The story of Troilus, his love of Cressida and her betrayal of this love against the backdrop of the Trojan War is a European story, manifold told by many authors through the centuries. Troilus himself is a character from ancient times, first mentioned shortly in the Iliad, before Ovid picks up the theme in his Metamorphoses. The first version of the story as it is known today appears in the middle of the 12th century in Benoît de Sainte-Maure‘s "Roman de Troie". Giovanni Boccaccio‘s rewriting of the story in his "Il Filostrato" around 1340 increased its fame and had ‘the father of English literature‘ Geoffrey Chaucer base his epic poem "Troilus and Criseyde" (1380s) thereon.
Nowadays, we find ourselves thus confronted with a conglomerate of different aspects of the same story. The focus is sometimes set on the war themes, sometimes on the lovers, some authors target the love, some the betrayal. Contrary to other depictions, both in Chaucer and in Shakespeare Troilus himself is not a particular strong character. He displays a certain “hevinesse“, a reluctance to move and act according to his dreams and wishes that makes him appear very passive compared to other main characters. Chaucer pioneered in this way of describing his hero and Shakespeare followed his lead, both in the individual portrayal and in the general structure of their works. While each representation in itself is unconventional, it also represents important themes of each authors‘ individual time and age.
This paper sets out to analyze the origins of Troilus‘ display of passivity in love and war. Why are these two versions of Troilus so fundamentally different in their core when held against the example of earlier writers? And why do their heroes appear so weak and passive in their actions? Is this presentation a simple whim of Chaucer, repeated by Shakespeare, a plain weakness of character inane in their Troiluses or is there a method to his madness?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Themes of Passivity
2.1 Rationality Overwhelmed
2.2 Problems of Courtly Love
2.3 Passion Unbridled: The Loveris Maladye of Hereos
2.3.1 What was known to the authors?
2.3.2 Love Melancholy in Chaucer
2.3.3 Love Melancholy in Shakespeare
2.3.4 Fatalistic tendencies
3. Passivity Removed
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This academic paper explores the origins of Troilus’s characteristic passivity in both Geoffrey Chaucer’s "Troilus and Criseyde" and William Shakespeare’s "Troilus and Cressida," aiming to determine whether this behavior is an inherent character weakness or a deliberate narrative device reflecting the conventions of their respective eras.
- The influence of adolescent immaturity and experience on romantic perception.
- The practical failure of courtly code and chivalric ideals.
- Medical and humoral perspectives on love melancholy (amor hereos).
- The comparative role of fate and individual agency in the protagonists' actions.
- The evolution of the "Troilus" figure from medieval romance to Shakespearean drama.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Rationality Overwhelmed
When the reader first encounters Troilus, he finds himself at a very different position in each work. While Shakespeare starts in medias res with a Troilus already in love, already miserable, Chaucer‘s Troilus is yet unaffected. In both cases however, we encounter a brash, self-centered and prideful yet naive youth who in a princely attitude displays a condescending behavior towards his surrounding. In Chaucer this is displayed through the manner Troilus is first presented.
He is riding confidently, self-assured through firm beliefs and his knightly company. And while riding, he begins to loudly mock all lovers as well as their patron god: “O veray fooles, nyce and blynde be ye!“ (I.202). He is presented as someone “who believes that truth derives from a substantial relation between term and object, and that his will and heart are firmly subject to his reason“, that “he himself can avoid becoming a thrall to desire because desire should have no power over reason“ (Hill 26-8).
Thus, with youthful unconcern, he is actively taking notice of the women around him, even if it comes from the distant evaluation of “preise and lakken“. The scene emphasizes both his strong male posturing and his naiveté towards the world for a last time, before his concept of the world order together with his rationality is shattered as his gaze settles on Criseyde: “And upon cas bifel that thorugh a route/ his eyes percede, and so depe wente,/ til on Criseyde is smot, and ther it stente“ (I.271-3). Here he is stopped by power of her glance, feeling “rigth with hire look thorugh-shoten and thorugh-darted“ (I. 325). Already in this moment it can be observed that not all is as it should be. In traditional romances the hunting metaphor in her language is always attributed to the male lover, the one who takes the active part in establishing a relationship.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Provides an overview of the literary history of the Troilus story and introduces the central analysis of the protagonist's passivity.
2. Themes of Passivity: Examines the various factors contributing to Troilus's inability to act, including the loss of rationality and the failure of courtly ideals.
2.1 Rationality Overwhelmed: Compares how Chaucer and Shakespeare depict the initial disruption of the hero’s rational mind upon falling in love.
2.2 Problems of Courtly Love: Analyzes how the outdated chivalric code contributes to the characters' struggles and perceived identity crises.
2.3 Passion Unbridled: The Loveris Maladye of Hereos: Discusses the medical context of love sickness (amor hereos) and how both authors incorporated these concepts into their narratives.
2.3.1 What was known to the authors?: Outlines the historical and medical understanding of melancholy and humors available to both poets.
2.3.2 Love Melancholy in Chaucer: Focuses on the specific manifestations of lovesickness and the role of Pandarus in Chaucer’s work.
2.3.3 Love Melancholy in Shakespeare: Explores how Shakespeare treats melancholy more as a mood and reflects a broader absence of emotional sincerity.
2.3.4 Fatalistic tendencies: Investigates the tendency of both Troilus versions to blame fate for their personal inability to act.
3. Passivity Removed: Evaluates the transformation of the characters after they face betrayal and the subsequent shifts in their behavior.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, concluding that both authors used the trope of passivity to depict the hero’s struggle with identity and human potential.
Keywords
Troilus, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Passivity, Love Melancholy, Amor Hereos, Courtly Love, Chivalry, Humoral Theory, Identity, Betrayal, Rationality, Literature, Renaissance, Middle Ages.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic work?
The paper focuses on the character of Troilus in the works of Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare, specifically analyzing the origins and nature of his "passivity" in love and war.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The analysis spans the decline of the chivalric code, the historical medical theory of love melancholy, the influence of early modern psychology, and the comparative character development across centuries.
What is the core research question?
The paper asks whether Troilus's passivity and apparent weakness are merely narrative whims of the authors, simple character flaws, or calculated methods to depict the struggle of individuals against overwhelming passion and societal expectations.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The work utilizes a comparative literary and historical analysis, drawing on medical sources from the period, courtly love conventions, and secondary criticism to provide a contextualized reading of both texts.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers the initial stages of love and the resulting loss of rationality, the struggle with courtly love ideals, the clinical aspects of "love sickness," and the eventual re-emergence of the hero through themes of revenge and disillusionment.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
The study is best characterized by terms such as Troilus, love melancholy, passivity, chivalry, humoral theory, and literary comparative analysis.
How does Shakespeare’s version of Troilus differ from Chaucer’s in terms of melancholy?
While Chaucer uses medical and humoral theories to characterize Troilus's lovesickness as a genuine pathology, Shakespeare treats the melancholy of his hero more as a moody, existential state reflecting a general absence of emotional sincerity.
What role does Pandarus play in the protagonists' recovery?
In both versions, Pandarus acts as a go-between who adapts to a doctor-like role, attempting to manage the hero's sickness through social maneuvering and the arrangement of encounters.
Why do the protagonists resort to fatalistic explanations?
The protagonists often blame fate, the "wheel of time," or gods to evade personal responsibility for their inability to act decisively when faced with the complexities of their situations.
What is the significance of the "Passivity Removed" chapter?
This section tracks the hero's transition from passive misery to a state of resolved, albeit disillusioned, action as a direct response to Cressida’s betrayal.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Imke Fischer (Autor:in), 2017, A Cause Study on Troilus' Passivity in Shakespeare and Chaucer, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/376741
