Troilus and Criseyde

54 pages • 1 hour read

Troilus and Criseyde

Fiction | Novel/Book in Verse | Adult | Published in 1385

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Book 4

Book 5

Character Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

The Tension Between Free Will and Divine Providence

Fate and divine providence is a major thematic concern in Troilus and Criseyde. Throughout the text, Chaucer explores the question of whether mortals can control their own destiny or whether everything that happens is divinely predetermined. This theme intersects with the romantic story, as Chaucer implies that humans have little choice in who they love, being subject to the power of their own natures or the will of the gods.

From the beginning of the text, the idea of fate drives the plot. Criseyde’s independent but precarious social position in Troy is the result of her father’s ability to see the future: Calkas uses astronomical calculations to determine with certainty that Troy will lose the war, and this foreknowledge leads him to desert the city, leaving his daughter in charge of her own life and fortunes as young women of her time and place rarely were. Calkas’s choice to desert Troy and join its enemies is a drastic one, driven by his certainty that nothing anyone can do will change the war’s preordained outcome. At the same time, this knowledge grants him a freedom of choice that others do not have—knowing what will happen to Troy, he can choose to disregard honor and save himself by joining the winning side.

In the world of Troilus and Criseyde, romantic love is the clearest evidence that individual free will may be illusory. Troilus’s desire for Criseyde is certainly an expression of will: He wants to be in her presence at all times, and he schemes and plans to bring about their union. Whether that will can be described as free, however, is a separate question. He does not choose to love Criseyde—his insatiable desire is imposed on him by an outside force (the god of love), and its irresistible power drives all his actions.

Chaucer ties together the idea of divine providence and nature in his description of the moment that Troilus falls in love with Criseyde. The language calls attention to Troilus’ powerlessness to resist love, indicating that despite his power as a nobleman and as a warrior, he is nothing more than a servant to the god of love. Chaucer warns that “[l]ove is he that alle thing may bynde, / For may no man fordon the lawe of kynde” (1.237-38). The word kynde in Middle English typically means “nature” or the intrinsic temperament of a person, and Chaucer therefore suggests that love is irresistible rather than the result of choice: To love is part of human nature, and it is part of each individual’s specific nature to love certain specific person(s). Nature itself becomes a form of destiny, with the stars and the desires of the body forcing characters to act in particular ways.

Later in the poem, Troilus begins to question the idea of fate and divine providence. During his prayer to Jove in the temple, he paraphrases arguments made by the philosopher Boethius concerning the role of free will and preordination in life. Troilus asserts his belief that his doomed love for Criseyde is predestined:

‘For certainly, this wot I wel,’ he seyde,

‘That foresight of divine purveyaunce

Hath seyn alwey me to forgon Criseyde,

Syn God seeth every thyng, out of doutance,

And hem disponyth, thorugh his ordinaunce

As they shul comen by predestyne’ (4.960-66).

While he reasons that fate must have doomed his love for Criseyde from the beginning since it is not possible for God to make mistakes or be ignorant, he also mentions that many philosophers do not believe in predestination at all: “[S]om men seyn that nedely ther is noon, / But that fre chois is yeven us everychon” (4.971). His attempts to synthesize the idea of predestination and free will cause him great confusion and lead him to the fatalistic conclusion “[t]hat thilke thynges that in erthe falle, / that by necessite they comen alle” (4.1049-50). Essentially, Troilus decides that humans are powerless to subvert their destiny, even if it is a tragic one.

However, the ending of the poem seems to open up a new possibility—Troilus’ posthumous revelation about the cosmos. After Troilus is slain in battle by Achilles, he ascends to the heavens, and from that vantage point, “he lough right at the wo / of hem that wepten for his deth so faste” (5.1821-22). This striking reaction—laughing at those weeping for his death—suggests that Troilus has found a new perspective on his own unhappy destiny. Rather than seeing his doomed romance as an unavoidable tragic fate, Troilus realizes that the path of his immortal soul toward heavenly virtue is far more significant. While he may not have had the power to change his earthly fate, he chose to behave in a virtuous manner and therefore achieved eternal salvation. This ending implies that free will does play a role in a divinely preordained universe because it impacts the condition of the immortal soul, rather than the outcome of an earthly existence ruled by nature. Just as Calkas makes a morally consequential choice (to desert his city) based on what he knows about unchangeable destiny, Troilus too exerts free will in choosing how to act in the face of what he cannot change.

The Paradoxical Nature of Love

Throughout Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer explores the paradoxical nature of love, using contradictory language to emphasize how love can bring about both great happiness and great sadness. For example, when Pandarus brings a love note from Troilus to Criseyde, he states, “I have a joly wo, a lusty sorwe” (2.1099). These words are antonyms, meaning the opposite of one another, but Chaucer uses them in combination to point out the oxymoronic and irrational state of a lover. Because the poem is a tragic love story, Chaucer foreshadows the coming disaster by hinting at the ways that love brings about suffering as well as pleasure. This oxymoronic language describing love is a common trope in medieval literature, but Chaucer utilizes it here to emphasize how love is involuntary and irrational. Because the lover is powerless to change his feelings even as they bring him pain, the paradox of love also calls into question the existence of free will. The personification of love as a god who fires an arrow into the lover’s eye emphasizes the degree to which the lover is not in control of his own feelings or, perhaps, actions.

When Troilus first falls in love with Criseyde, he finds the experience painful and punishing rather than joyful. He weeps often and becomes unable to sleep or eat, and others mistake his romantic pining for physical illness. Troilus notices this painful reaction and questions why people desire love when it is so painful, asking,

If love be good, from whennes cometh my woo?

if it be wikke, a wonder thynketh me,

When every torment and adversite

that cometh of hym may to me savory thinke,

For ay thurst I, the more that ich it drynke (1.403-06).

Troilus’ speech compares the paradox of love to a drink that increases his thirst, causing him to crave more despite the pain it causes him. This irrational condition signifies how love is opposed to reason.

This metaphor of love as a drink that tastes bitter and yet is desirable recurs throughout the poem. Pandarus tries to convince Troilus that he will be able to provide wisdom about love despite having been unsuccessful in love himself by arguing, “For how myghte evere swetnesse han ben knowe / To him that nevere tasted bitternesse?” (1.638-39). Chaucer thus rationalizes that experiencing hardship and woe is actually beneficial, as it can teach a person to be happier later in life. Troilus’ suffering only serves to make his later joy more potent when he manages to successfully woo Criseyde. The oxymoronic language used to describe love also indicates that the suffering inherent in love is healing in the same way that medicine is. When Troilus and Criseyde come together as lovers, Troilus recognizes that the pain he previously felt due to love was actually curative:

O, sooth is seyd, that heled for to be

As of a fevre or other gret siknesse,

Men most drynke, as men may ofte se

Ful bittre drynke; and for to han gladnesse

Men drynken ofte peyne and gret distresse (3.1212-16).

By comparing the bitterness of love to medicine, Chaucer implies that love’s oxymoronic nature is a key feature of the way that it helps elevate the soul toward virtue.

Women’s Agency in Patriarchy

Troilus and Criseyde develops the theme of women’s agency in a patriarchal society primarily through the character Criseyde and her internal monologues. Chaucer’s portrayal of Criseyde is more sympathetic than earlier versions of the story—notably, the version found in Boccaccio’s Il Filostrato, which was Chaucer’s primary source. Unlike Boccaccio, Chaucer frames Criseyde’s motivations in terms of her desire for sovereignty and control over her own life rather than simple romantic infidelity. Her final betrayal signifies her ultimate choice to place rational concerns with safety, stability, and survival over the irrational feelings of her heart.

When Criseyde first learns that Troilus is in love with her, she reacts with horror and distress rather than joy. She explains her feelings to Pandarus and through her own internal monologue, revealing that she is neither cold nor callous, but rather concerned with the lack of control that women have in marriage. Criseyde is highly aware of the power imbalance between herself and Troilus, declaring, “A kynges sone although ye be, ywys, / Ye shal nemore han sovereignete / Of me in love, than right in that cas is” (2.170-73). While she knows that he holds political power over her due to his rank, she resolves to at least maintain her own freedom in love by refusing him. Chaucer had an abiding interest in how women seek to negotiate some autonomy within the patriarchal structure of marriage—this question is explored again in the later Canterbury Tales, particularly in “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” and “The Clerk’s Tale.”

Similarly, Criseyde worries about taking any husband due to the constraints placed on women by male jealousy and by the impunity with which powerful men could commit infidelity. She enjoys having control over her own estate and social life, comparing marriage to losing a game of chess:

I am myn owene womman, wel at ese—

I thank it God—as after myn estat,

Right yong, and stonde unteyde in lusty leese,

Withouten jalousie or swich debat:

Shal noon housbonde seyn to me ‘Chek mat!’

For either they ben ful of jalousie,

Or maisterfull, or loven novelrie (2.750-56).

While Criseyde does eventually fall in love with Troilus, it is only after she has scolded him for his jealousy and seen clear evidence that he is a devoted and respectful lover. Even then, she refuses to run away with him after her father bargains for her transfer to the Greeks because she recognizes the importance for both of them of keeping their property, estate, and social position.

Criseyde’s betrayal and her romantic relationship with Diomede are portrayed more as rational decisions to ensure her survival rather than as a romantic infatuation. Chaucer emphasizes that Criseyde is emotionally devastated by leaving Troilus and that she only begins to consider Diomede’s offer after he argues that Troy will inevitably be destroyed in the war. Chaucer explicitly calls attention to the debate over whether Criseyde ever loved Diomede, placing his interpretation in opposition to the common consensus when he concludes, “Men seyn—I not—that she yaf hym hire herte” (5.1050). By indicating that it is not truly known whether Criseyde fell in love with Diomede, Chaucer leaves ample room for doubt. This rhetorical gesture indicates his own authorial distance and allows him to paint Criseyde in a more sympathetic light than other authors.