative perspective.

From the moment when Troilus sees Criseyde and begins to fall in love with her in Book One of Troilus and Criseyde, it becomes evident that he approaches courtly love with pure-hearted idealism, always adhering to proper protocols and remaining faithful to his beloved. The narrator reinforces this when he describes Troilus as inexperienced in love, stating that “for no devocioun / Hadde he to non, to reven hym his reste.”2 As the narrator illustrates, Troilus has not been jaded by previous encounters with unrequited love, resulting both in his naivety and in his ability to woo Criseyde and serve as her lover with an approach of pure-hearted idealism. Although he is captivated by the beauty and grace of Criseyde upon seeing her in the temple, Troilus, adhering to the courtly love tradition, “neither chere made, ne word tolde; / But from afer, his manere for to holde,” and quietly admires her from a distance.3 Rather than openly proclaiming his intent to woo Criseyde, Troilus instead returns to his private chamber to ponder her beauty and virtue, resolving to serve her honorably and discreetly as a true courtly lover. As he thinks upon Criseyde in secrecy, Troilus pledges his enduring service to her, stating “more than myself wol love yow to my laste.”4 Although he suffers greatly, desiring to immediately have Criseyde as his lover, Troilus resolves to adhere to the rules of courtly love when wooing her. This further reinforces that Troilus places his lady and protecting her honor before the fulfillment of his own desires, emphasizing his character as an ideal courtly lover entirely committed to serving his beloved. This total commitment to Criseyde which Troilus demonstrates is further evidenced in Book Three, as Troilus continues to serve Criseyde faithfully after winning her affections according to the protocols of courtly love. As he consummates his love with Criseyde, Troilus pledges his enduring devotion to her, stating that “I wol the serve / Right as thi sclave...unto my lyves ende.”5 As their relationship develops, Troilus remains faithful to this promise, always deferring to his lady and pledging his life in service to her honor. Larry Benson echoes this characterization of Troilus in his article on courtly love within Chaucer’s Complaint to His Lady, stating that, “the lover in Chaucer’s complaint is so extravagantly humble that he will obey his lady in everything.”6 This total deference to Criseyde which Benson emphasizes is further evidenced in Book Four of Troilus and Criseyde, when Troilus allows Criseyde to leave Troy rather than insisting, against her wishes, that she elope with him so that they can remain together. Troilus continues this faithful adherence to the courtly love tradition throughout their relationship. As the narrator states, he “nought forgat his goode governaunce” when interacting with Criseyde, and he himself is made better in his role as her lover.7 Indeed, Troilus epitomizes an ideal courtly lover at his best, remaining faithful to Criseyde even after she betrays him and faithfully committing himself to her service.

While the enduring faithfulness to Criseyde which Troilus demonstrates, even when she does not reciprocate, reveals his character as an idealized courtly lover, it appears that this strict adherence to the protocols of courtly love ultimately contributes to his loss of his be- loved. This is evident in Book Five when Troilus laments his loss of Criseyde and continues to love her long after she leaves Troy, hoping for her unlikely return. He states that “I ne kan nor may, / For al this world, withinne myn herte fynde / To unloven yow a quarter of a day,” emphasizing that, although Criseyde is no longer physically with him, Troilus cannot bring himself to move on and stop loving her.8 In his focus on being a faithful courtly lover, Troilus fails to accept that Criseyde has betrayed him for Diomede, and, even before losing Criseyde, fails to recognize the unlikelihood of her promise to return to him. He resigns himself to waiting for her return rather than actively preventing her departure. This is evidenced near the end of Book Four, when Troilus resigns himself to allowing Criseyde to leave, stating, “I shal wel suffre unto the tenthe day, / Syn that I se that nede it mot be thus.”9 When Troilus learns that Criseyde must leave Troy and, as the narrator states, that he is “from [Fortune’s] whiel ythrowe,” he again adheres to the protocols of courtly love to a fault, failing to intervene to prevent Criseyde from leaving.10 In his unbending commitment to the courtly love tradition, Troilus blinds himself to the reality that Criseyde will never return to Troy. Criseyde dismisses his suggestion to elope and tells Troilus “mistrust me nought thus causeless, for routhe, / Syn to be trewe I have yow plight my trouthe.”11 Rather than insisting on elopement, Troilus makes the fateful decision to defer completely to his lady, allowing her to leave Troy so as to preserve her honor. In doing so, he contributes to his own loss of Criseyde. Barry Windeatt reinforc- es this, stating that, “inaction becomes...the expression of the hero’s devotion to the courtly ideal of service in love,” a decision which proves devastating for their relationship.12 Even after Criseyde leaves and gives Diomede her affections, the narrator states that Troilus “was waytyng on his lady evere more” and continues to write to her, hoping for a heartfelt reciprocation of his love, which he never receives.13 Thus, although Troilus remains faithful to Criseyde as an ideal courtly lover, his unbending adherence to the rules of the courtly love tradition goes too far, ultimately contributing to the loss of his beloved.

In consideration of Troilus’s overdone, idealistic adherence to the protocols of courtly love, the contrasting pragmatic view of love displayed by Pandarus throughout the poem appears to present a reasonable alternative. While Troilus suffers, longing for Criseyde in secrecy, Pandarus pragmatically works to realize the desire which Troilus has for Criseyde and to provide them with an opportunity to consum- mate their love. The realism and pragmatism with which Pandarus ap- proaches love are especially evident in Book Two when he attempts to persuade Criseyde to reciprocate Troilus’s love by telling her that she “make hym lyve or deye” by her decision.14 Pandarus also attends to the practical arrangements for Troilus and Criseyde to exchange letters and, eventually, to consummate their love. Near the end of Book Two, Pandarus, committed to action, works to arrange for Troilus and Criseyde to spend a night together with an elaborate plot which he takes pleasure in organizing. This is evidenced when the narrator states, “she com to dyner in hire pleyne entente. / But God and Pandare wist al what this mente,” indicating that Pandarus is the one working unobtrusively to make their meeting a reality.15 The pragmatism of Pandarus is further evidenced in Book Four when he learns of Criseyde’s imminent departure and attempts to console Troilus by suggesting that he elope with Criseyde or move on from her to pursue another woman. As a practical man of action, Pandarus urges Troilus to “with thy manhod letten al this grame” and “go ravysshe here,” so that he and Criseyde can remain together.16 Barry Windeatt reinforces this characterization of Pandarus, stating that he is “too much of a realist” to hope, like Troilus, that Criseyde will remain faithful and that their love will endure after she leaves Troy.17 While Troilus defers to his lady in keeping with the courtly love tradition, Pandarus recognizes that Criseyde will not return to Troy, and urges Troilus to act so that he may remain united with her. Thus, Pandarus’s pragmatic approach to love demonstrates his commitment to action, which Troilus lacks and which becomes a means of realizing the desire of the lovers to be together.

While this pragmatic approach to love which Pandarus demonstrates throughout the poem contributes to the realization of Troilus’s desire to win the affections of Criseyde, it becomes evident that he takes this approach too far, viewing love as a game rather than as a commitment. Pandarus’s preoccupation with the process of bringing Troilus and Criseyde together and the enjoyment which he draws from manipulating these lovers and arranging their clandestine meetings emphasizes that he views love as a means of entertainment. This is evident in Book Two when Pandarus converses with Criseyde and dramatically states that her decision to accept or reject Troilus’s affections will determine whether he lives or dies. As the dialogue continues, Pandarus takes further pleasure in manipulating Criseyde and convincing her to reciprocate Troilus’s love without compromising her honor, exaggerating his portrayal of Troilus as one “in whom that alle vertu list habounde” and as “the frendlieste man / Of gret estat that evere I saugh my lyve.”18 This enjoyment of manipulation is further evident in Book Three when the narrator states that, after Pandarus arranges for Troilus and Criseyde to spend a night together, he withdraws and “bar[s] the candel to the chymeneye,” indicating that he keeps a watchful eye on the lovers and vicariously delights in their union.19 Barry Windeatt further emphasizes Pandarus’s preoccupation with manipulation, stating that his “boldness [is] seasoned by the experience of a calculating spirit.”20 As this quotation indicates, Pandarus interferes in the lives of lovers and, unlike the inexperienced Troilus, is “seasoned” in manipulating language and circumstances to provoke these lovers to act on their desire to be together. The enjoyment which Pandarus draws from his treatment of love as a game is further evidenced in Book Four when he converses with Troilus, who laments the impending departure of Criseyde from Troy, and states: “if she be lost, we shal recovere an other.”21 Unlike Troilus, who commits himself entirely to his beloved Criseyde, Pandarus states that there are other eligible women whom he could similarly help Troilus to woo, indicating his preoccupation with the process of courtly love. From his own perspective as an unsuccessful courtly lover, focused on the game of courtly love rather than on winning, Pandarus states that Troilus should be satisfied that he has consummated his love with Criseyde, but now must move on from her. Thus, while the pragmatic approach of Pandarus to love effectively leads to action, his view of love as a game ignores the humanity of the lovers, treating them as pawns to be manipulated for his enjoyment rather than as individuals committing themselves to one another in love.

As the analysis of both Troilus and Pandarus indicates, these characters are foils to one another and, in comparison, illustrate con- trasting perspectives on love which present differing insights to the reader. While Troilus is a naive and idealistic courtly lover, Pandarus is pragmatic and preoccupied with manipulation, viewing love as a game. While Troilus remains faithful to Criseyde, deferring to her in all things, he adheres to the rules of the courtly love tradition to a fault, failing to act to prevent Criseyde’s departure and to move on when she betrays him. Pandarus, in contrast, succeeds in acting to realize the desires of the lovers with his planning, yet he interferes to a fault, manipulating Troilus and Criseyde as pawns in his game rather than viewing them as human lovers. Although both perspectives on love have strengths and shortcomings, when examined together they augment the insight which the reader receives regarding courtly love. Barry Windeatt emphasizes this reading of the poem, stating that, “the juxtaposition of idealization with practicality and opportunistic efficiency points to the limited reliability of either. ”22 Thus, in examining these characters and their contrasting perspectives on love, the reader recognizes that, despite certain positive insights on love which these views present, each lacks something when considered independently.

In examining the contrasting understandings of courtly love presented by both Troilus and Pandarus, many critics focus solely on the critique presented by one of these characters without considering the complementary points emphasized by the other character. Many critics, such as C. S. Lewis, read Troilus and Criseyde as a story which exemplifies the notion of idealized courtly love in action, following the story of Troilus as the ideal courtly lover. In his article on Il Filostrato, Lewis emphasizes that Chaucer adds more depth and complexity to Troilus and Criseyde and develops characters in a way that tells the reader something more about courtly love and human nature.23 In this article, Lewis asserts that Troilus epitomizes the ideal courtly lover within this poem, always remaining faithful to his lady and serving her. He makes no mention, however, of the shortcomings of this interpretation, which fails to recognize that in his stringent adherence to the boundaries of the courtly love tradition, Troilus actually contributes to his own loss of Criseyde and remains unable to move beyond his love for her. In contrast, some critics, such as Tison Pugh, focus more on the critique of courtly love in their reading of Troilus and Criseyde, pointing to the shortcomings of Pandarus, for example, and his view of love as a game. In his critical article on the poem, Pugh emphasizes that this work illustrates the cruelty of the characters as they attempt to fulfill their own desires within the “game” of the courtly love tradition.

He asserts that “the play of courtly love partakes in the chaos of the fallen world by masking performative cruelties” and points to Pandarus as an apparent culprit, whose “ruthlessness [is] atypical” in the exercise of courtly love.24 However, in his attempt to emphasize the cruelty, especially of Pandarus, and his methods of interfering to bring Troilus and Criseyde together as lovers, Pugh fails to acknowledge that despite his focus on love as a game, Pandarus makes the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde a reality by his interventions. Thus, in their respective readings of Troilus and Criseyde, each of these critics focuses primarily on one view of love rather than emphasizing the tension between these views, which necessitates an alternative perspective on love.

Although each of these views has merit, these critical under- standings fail to acknowledge that, in the end, Troilus and Pandarus are really not as different as they first appear to be. Both characters become so caught up in the process and the proper pursuit of courtly love that they fail to focus on the beloved herself as a person, an essential perspective for the formation of an enduring relationship. In a concurrent examination of the idealized character of Troilus and the pragmatic character of Pandarus, the reader recognizes that neither character’s view of love is entirely correct. The enduring faithfulness of Troilus to Criseyde and the commitment of Pandarus to making their relationship a reality indicates the need for elements of both idealism and practicality in courtly love. However, while both characters illustrate different protocols and aspects of the courtly love tradition, each is ultimately more committed to the process of courtly love than to Criseyde herself, the real object of their efforts. This misplaced focus of both Troilus and Pandarus in their dealings with courtly love draws their attention away from a proper focus on Criseyde herself as a human being and ultimately brings the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde to an untimely end. Thus, in examining the independently insufficient approaches of both Troilus and Pandarus to courtly love, the reader recognizes that it is only with a fundamental focus on the lover herself as a human being that an enduring and sincere relationship is possible.

Notes

1. Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, ed. Stephen A. Barney (New York: Nor- ton and Company, 2006), V.1696-1698.

2. Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, I.187-188.

3. Ibid, I.312-313.

4. Ibid, I.537.

5. Ibid, III.390-2.

6. “Courtly Love and Chivalry in the Later Middle Ages,” The Geoffrey Chaucer Page, accessed January 18, 2019, sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/lifemann/ love/ben-love.htm.

7. Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, III.427.

8. Ibid, V .1696-8.

9. Ibid, IV .1598-9.

10. Ibid, IV .6.

11. Ibid, IV .1609-10.

12. Barry Windeatt, Oxford Guides to Chaucer: Troilus and Criseyde (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 266.

13. Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, V.24.

14. Ibid, II.322.

15. Ibid, II.1560-1.

16. Ibid, IV .529-30.

17. Windeatt, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 294.

18. Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, II.159, 204-5.

19. Ibid, III.1141.

20. Windeatt, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 292.

21. Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, IV.406.

22. Windeatt, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 293.

23. C. S. Lewis, “What Chaucer Really Did to Il Filostrato,” in Essays and Studies 17 (1932), 56-75, repr. in Barney 1980, 451-64.

24. Tison Pugh, “Christian Revelation and the Cruel Game of Courtly Love in ‘Troilus and Criseyde,’” The Chaucer Review 39, no. 4 (2005): 379-401, accessed January 18, 2019, www.jstor.org/stable/25094300.