102histlitresponse

HC 102H, Honors College World Literature

Criseyde as privileged

> As a woman in a patriarchal society, Criseyde enjoyed priveleges

>most women definitely did not: she was shown respect from the royalty of

>Troy, honored by all, and was independently wealthy, allowing her the

>luxury of frolicking with little girls all day and picking dandelions.

Remember two things from the text: first, reread Pandarus's plot with Deiphebus (book 1, beginning with stanza 200). Pandarus gets Deiphebus, already allied to Troilus through blood, to organize political support for Criseyde. Why does Pandarus use this stratagem? Because it's utterly probable (remember Aristotle) to believe that Criseyde has enemies in Troy. She is in a tenuous situation, with a traitorous father who is, nevertheless, part of Trojan nobility. As we mentioned in class, conflicts between loyalties show up a lot in medieval (and also classical) literature precisely because loyalty isn't really made of the kind of simplistic, cartoon-like characteristics we associate with Sylvester Stallone movies. Instead, loyalty is a complicated business. Maybe because I watched the state of the union speech the other night, I think of Chelsea Clinton. Who's she supposed to be loyal to? How do you balance loyalties? Are any loyalties absolute? Secondly, tell me which characters from this text do more than attend dinner parties and plot intrigues? Criseyde's behavior is not unique, but conventional. More pointedly, as Corrie's note mentioned, noble women's circumscribed activities have a long history. Top of page

Troilus following Criseyde's direction

>When Troilus DID eventually get into a relationship with her, it was

>because he followed every guideline provided by the bestial bitch, pardon

>my French.

Textual details make or break this case: what were the guidelines Criseyde provided? I've not good textual evidence for those. What's not hard to find are the guidelines Pandarus provided: he virtually writes their love letters for them. Attention to the text will, I think, paint Pandarus as guideline-provider rather than Criseyde. That is, of course, Chaucer's intent: again, he complicates, rather than simplifies. The reductive phrase "bestial bitch" is inaccurate and unnecessary, let alone obnoxious.

Criseyde's real love

> As for her not falling head over heels in love with Troilus as he

>did with her, then what was with the fainting? And spare the "Frailty, thy

>name is woman" rubbish.

In this you agree with Corrie: "The book makes it clear that she did love Troilus. . . ."

Criseyde a widow

> Furthermore, I don't find Criseyde a wiser woman

>because she's been banged before:

First, sexist language is downright childish. Second, Criseyde's wisdom has less to do with sex (that's more of a primitive Gilgamesh kind of thought) than it has to do with her experience of loss and having to go on (she's not divorced: her husband died). Your partner's death is more significant than carnal knowledge (and actually, Gilgamesh knows that, too). Top of page

Evaluating Criseyde's change of heart

>that doesn't excuse her apparent

>heartlessness in getting over a three year love in two months, all for a

>sleazy Greek.

Look at how Chaucer portrays Criseyde's heartlessness: see book V, stanzas 99 to 106. He's making sure that we see that Criseyde is suffering: "In all the world there is no heart so cruel, / Had it but heard her thus lament her sorrow, / But would have also wept at the renewal / Of tender tears . . . And yet, sharper than any grief beside, / There was no soul in whom she dared confide" (104). Chaucer then has Criseyde lament her lack of prudence (meaning judgment, perspicacity) in allowing herself to become Troilus's lover (107): she should have resisted his advances, despite her uncle's pleas, despite Troilus's position as prince. Yet we as readers have seen (again, as Corrie points out) both Criseyde's internal battle deciding what to do regarding the possibility of taking Troilus as a lover, as well as the arsenal of persuasion brought to bear upon her by her uncle Pandarus (he'll die, as will Troilus, unless she grants him her love). We are certainly given Diomede as a conniver; is it possible that Chaucer is leading us to compare Diomede with Pandarus? Check the text; use specific textual evidence for your assertions.

Criseyde's choosing to do well

>I'll say this much for Criseyde: she does very well for

>herself where ever she goes.

Criseyde's freedom means she can make choices. Should she have chosen to deny Troilus? Then she'd be accused of unwomanliness (a charge which she herself recognizes in saying she couldn't be a nun, book II, stanza 109). How would her rejection have ended up? Would Pandarus have plied her all the more assiduously? More importantly, is the text, through its details, calling attention to the matrix of choice? How do we make our choices? The Bhagavad-Gita tells Arjuna he must act, even though his actions mean the obliteration of his family. How do we choose our actions, especially in a politically-inflected, love-happy world? To evaluate your assertion that Criseyde does very well, I ask for textual evidence detailing how this text measures success: is the laughing Troilus at the poem's end the signal of success? Compare Criseyde's success to Pandarus's (this last bit will become very interesting when we read Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida): what does the text say? Top of page

Making decisions

> About filial piety: that's all well and good, but she mentioned

>earlier she didn't give a rat's putooty whether or not he even lived, and

>considered running away with Troilus had he asked.

See book IV, stanzas 225-6, where Criseyde says why running away is a bad idea, the equivalent of "grief and sin." You're right that they talk about it; in fact, so much of the effect of this poem turns on the careful, detailed examinations both Troilus and Criseyde provide in debating their decisions. Most tellingly, Boethian fate hovers over the text as a challenge to all human efforts at success. Don't you think that, unlike (for instance) the kind of mad-dash juvenile love of a Romeo and Juliet, this poem aims for a different effect, one where, when things go wrong, it's both harder to blame fate ("star-crossed lovers") and harder to just say, "Oh, Troilus and/or Criseyde were just idiots"? That to posit such an unsophisticated, knee-jerk reaction totally misses the point of the text?

Calkas and Criseyde

>Something needs to be

>clarified: if filial piety is so strong in this realm, than how is it

>Calkas ditched Criseyde without a second thought?

It was not without a second thought. In Chaucer's source, Calchas had tried to get the Trojans to give him Criseyde, yet they (or some of them--it's a controversy, you see, not something that's entirely apparent) see Criseyde as honorable and want her to stay in Troy. Or, as Criseyde herself implies, perhaps she's a kind of political prisoner, ostensibly buying her father's "faithfulness" (Troy hasn't been destroyed yet) as long as she's NOT in the Greek camp. For Chaucer's noble audience, these vagaries of the political climate, the need to make alliances, the ever-shifting fortunes of noble families define their lives. Are you beginning to see how extraordinarily complicated these political situations are? Chaucer is giving you credit for subtlety in thinking about love, about character, and about politics. Top of page

Filial piety and politics

>Not to mention, who in

>Troy would even give a shit that she was fulfilling such piety, when the

>one she was honoring had so thoroughly dishonored everyone in her city?

Back to Chelsea Clinton. Back to conflicting loyalties. Back to shifting political winds. Try not to swear.

Concerned with returning

>Her motives are more selfish than I think everyone is assuming. No, I

>don't know why she went, but she certainly had a good enough time there

>that she wasn't too concerned with returning.

The poem, of course, says otherwise. See book IV, stanza 125, where purple rings circle her eyes from the pain of the news, or stanza 129, where she says Troilus's pain doubles hers, or book V, stanza 102 which, after describing her wasted limbs and pale face, calls her "a creature full of grief." She's pointed out in stanza 100 that Calkas seems impervious, in 101 that, if she tries to steal away by herself, she could be raped or killed. She tortures herself in 103, recognizing with full force how much she's losing in Troilus; her suffering is again detailed in 124 where she's described as clueless about Diomede; while she's said to be firm in 137 and 144, she's also a woman in the greatest woe ever because she's been false (stanza 151). Perhaps, with our 90s ears, we hear all of this as snide and ironic; if that's the case, then there's no way any poet will ever be able to portray true love. Top of page

Gendered assumptions, gendered advice

> Wily wench Criseyde is, indeed.

I recommend considering Pandarus's advice to Troilus: these line follow Troilus's lament about necessity; Pandarus has arrived to arrange a final assignation between the lovers:

Haven't you lived for many years, dear brother,
Without her, happily and well at ease?
And were you born for her and for no other?
Did nature only fashion you to please
Criseyde? You should be thinking thoughts like these;
Just as with dice chance governs every throw
So too with love; its pleasures come and go. (IV, 157)

Why does Chaucer have Pandarus say this to Troilus? Is this good, or bad advice? The point: close reading of textual evidence makes all the difference to a reasoned argument. And let's use language as a precision instrument, rather than a blunderbuss.