What do you think?
Rate this book
Troilus and Criseyde: A Norton Critical Edition
This Norton Critical Edition of Chaucer’s masterpiece is based on Stephen Barney’s acclaimed text and is accompanied by a translation of its major source, Boccaccio’s Filostrato.
The editor’s lucid introduction, marginal glosses, and explanatory annotations make Troilus and Criseyde easily accessible to students with no prior knowledge of Chaucer or Middle English. Also included is Robert Henryson’s Testament of Cresseid, the poignant "sequel" to Troilus and Criseyde from fifteenth-century Scotland.
"Criticism" includes ten essays by a diverse group of distinguished Chaucerians, among them C. S. Lewis, E. Talbot Donaldson, Karla Taylor, Lee Patterson, and Jill Mann, that illuminate the major scholarly issues raised by this complex and challenging poem.
A Glossary and Selected Bibliography are also included.
The editor’s lucid introduction, marginal glosses, and explanatory annotations make Troilus and Criseyde easily accessible to students with no prior knowledge of Chaucer or Middle English. Also included is Robert Henryson’s Testament of Cresseid, the poignant "sequel" to Troilus and Criseyde from fifteenth-century Scotland.
"Criticism" includes ten essays by a diverse group of distinguished Chaucerians, among them C. S. Lewis, E. Talbot Donaldson, Karla Taylor, Lee Patterson, and Jill Mann, that illuminate the major scholarly issues raised by this complex and challenging poem.
A Glossary and Selected Bibliography are also included.
628 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1385
203 people are currently reading
6630 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 384 reviews
Read
August 24, 2020Somewhere, maybe on the back cover of this very book, the opinion was quoted that this was a book that because of the nature of the story it was painful to read a second time. I thought this was over the top, but having read it, I find myself in the same position. One goes on a journey and its inevitability - because Chaucer makes the reader into Cassandra, you know what is going to happen, but mysteriously the characters don't listen to you - is painful.
Well, what story is this then? Set long ago and far away during the Trojan war , a war so long that anything could happen during it, a man and a woman love each other and then their relationship ends. Because in ancient Trojan times as imagined by a medieval London poet with a day job in the customs service it was rather difficult for unmarried young people of knightly status to spend time together the relationship is difficult to consummate but thanks to the pandering efforts of Troilus' friend Pandarus the impossible is managed but to no lasting benefit because due to a dasterdly prisoner exchange the lovers are separated.
Eventually
Well, what story is this then? Set long ago and far away during the Trojan war , a war so long that anything could happen during it, a man and a woman love each other and then their relationship ends. Because in ancient Trojan times as imagined by a medieval London poet with a day job in the customs service it was rather difficult for unmarried young people of knightly status to spend time together the relationship is difficult to consummate but thanks to the pandering efforts of Troilus' friend Pandarus the impossible is managed but to no lasting benefit because due to a dasterdly prisoner exchange the lovers are separated.
Eventually
September 13, 2018
Pandarus: Original creepy uncle. Criseyde: Actually pretty defensible considering the circusmstances. Troilus: Does nothing but cry. Chaucer: Makes the Trojan War more boring than Bingo night at the local nursing home.
Update 9/13/18: Still convinced it might be the most tedious poem of all time.
Update 9/13/18: Still convinced it might be the most tedious poem of all time.
March 8, 2015
A medieval romantic tale of love destroyed by war
18 May 2012
The story of Troilus and Criseyde (I will use that Chaucerian as opposed to the Shakespearian spelling here) dates back only a far as the middle ages, despite it being set during the Trojan War. The interesting thing is that while Troilus does appear in the Iliad, this particular story does not. I will briefly recount the story as I suspect people are not too familiar with it. I also suspect that it is not the style of romantic comedy people would appreciate today. Well, I will call it a comedy, despite difficulty in finding anything funny in the poem, but that probably has more to do with it not being the easiest story to read.
Anyway, Troilus is the son of Priam, king of Troy, and Criseyde is a high born woman of Trojan origin. Initially Troilus is a warrior through and through, and claims to have no time for love, especially during a war. However, it is not that he meets Criseyde (for in those times, even in a city like Troy, you would probably know everybody anyway), but that he first looks on Criseyde and discovers her beauty and thus falls in love. This is a very intense, sickness causing, love, but fortunately, for a time, Criseyde responds to his advances (though this has a lot to do with Troilus' friend and matchmaker Pander). However it is not a happily ever after type love, as Criseyde's father defects to the Greek camp, and Criseyde is swapped for a prisoner being held by the Greeks, and then in turn is married to the Greek Diomede. In the end, or at least in the original, Troilus was killed by Achillies.
This is a romantic poem, pure and simple, and is a beautiful example of English Renaissance poetry, though one should consider that the period in which it was written, the 14th Century, England had not entered the Renaissance. Chaucer, however, had for he had travelled to Italy and spent time with Boccaccio (who was famous for the Decameron, the book upon which Chaucer's Cantabury Tales was based upon). The poem is also a tragedy, but not because of any fatal flaw (though one might argue that Troilus' fatal flaw is his obsession with Criseyde), but is rather the tragedy of a love that is torn apart by war. What struck me as I was reading this book was that I feel that this book was the beginning of the Renaissance in England (though it would not take off until at least two hundred years later) and in travelling to Italy, Chaucer brought back some of the earlier Renaissance ideas.
Now, Chaucer, and in fact many Europeans of the time, did not know Greek. Many of the Greek speakers, and even the Greek texts, were still in Byzantine libraries, and it would be another fifty to seventy years before the likes of Machiavelli, Michaelangelo, and Dante, appeared on the scene. Now, to put the book in context, it was written around 1380, which at the time England was engaged in a 100 year long war with France (though the war was not continuous = rather a series of campaigns that occurred over a period of 117 years). At the time the heroes of the first period of the war, Edward III and the Black Prince, and died, and Richard II was currently on the throne (though he was not a particularly good king). The use of Troy also conjured up images of patriotism as it was believed, even at that time, that the original Englishmen were descended from a man named Brutus who had left Aenias to establish his own colony.
Chaucer didn't know Greek, but then again neither did Shakespeare. The more modern languages had by this time begun to supersede Latin as the written language (and this poem was written in English, though not the English that we know), however most educated people of the time could read Latin, which means that Chaucer had access to texts like Virgil and Ovid (and he even attributes his work to them at the end of the poem). Granted, they would have known Homer (and once again, Homer also appears by name in the poem) however he did not have access to the original Greek (and I am unsure if there were any Latin translations). However, while he did not have access to Homer, he did have access to Ovid, and we see quite a few allusions to the Metamorphoses throughout the poem.
One of the reasons I mention this is because the poem falls into the category of a literary epic. A literary epic is an epic poem in the style of the Iliad, but unlike the Illiad it was originally written down. While these days all of the epic poems that we have have been written down, when you read the Odyssey you will see a number of recurring styles that suggest that is was originally a spoken poem. There is also the use of the epic simile, which is simply a very long and descriptive phrase. To be honest, we really only know of three true epic poems, two of them are Greek and one is German (the Nibelungenlied, though I am not sure whether that poem is truly an epic), though I should also make mention of Beowulf and the Song of Roland, so maybe there are five. However, being cheeky, I would also suggest that Paradise Lost is also a true epic, even if only for the reason that Milton dictated the poem to his daughter (he was blind so he could not easily write, however isn't it interesting that both Homer and Milton were blind poets, that says something about Milton).
Another convention in an epic is the term 'invoking the Muses'. The Muses were Greek spirits that would inspire artistic ability in people and what simply began as a mere religious exercise before writing something has come down to us as a literary convention. In a way invoking the Muses is very much like a Christian saying a prayer before embarking on a journey or a project. Chaucer does something slightly, or actually very, different here and that is that he invokes the Furies. Now the Furies are the closest in Greek mythology to what we would call a demon. They are quite nasty creatures, and if you are familiar with Greek literature and mythology, you would know that one appearance of the Furies was after Orestes killed his mother, and was tormented by them until he was found innocent of the crime of matricide (or rather that his duty as a son to avenge the death of his father overrid the crime of matricide). It has been suggested that the reason Chaucer changed the convention was because this story was much bleaker and darker than other stories where the Muses were invoked.
18 May 2012
The story of Troilus and Criseyde (I will use that Chaucerian as opposed to the Shakespearian spelling here) dates back only a far as the middle ages, despite it being set during the Trojan War. The interesting thing is that while Troilus does appear in the Iliad, this particular story does not. I will briefly recount the story as I suspect people are not too familiar with it. I also suspect that it is not the style of romantic comedy people would appreciate today. Well, I will call it a comedy, despite difficulty in finding anything funny in the poem, but that probably has more to do with it not being the easiest story to read.
Anyway, Troilus is the son of Priam, king of Troy, and Criseyde is a high born woman of Trojan origin. Initially Troilus is a warrior through and through, and claims to have no time for love, especially during a war. However, it is not that he meets Criseyde (for in those times, even in a city like Troy, you would probably know everybody anyway), but that he first looks on Criseyde and discovers her beauty and thus falls in love. This is a very intense, sickness causing, love, but fortunately, for a time, Criseyde responds to his advances (though this has a lot to do with Troilus' friend and matchmaker Pander). However it is not a happily ever after type love, as Criseyde's father defects to the Greek camp, and Criseyde is swapped for a prisoner being held by the Greeks, and then in turn is married to the Greek Diomede. In the end, or at least in the original, Troilus was killed by Achillies.
This is a romantic poem, pure and simple, and is a beautiful example of English Renaissance poetry, though one should consider that the period in which it was written, the 14th Century, England had not entered the Renaissance. Chaucer, however, had for he had travelled to Italy and spent time with Boccaccio (who was famous for the Decameron, the book upon which Chaucer's Cantabury Tales was based upon). The poem is also a tragedy, but not because of any fatal flaw (though one might argue that Troilus' fatal flaw is his obsession with Criseyde), but is rather the tragedy of a love that is torn apart by war. What struck me as I was reading this book was that I feel that this book was the beginning of the Renaissance in England (though it would not take off until at least two hundred years later) and in travelling to Italy, Chaucer brought back some of the earlier Renaissance ideas.
Now, Chaucer, and in fact many Europeans of the time, did not know Greek. Many of the Greek speakers, and even the Greek texts, were still in Byzantine libraries, and it would be another fifty to seventy years before the likes of Machiavelli, Michaelangelo, and Dante, appeared on the scene. Now, to put the book in context, it was written around 1380, which at the time England was engaged in a 100 year long war with France (though the war was not continuous = rather a series of campaigns that occurred over a period of 117 years). At the time the heroes of the first period of the war, Edward III and the Black Prince, and died, and Richard II was currently on the throne (though he was not a particularly good king). The use of Troy also conjured up images of patriotism as it was believed, even at that time, that the original Englishmen were descended from a man named Brutus who had left Aenias to establish his own colony.
Chaucer didn't know Greek, but then again neither did Shakespeare. The more modern languages had by this time begun to supersede Latin as the written language (and this poem was written in English, though not the English that we know), however most educated people of the time could read Latin, which means that Chaucer had access to texts like Virgil and Ovid (and he even attributes his work to them at the end of the poem). Granted, they would have known Homer (and once again, Homer also appears by name in the poem) however he did not have access to the original Greek (and I am unsure if there were any Latin translations). However, while he did not have access to Homer, he did have access to Ovid, and we see quite a few allusions to the Metamorphoses throughout the poem.
One of the reasons I mention this is because the poem falls into the category of a literary epic. A literary epic is an epic poem in the style of the Iliad, but unlike the Illiad it was originally written down. While these days all of the epic poems that we have have been written down, when you read the Odyssey you will see a number of recurring styles that suggest that is was originally a spoken poem. There is also the use of the epic simile, which is simply a very long and descriptive phrase. To be honest, we really only know of three true epic poems, two of them are Greek and one is German (the Nibelungenlied, though I am not sure whether that poem is truly an epic), though I should also make mention of Beowulf and the Song of Roland, so maybe there are five. However, being cheeky, I would also suggest that Paradise Lost is also a true epic, even if only for the reason that Milton dictated the poem to his daughter (he was blind so he could not easily write, however isn't it interesting that both Homer and Milton were blind poets, that says something about Milton).
Another convention in an epic is the term 'invoking the Muses'. The Muses were Greek spirits that would inspire artistic ability in people and what simply began as a mere religious exercise before writing something has come down to us as a literary convention. In a way invoking the Muses is very much like a Christian saying a prayer before embarking on a journey or a project. Chaucer does something slightly, or actually very, different here and that is that he invokes the Furies. Now the Furies are the closest in Greek mythology to what we would call a demon. They are quite nasty creatures, and if you are familiar with Greek literature and mythology, you would know that one appearance of the Furies was after Orestes killed his mother, and was tormented by them until he was found innocent of the crime of matricide (or rather that his duty as a son to avenge the death of his father overrid the crime of matricide). It has been suggested that the reason Chaucer changed the convention was because this story was much bleaker and darker than other stories where the Muses were invoked.
June 21, 2019
I Do Feel Terrible
Yes, I really do feel terrible about not being able to chime in with the exuberant praise most readers of Chaucer’s poem Troilus and Criseyde heap upon this work of art. And not being able to share the general enthusiasm about that love story set in the chaos of the Trojan War, I am even much farther from subscribing to the judgment of those who consider it Chaucer’s masterpiece because that honorary title goes to The Canterbury Tales as far as I am concerned. They may be an utterly ambitious enterprise, doomed to remain incomplete from the very start, but still this opus magnum shows Chaucer’s ability to adopt a wide variety of styles – chivalric, romantic, bawdy, eerie, witty, the list being endless – and with the exception of the Parson’s Tale, I enjoyed every single word of it.
Not so with Troilus and Criseyde. Of course, there is an incredible freshness and vivacity in Chaucer’s style, and it is breath-taking to read the dialogues between Pandarus and his niece, for instance, and marvel at the cunning with which this guileful match-maker slowly gets the better of the damsel’s doubts. Apart from that, the beauty and power of Chaucer’s poetry cannot be ignored. Just look at this:
And yet, unlike The Canterbury Tales, this poem strained my patience after a while because five books of courtly romance are at least as daunting a feat as the walls of Troy themselves and since there is no grain of humour immersed in any single line – no Wife of Bath, for instance – the pace soon becomes elephantine. All the more so since Troilus and Criseyde never notice when a topic is exhausted and they could pass on to some fresher subject. Instead, like one of my neighbours they always revert to what they have at length harped on about five minutes before.
Talking about Troilus and Criseyde, they will strain your patience in many other ways, and since they are the protagonists in a dance of courtly love, one cannot expect them to be multi-faceted characters. Chaucer shows his skill at drawing characters in Pandarus instead, whose wiles and manoeuvres may not necessarily make him a likeable person but a least a credible character. Criseyde, on the other hand, comes across as the shadow of a character, and Troilus seems more like a spoilt three-year old, wallowing in self-pity and in a tear-drenched bed, weeping and weeping and weeping since he cannot get what he wants. And yes, this is all so plausible: There is a war going on, threatening the survival of the city as such and its inhabitants in particular, and yet Troilus cannot think of anything else but his passion for Criseyde? And most of the family members, instead of setting him straight on his priorities, actually share his tendency to concentrate on private matters only? We might have come across the true reason for Troy’s fall here: Navel-gazing on the part of the leading Trojans!
All in all, Troilus and Criseyde did not work out for me, even though I love reading Chaucer, and a rating of three stars therefore seems to me the best way of expressing the lukewarm reading experience this poem provided for me.
Yes, I really do feel terrible about not being able to chime in with the exuberant praise most readers of Chaucer’s poem Troilus and Criseyde heap upon this work of art. And not being able to share the general enthusiasm about that love story set in the chaos of the Trojan War, I am even much farther from subscribing to the judgment of those who consider it Chaucer’s masterpiece because that honorary title goes to The Canterbury Tales as far as I am concerned. They may be an utterly ambitious enterprise, doomed to remain incomplete from the very start, but still this opus magnum shows Chaucer’s ability to adopt a wide variety of styles – chivalric, romantic, bawdy, eerie, witty, the list being endless – and with the exception of the Parson’s Tale, I enjoyed every single word of it.
Not so with Troilus and Criseyde. Of course, there is an incredible freshness and vivacity in Chaucer’s style, and it is breath-taking to read the dialogues between Pandarus and his niece, for instance, and marvel at the cunning with which this guileful match-maker slowly gets the better of the damsel’s doubts. Apart from that, the beauty and power of Chaucer’s poetry cannot be ignored. Just look at this:
”And as she slep, anonright tho hire mette
How that an egle, fethered whit as bon,
Under hire brest his longe clawes sette,
And out hire herte he rente, and that anon,
And dide his herte into hire brest to gon –
Of which she nought agroos, ne nothyng smerte –
And forth he fleigh, with herte left for herte.”
And yet, unlike The Canterbury Tales, this poem strained my patience after a while because five books of courtly romance are at least as daunting a feat as the walls of Troy themselves and since there is no grain of humour immersed in any single line – no Wife of Bath, for instance – the pace soon becomes elephantine. All the more so since Troilus and Criseyde never notice when a topic is exhausted and they could pass on to some fresher subject. Instead, like one of my neighbours they always revert to what they have at length harped on about five minutes before.
Talking about Troilus and Criseyde, they will strain your patience in many other ways, and since they are the protagonists in a dance of courtly love, one cannot expect them to be multi-faceted characters. Chaucer shows his skill at drawing characters in Pandarus instead, whose wiles and manoeuvres may not necessarily make him a likeable person but a least a credible character. Criseyde, on the other hand, comes across as the shadow of a character, and Troilus seems more like a spoilt three-year old, wallowing in self-pity and in a tear-drenched bed, weeping and weeping and weeping since he cannot get what he wants. And yes, this is all so plausible: There is a war going on, threatening the survival of the city as such and its inhabitants in particular, and yet Troilus cannot think of anything else but his passion for Criseyde? And most of the family members, instead of setting him straight on his priorities, actually share his tendency to concentrate on private matters only? We might have come across the true reason for Troy’s fall here: Navel-gazing on the part of the leading Trojans!
All in all, Troilus and Criseyde did not work out for me, even though I love reading Chaucer, and a rating of three stars therefore seems to me the best way of expressing the lukewarm reading experience this poem provided for me.
August 30, 2016
Relectura agosto 2016
Algún envidioso podría chismorrear: "esto es un amor repentino, ¿cómo puede ser que ella ame a Troilo tan fácilmente, sólo a primera vista, pardiez?". Que quien hable así nunca prospere, pues todo debe tener un principio antes de estar hecho, sin ninguna duda.
Ah, peco de envidiosa entonces. Tengo ciertos reparos con esta historia, sobre todo cuando toca el tema relativo al amor en sí, así que seré breve e informal (léase: "con un tono inadecuado para libros tan importantes como este") porque mis problemas están en el argumento. Troilo y Criseida es lindo para leer y guarda ese componente trágico que reclaman las tramas en donde los dos amantes vienen de mundos (o ciudades) distintos y las cosas no pueden ser fáciles para ellos. No obstante, hay algo en él que produce un boicot interno, por decirlo de alguna forma.
El libro está impecablemente escrito y (tal vez con un poco de ayuda de la traducción) no es rebuscado. El problema es la historia de amor entre Troilo y Criseida, que se siente muy forzada y hasta en uno de los discursos de Pándaro, el tío de Criseida, se insinúa eso. Prácticamente, a Criseida la obligan a enamorarse de Troilo porque él sufría por ella y estaba a punto de morir (figurativamente hablando). "Que se las arregle", le podría haber contestado*, pero no: tras el lavado de cabeza que le hace su tío, ella cae. Lo peor de todo es que se siente real. Y no es spoiler, porque todo esto pasa en los primeros capítulos y no estoy contando el giro.
Puede que esté mirando esto con los ojos del siglo XXI, puede que no. La cuestión es que el argumento no se sostiene por sí mismo porque los cimientos tambalean desde el principio, cosa que me extraña de Chaucer. Los hechos sobre Troya se mencionan muy por encima, a pesar de ser el contexto. Si bien el proceso del enamoramiento está explicado paso a paso y tiene algunas ideas interesantes, no soy adepta a leer libros que se centren totalmente en una pareja. Lamentablemente, no le puedo poner más calificación porque no lo pude disfrutar.
(*) Para paliar un poco que suene como una desalmada: Criseida es viuda y su tío sabe que ella no está pensando en enamorarse (ni mucho menos), pero él va y le pone a Troilo delante de la nariz, básicamente.
Algún envidioso podría chismorrear: "esto es un amor repentino, ¿cómo puede ser que ella ame a Troilo tan fácilmente, sólo a primera vista, pardiez?". Que quien hable así nunca prospere, pues todo debe tener un principio antes de estar hecho, sin ninguna duda.
Ah, peco de envidiosa entonces. Tengo ciertos reparos con esta historia, sobre todo cuando toca el tema relativo al amor en sí, así que seré breve e informal (léase: "con un tono inadecuado para libros tan importantes como este") porque mis problemas están en el argumento. Troilo y Criseida es lindo para leer y guarda ese componente trágico que reclaman las tramas en donde los dos amantes vienen de mundos (o ciudades) distintos y las cosas no pueden ser fáciles para ellos. No obstante, hay algo en él que produce un boicot interno, por decirlo de alguna forma.
El libro está impecablemente escrito y (tal vez con un poco de ayuda de la traducción) no es rebuscado. El problema es la historia de amor entre Troilo y Criseida, que se siente muy forzada y hasta en uno de los discursos de Pándaro, el tío de Criseida, se insinúa eso. Prácticamente, a Criseida la obligan a enamorarse de Troilo porque él sufría por ella y estaba a punto de morir (figurativamente hablando). "Que se las arregle", le podría haber contestado*, pero no: tras el lavado de cabeza que le hace su tío, ella cae. Lo peor de todo es que se siente real. Y no es spoiler, porque todo esto pasa en los primeros capítulos y no estoy contando el giro.
Puede que esté mirando esto con los ojos del siglo XXI, puede que no. La cuestión es que el argumento no se sostiene por sí mismo porque los cimientos tambalean desde el principio, cosa que me extraña de Chaucer. Los hechos sobre Troya se mencionan muy por encima, a pesar de ser el contexto. Si bien el proceso del enamoramiento está explicado paso a paso y tiene algunas ideas interesantes, no soy adepta a leer libros que se centren totalmente en una pareja. Lamentablemente, no le puedo poner más calificación porque no lo pude disfrutar.
(*) Para paliar un poco que suene como una desalmada: Criseida es viuda y su tío sabe que ella no está pensando en enamorarse (ni mucho menos), pero él va y le pone a Troilo delante de la nariz, básicamente.
February 15, 2012
This is a very good edition of the text. Being a Norton edition, it provides a very good gloss by the side of each line, for the Middle English; critical material and responses; an introduction with very good background information; and a translation of Chaucer's main source alongside the text.
I have to confess I've never been that enthused with Chaucer before. As with Shakespeare, I feel that he's presented far too often as the be-all and end-all of his period. They are massively influential, of course, but there's so much focus on these texts that pre-university, I had little idea of the breadth of literature. It pretty much narrowed down to them and Dickens.
I didn't like The Canterbury Tales very much when I came to it in first year. I won't say that an academic viewpoint spoils Chaucer, because I came to Troilus and Criseyde for a class, too, but I do wish people could come to Chaucer and Shakespeare on their own terms. It was much easier to do that, with Troilus and Criseyde, because I knew almost nothing about this before I started this module of my MA.
I loved it. Chaucer's command of language and of his material is superb; it's not like a modern novel, of course, but anyone familiar with medieval literature would be prepared for that, and this is surprisingly accessible even without that familiarity. It's full of hyperbole and courtly love and Troilus being pretty flippin' pathetic, as we see it -- and yet Chaucer's pity for his characters still creeps through.
I highly recommend reading this in Middle English, with a glossary: it's not hard, as long as you work out how to pronounce the words, and a translation would lose that innate Chaucerian touch. The rhyme scheme often helps out, as it's very regular. I can understand reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in translations -- it looks less familiar, usually, and is a different dialect which didn't survive as well into Modern English, and some people have done fantastic things with it -- but don't do that with this, if you can help it. It gets easier as you go along.
The Norton edition is great, packed with information and a good -- indeed, overly exhaustive at times -- glossary. They gloss 'desolat', for goodness sake. I don't think you could be steered wrong in getting this edition.
I have to confess I've never been that enthused with Chaucer before. As with Shakespeare, I feel that he's presented far too often as the be-all and end-all of his period. They are massively influential, of course, but there's so much focus on these texts that pre-university, I had little idea of the breadth of literature. It pretty much narrowed down to them and Dickens.
I didn't like The Canterbury Tales very much when I came to it in first year. I won't say that an academic viewpoint spoils Chaucer, because I came to Troilus and Criseyde for a class, too, but I do wish people could come to Chaucer and Shakespeare on their own terms. It was much easier to do that, with Troilus and Criseyde, because I knew almost nothing about this before I started this module of my MA.
I loved it. Chaucer's command of language and of his material is superb; it's not like a modern novel, of course, but anyone familiar with medieval literature would be prepared for that, and this is surprisingly accessible even without that familiarity. It's full of hyperbole and courtly love and Troilus being pretty flippin' pathetic, as we see it -- and yet Chaucer's pity for his characters still creeps through.
I highly recommend reading this in Middle English, with a glossary: it's not hard, as long as you work out how to pronounce the words, and a translation would lose that innate Chaucerian touch. The rhyme scheme often helps out, as it's very regular. I can understand reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in translations -- it looks less familiar, usually, and is a different dialect which didn't survive as well into Modern English, and some people have done fantastic things with it -- but don't do that with this, if you can help it. It gets easier as you go along.
The Norton edition is great, packed with information and a good -- indeed, overly exhaustive at times -- glossary. They gloss 'desolat', for goodness sake. I don't think you could be steered wrong in getting this edition.
June 7, 2016
Some great authors spur us on to greater heights; others serve to remind us of our shortcomings. For me, Chaucer is of the latter type. From the beginning, and to the bitter end, he was a struggle to appreciate. I could, of course, sense his greatness; it is manifest in every stanza. Yet I could not, despite my dogged persistence, suck the nectar direct from the fountain; I’m only left with the drippings.
A great part of my difficulty was purely linguistic. I was going back and forth between reading Chaucer in the original or in translation when the choice was decided for me. A friend of mine loaned me the complete collected works of Chaucer, in the original Middle English. There were footnotes, of course, but not as many as could be desired.
So there I was, struggling night after night, reading a language which I could only half-pronounce and half-understand. It was folly, of course; but I like a good challenge, and I’m not one to stop a book once started. Going on this way, I read the entire Canterbury Tales over several months—no mean feat, I tell you. Rewarding and entertaining? Certainly. But I missed so much that I will inevitably need to reread it. Chaucer himself addresses this difficulty in this poem:
Even when I did get to the point when I could read Chaucer without too much pain, I was still left a little cold. As I also experienced while reading A Clockwork Orange, there is something withdrawn and detached about reading a work in a language half your own. Words from our day to day life have a certain emotional immediacy which is lacking in words otherwise synonymous but unfamiliar. Chaucer’s language does make up for this in its richness, elegance, and novelty. Even so, there is something hermetic about a language that nobody has spoken in 700 years.
So what of this poem? Well, compared with the Canterbury Tales, it is certainly lacking in ribaldry and boisterous fun. The atmosphere is one of gallantry and courtly romance, rather than a bar where chums gather to tell stories. Yet for what it lacks in liveliness, Troilus and Criseyde makes up for in its completeness and polish. The Canterbury Tales are unfinished and uneven, whereas this poem is finely crafted and composed.
The story is classic: two beautiful young people fall in love, and then something conspires to end the love affair in tragedy. Unlike Romeo and Juliet, however, the tragedy comes from unfaithfulness as much as circumstances. There is, of course, controversy as to how Chaucer wanted us to interpret the poem. On the one hand, the narrator points to the unfaithfulness of women as the moral of the story; on the other hand, Troilus is so whiny and self-absorbed, that it’s hard for us to condemn Criseyde’s choice. We moderns, in our more sexually enlightened age, run a risk of imposing our own cultural sensibilities on the characters; for readers at that time, the story could have been a straightforward tale of the fickleness of women.
This story suffers from the same malady as did Romeo and Juliet—two protagonists neither likable nor compelling. Troilus was melodramatic; Criseyde, more even-tempered, but still uninteresting. Pandarus comes across as the most likable chap in the story. Even so, it’s hard to understand why he—or anyone else, for that matter—would devote so much time to a love affair, while Troy is being sacked by a gigantic army of Greeks. In fact, the whole idea of putting a courtly romance amid the Trojan War didn’t quite work for me. Courtly romance is silly, adolescent, and self-indulgent; imagine Romeo and Juliet pining for each other in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Their entire city, all of their family and friends, are facing death and destruction; yet all they can do is soliloquize.
But, as I said at the beginning of this review, it really comes down to my own shortcomings that this poem fell flat. At least I can say I gave it an honest shot. Now, I can only hope that time will amend my faults, and learning my ignorance.
A great part of my difficulty was purely linguistic. I was going back and forth between reading Chaucer in the original or in translation when the choice was decided for me. A friend of mine loaned me the complete collected works of Chaucer, in the original Middle English. There were footnotes, of course, but not as many as could be desired.
So there I was, struggling night after night, reading a language which I could only half-pronounce and half-understand. It was folly, of course; but I like a good challenge, and I’m not one to stop a book once started. Going on this way, I read the entire Canterbury Tales over several months—no mean feat, I tell you. Rewarding and entertaining? Certainly. But I missed so much that I will inevitably need to reread it. Chaucer himself addresses this difficulty in this poem:
And for ther is so gret diversite
In Englissh and in writyng of oure tonge,
So prey! God that non myswrite the,
Ne the mysmetre for defaute of tonge;
And red wherso thow be, or elles songe,
That thow be understonde, God I biseche!
Even when I did get to the point when I could read Chaucer without too much pain, I was still left a little cold. As I also experienced while reading A Clockwork Orange, there is something withdrawn and detached about reading a work in a language half your own. Words from our day to day life have a certain emotional immediacy which is lacking in words otherwise synonymous but unfamiliar. Chaucer’s language does make up for this in its richness, elegance, and novelty. Even so, there is something hermetic about a language that nobody has spoken in 700 years.
So what of this poem? Well, compared with the Canterbury Tales, it is certainly lacking in ribaldry and boisterous fun. The atmosphere is one of gallantry and courtly romance, rather than a bar where chums gather to tell stories. Yet for what it lacks in liveliness, Troilus and Criseyde makes up for in its completeness and polish. The Canterbury Tales are unfinished and uneven, whereas this poem is finely crafted and composed.
The story is classic: two beautiful young people fall in love, and then something conspires to end the love affair in tragedy. Unlike Romeo and Juliet, however, the tragedy comes from unfaithfulness as much as circumstances. There is, of course, controversy as to how Chaucer wanted us to interpret the poem. On the one hand, the narrator points to the unfaithfulness of women as the moral of the story; on the other hand, Troilus is so whiny and self-absorbed, that it’s hard for us to condemn Criseyde’s choice. We moderns, in our more sexually enlightened age, run a risk of imposing our own cultural sensibilities on the characters; for readers at that time, the story could have been a straightforward tale of the fickleness of women.
This story suffers from the same malady as did Romeo and Juliet—two protagonists neither likable nor compelling. Troilus was melodramatic; Criseyde, more even-tempered, but still uninteresting. Pandarus comes across as the most likable chap in the story. Even so, it’s hard to understand why he—or anyone else, for that matter—would devote so much time to a love affair, while Troy is being sacked by a gigantic army of Greeks. In fact, the whole idea of putting a courtly romance amid the Trojan War didn’t quite work for me. Courtly romance is silly, adolescent, and self-indulgent; imagine Romeo and Juliet pining for each other in Saigon during the Vietnam War. Their entire city, all of their family and friends, are facing death and destruction; yet all they can do is soliloquize.
But, as I said at the beginning of this review, it really comes down to my own shortcomings that this poem fell flat. At least I can say I gave it an honest shot. Now, I can only hope that time will amend my faults, and learning my ignorance.
October 3, 2021
On the surface this work is a romance – kind of like a loose Romeo and Juliet – but the romance has layers where it’s an impetuous and obsessive love rather than one that is equally welcomed by both parties. Other themes are the importance of happiness; a woman’s reputation; deception; and the true meaning of love. This is a moral tale underpinned by Christian philosophy.
Choosing to read this is a coincidence, Chaucer is a familiar name but beyond that I know very little about him or his works. So, imagine my surprise when the intro essay in this edition mentions his connection to the Plantagenet house, namely Edward III and his son, John of Gaunt – the father of Henry IV.
This is the first time I’m reading this work, I chose to start with a New Translation for Kindle because I’ve enjoyed reading the New Translation of Euripides’s which are also published by Oxford University Press. A part of this delight comes from the intro essays that accompany them, these are packed with info that have helped me better to look at the text deeply and think outside the box.
This book wasn’t up to the same standard but there was enough for me to get a grasp of the era it was written in and Chaucer’s life. The Middle Ages and reading Olde English is still a new adventure for me, so I wanted to do the best I could to really get to grips with this story – and it certainly does this, and wow!! What a story ... I’m slightly knocked back and can’t believe the ideas here were written in the 1380s (it’s moments like this that makes me love reading and books :) ).
Aside from the story elements with a modern feel, what stood out to me is Chaucer's Criseyde is a strong female protagonist. What makes her strong is her pragmatism and level headedness whilst Troilus is completely smitten with her to the point of distress. Criseyde understands that having an unauthorised romantic relationship with Troilus, who is also the Trojan king’s son, will put her in a difficult position. What kept me gripped to the end was the building tension of the consequences of this relationship.
Like Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida this is an earlier telling of a story set during the Trojan war based on sources that were believed to be true in the Middle Ages. In this New Translation, Chaucer’s Criseyde is a rounder and a more developed character than Shakespeare’s Cressida. The other differences are: Chaucer’s complex portrait of Pandarus, and the backdrop of the Trojan War has less presence in Chaucer’s work than Shakespeare’s.
This New Translation in prose form rather than poetry but there was so much going on in the story that I didn’t mind this. Now that I’ve read this I’d like to read it in its original form – currently things are a bit up in the air for me, but I’m hoping I can do this soon, or soonish.
Choosing to read this is a coincidence, Chaucer is a familiar name but beyond that I know very little about him or his works. So, imagine my surprise when the intro essay in this edition mentions his connection to the Plantagenet house, namely Edward III and his son, John of Gaunt – the father of Henry IV.
This is the first time I’m reading this work, I chose to start with a New Translation for Kindle because I’ve enjoyed reading the New Translation of Euripides’s which are also published by Oxford University Press. A part of this delight comes from the intro essays that accompany them, these are packed with info that have helped me better to look at the text deeply and think outside the box.
This book wasn’t up to the same standard but there was enough for me to get a grasp of the era it was written in and Chaucer’s life. The Middle Ages and reading Olde English is still a new adventure for me, so I wanted to do the best I could to really get to grips with this story – and it certainly does this, and wow!! What a story ... I’m slightly knocked back and can’t believe the ideas here were written in the 1380s (it’s moments like this that makes me love reading and books :) ).
Aside from the story elements with a modern feel, what stood out to me is Chaucer's Criseyde is a strong female protagonist. What makes her strong is her pragmatism and level headedness whilst Troilus is completely smitten with her to the point of distress. Criseyde understands that having an unauthorised romantic relationship with Troilus, who is also the Trojan king’s son, will put her in a difficult position. What kept me gripped to the end was the building tension of the consequences of this relationship.
Like Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida this is an earlier telling of a story set during the Trojan war based on sources that were believed to be true in the Middle Ages. In this New Translation, Chaucer’s Criseyde is a rounder and a more developed character than Shakespeare’s Cressida. The other differences are: Chaucer’s complex portrait of Pandarus, and the backdrop of the Trojan War has less presence in Chaucer’s work than Shakespeare’s.
This New Translation in prose form rather than poetry but there was so much going on in the story that I didn’t mind this. Now that I’ve read this I’d like to read it in its original form – currently things are a bit up in the air for me, but I’m hoping I can do this soon, or soonish.
December 28, 2013
From BBC Radio 4 - Classical Serial:
One of the great works of English literature, this powerful, compelling story explores love from its first tentative beginnings through to passionate sensuality and eventual tragic disillusionment. Lavinia Greenlaw's new version for radio brings Chaucer's language up-to-date for a modern audience while remaining true to his original poetic intention. After seeing the beautiful widow Criseyde at the temple in Troy, Troilus falls instantly in love with her. Inexperienced in love, he is unable to act on his feelings and locks himself in his room to compose love songs. Pandarus, worried for his friend, eventually persuades Troilus to tell him why he is so miserable and is delighted to hear that the cause is Troilus' love for his niece Criseyde. Worried about her reputation, Criseyde is at first reluctant to enter into a relationship with Troilus. After much cajoling and manipulation, she reluctantly comes around to the idea. Pandarus is frustrated that the relationship is moving too slowly and engineers a complex plan to get Criseyde and Troilus in bed together.
Troilus ...... Tom Ferguson
Criseyde ...... Maxine Peake
Pandarus ...... Malcolm Raeburn
Servant/Friend ...... Kathryn Hunt
Calchas/Servant ...... Kevin Doyle
Priam/Servant ...... Terence Mann
Hector/Diomede ...... Declan Wilson
With music composed by Gary Yershon and performed by Ehsan Emam, Tim Williams and Mike Dale.
Directed by Susan Roberts.
One of the great works of English literature, this powerful, compelling story explores love from its first tentative beginnings through to passionate sensuality and eventual tragic disillusionment. Lavinia Greenlaw's new version for radio brings Chaucer's language up-to-date for a modern audience while remaining true to his original poetic intention. After seeing the beautiful widow Criseyde at the temple in Troy, Troilus falls instantly in love with her. Inexperienced in love, he is unable to act on his feelings and locks himself in his room to compose love songs. Pandarus, worried for his friend, eventually persuades Troilus to tell him why he is so miserable and is delighted to hear that the cause is Troilus' love for his niece Criseyde. Worried about her reputation, Criseyde is at first reluctant to enter into a relationship with Troilus. After much cajoling and manipulation, she reluctantly comes around to the idea. Pandarus is frustrated that the relationship is moving too slowly and engineers a complex plan to get Criseyde and Troilus in bed together.
Troilus ...... Tom Ferguson
Criseyde ...... Maxine Peake
Pandarus ...... Malcolm Raeburn
Servant/Friend ...... Kathryn Hunt
Calchas/Servant ...... Kevin Doyle
Priam/Servant ...... Terence Mann
Hector/Diomede ...... Declan Wilson
With music composed by Gary Yershon and performed by Ehsan Emam, Tim Williams and Mike Dale.
Directed by Susan Roberts.
April 12, 2024
parts of this felt like a gossip girl episode and i think i audibly gasped so many times. also the picture of how consuming and ugly human love can become with no divine basis or reason for commitment is beautiful and horrifying and eye opening. also he kept quoting ecclesiastes in the most perfect places. kind of obsessed with this book and did not expect that at all. the last narration displaying how fickle and fragile human love is compared to a Savior who would die for us even though we betray Him over and over again could be the justifier for why we read books at all- to see the love of Christ as the perfect fulfillment of our broken attempts to love one another.
March 16, 2016
Proposed subtitle: "An Introduction to the two Most Immature, Selfish Characters Known to Man."
April 18, 2020
DNF.
im marking it as read bc i had to survive 150 pages of Troilus being the worst human being so i deserve it
im marking it as read bc i had to survive 150 pages of Troilus being the worst human being so i deserve it
September 2, 2025
Another 4.5 - made me laugh a lot more than I expected to (not sure if it was always at the points which Chaucer intended...)
November 26, 2010
It is a masterpiece still being read more than 620 years after it was written, and hundreds of scholars have had their say on Criseyde's betrayal of Troilus; so I'm wondering if I'm the only one who thinks Criseyde has been getting shortchanged all these centuries.
The language is beautiful. You want love poetry? Check out the passage where Troilus undresses Criseyde in bed. But to say that Criseyde betrays Troilus is as overwrought as the general emotional level of the characters. Troilus: "I will die without your love!" Criseyde "Really?"
The biggest portion of the book has Troilus mooning over the widow Criseyde. Despite being the second child of the king of Troy, it would somehow besmirch her honor should he openly express his love for her. (I didn't get that part) Luckily, her uncle Pandarus is good friends with Troilus, and he hatches a crazy scheme where Troilus and Criseyde end up in bed together. At this point Troilus convinces Criseyde of his love, and she falls for him.
Naturally, happiness is shortlived. Criseyde's father, who has aligned himself with the Greeks sieging Troy, arranges a deal to give his daughter to the Greeks in exchange for a Trojan warrior. Before the exchange, Criseyde promises her undying love to Troilus and makes a vow to somehow meet him in 10 days.
The exchange happens, and Criseyde is wooed by a great Greek warrior who really isn't a bad guy. The promised meeting with Troilus never happens, Troilus heart breaks, and he kills or wounds a thousand Greeks before Achilles kills him. Troilus goes to heaven and realizes how foolish he was.
If this were a tale told in a modern day setting, it would really come off as a coming of age tale where the heartsick teen boy learns there's other fish in the sea to fall in love with. Instead, Criseyde gets a bad rap as an unfaithful lover. Here are my bullet points:
1) Troilus is never brave enough to express his feelings until an elaborate ruse is played out.
2) Criseyde is taken out the city of Troy against her will
3) Criseyde is practically held prisoner in the camp of the enemy army.
4) Criseyde realizes Troy is doomed.
5) Criseyde is sincerely wooed by a Greek guy who actually tells her he likes her without an elaborate ruse.
In my point of view Criseyde is never unfaithful. She is the victim of circumstances out of her control and is just making the best of a bad situation. Let's give the lady the benefit of the doubt here.
The language is beautiful. You want love poetry? Check out the passage where Troilus undresses Criseyde in bed. But to say that Criseyde betrays Troilus is as overwrought as the general emotional level of the characters. Troilus: "I will die without your love!" Criseyde "Really?"
The biggest portion of the book has Troilus mooning over the widow Criseyde. Despite being the second child of the king of Troy, it would somehow besmirch her honor should he openly express his love for her. (I didn't get that part) Luckily, her uncle Pandarus is good friends with Troilus, and he hatches a crazy scheme where Troilus and Criseyde end up in bed together. At this point Troilus convinces Criseyde of his love, and she falls for him.
Naturally, happiness is shortlived. Criseyde's father, who has aligned himself with the Greeks sieging Troy, arranges a deal to give his daughter to the Greeks in exchange for a Trojan warrior. Before the exchange, Criseyde promises her undying love to Troilus and makes a vow to somehow meet him in 10 days.
The exchange happens, and Criseyde is wooed by a great Greek warrior who really isn't a bad guy. The promised meeting with Troilus never happens, Troilus heart breaks, and he kills or wounds a thousand Greeks before Achilles kills him. Troilus goes to heaven and realizes how foolish he was.
If this were a tale told in a modern day setting, it would really come off as a coming of age tale where the heartsick teen boy learns there's other fish in the sea to fall in love with. Instead, Criseyde gets a bad rap as an unfaithful lover. Here are my bullet points:
1) Troilus is never brave enough to express his feelings until an elaborate ruse is played out.
2) Criseyde is taken out the city of Troy against her will
3) Criseyde is practically held prisoner in the camp of the enemy army.
4) Criseyde realizes Troy is doomed.
5) Criseyde is sincerely wooed by a Greek guy who actually tells her he likes her without an elaborate ruse.
In my point of view Criseyde is never unfaithful. She is the victim of circumstances out of her control and is just making the best of a bad situation. Let's give the lady the benefit of the doubt here.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
May 24, 2021This work from the 1380s is one of several Troilus and Cressida stores I've read. These include Saint-Maure's Roman de Troie, Boccaccio's Filostrato, which Chaucer supposedly used as his main source and Robert Henryson's Testament of Cresseid. I have also read Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan and the Shakespeare play. Chaucer's work seems to absolve the throne of a large part of the blame for the eventual fate of the lovers, ascribing a lot of her eventual undoing to the nefarious Pandarus.
Unfortunately, after almost a half century, I really don't remember very much of this work, even though I have two different translations, one by Neville Coghill and the other by George Philip Krapp, and appear to have read both of them.
Unfortunately, after almost a half century, I really don't remember very much of this work, even though I have two different translations, one by Neville Coghill and the other by George Philip Krapp, and appear to have read both of them.
November 23, 2021
Blimey! I endured. The critics declare this to be the best Chaucer’s poem. I am not quite sure how so. Maybe for it is, contrariwise The Canterbury Tales, completed? The general impression regarding this exuberant Middle-English epic poem comprised into five books is that it could be reduced to a merely single book, in which the focus wouldn’t be dissipated on prolix descriptions of weeping, moaning, whining, self-reproach, characters’ loquacity and their supressed thoughts. Considering that its nascence and conclusion were in late XIV century, one ought not analyse its composition, nor regard its protagonists from the contemporary point of view. For the things may astray.
The theme is from antique, settled amidst the Trojan war. Troilus is the youngest son of King Priam and Criseyde is the daughter of a nobleman and soothsayer Calchas. The motive is hapless lovesick of young Troilus, originated in time of Palladian’s feast, when in the temple he perceived the widow Criseyde, and became infatuated with her. Her age is unknown (“But trewely, I can not telle hir age“, Book V, 426 (118), yet Chaucer depicted her as an outstanding belle: “… with her golden tresses, and her eyes mirrored paradise, no less; she was not small of stature, but quite tall; truly feminine she was“. On the other hand, Troilus is but a virgin boy incapable to manage instantly awoken love fervour. The entire story could end up at this point, if Chaucer didn’t include another character – Criseyde’s uncle Pandarus. If the phrase “nomen est omen” could ever be explained properly, Chaucer’s Pandarus would be the paragon. He ordained himself to be a nexus in-between his niece and young Troilus, constantly playing Mephistopheles’ game of pandering and matchmaking, constantly switching the advices when it comes that were faux. Troilus’ character is quite irritatingly settled, in lack with joie de vivre and assertiveness in the situations where he supposed to choose wisely. Instead of confrontation with impediments, Troilus became lovesick, bedridden, constantly weeping and wailing for always remote Criseyde, for Pandarus advised him to keep their love clandestine (as if it would be a scandal amidst the Trojan war for two beings to be in love – forsooth!). Hence, the pinnacle of their concealed lechery would be revealed to the reader just at the very end of the Book III:
Her slender arms, her back so soft and small,
Her long and ample thighs so smooth and white,
He now caressed, letting his praises fall
On her white throat, her fine, round breasts so slight;
So in paradise he did delight.
A thousand times he gave his love a kiss –
Quite overwhelmed he was, so great his bliss. (Book III, 245 (179)
These are, maybe, the utmost explicit and passionate stanzas within the entire epic, for it is written in quite sterile, Christian-pious tone, lack with lascivious humour which dominates in “The Canterbury Tales”. Moreover, it seems as the entire epic was written in the same tone, which became quite tedious and hence laborious for me to read, and in one moment I’ve almost ceased the reading, for Chaucer introduces the motive at the beginning of the each Book and then on succeeding pages he spends the metrics on the whining of the protagonists, their unuttered thoughts, covets and fancies, being mentally feeble to fight for their dreams. On the other hand, the character of Criseyde many critics labelled as adulteress. I would not agree with those, for the matter that occurred betwixt her and young Troilus was rather of sheer passion than of love per se (although for him, those were probably the best moments of his young life), hence her decision to sway herself to a Greek soldier in the moment when they, at the request of her father, used her as a hostage to be exchanged for an Trojan captive, I consider legitimate and should not be morally scrutinised. Contrariwise, Troilus’ infantile and melodramatic behaviour is quite irksome that I would rather punch him.
Overall, impressions regarding this epic is, maybe, slightly diminished due to overly contemporary translation of Stewart Boston from Middle-English to (quite) modern English, which silenced a lot archaic tone which I do fancy much in the narratives and poems like this, and since this Folio Society’s edition is bilingual – the left side is in original, Middle-English, and the right side is translation, I often was gazing on the left side, merely to sense that linguistic Verdigris that I prefer. I ought to find some translation in, at least, Victorian English to satisfy my lust. The beauty of Chaucer’s literary expression is indisputable such, for example, in the following verses:
O darkest Night, of whom it is set down
That you were made by God this world to hide
At certain intervals with your dark gown,
That under you men might in rest abide; (Book III, 255 (205)
However, I was quite bothered by the narration of the antique theme from a Christian angle, which is prominently present all the time and quite anachronistic. Nevertheless, I believe that this epic should be read as it is an important and authentic literary gem written in the Middle-English language.
The theme is from antique, settled amidst the Trojan war. Troilus is the youngest son of King Priam and Criseyde is the daughter of a nobleman and soothsayer Calchas. The motive is hapless lovesick of young Troilus, originated in time of Palladian’s feast, when in the temple he perceived the widow Criseyde, and became infatuated with her. Her age is unknown (“But trewely, I can not telle hir age“, Book V, 426 (118), yet Chaucer depicted her as an outstanding belle: “… with her golden tresses, and her eyes mirrored paradise, no less; she was not small of stature, but quite tall; truly feminine she was“. On the other hand, Troilus is but a virgin boy incapable to manage instantly awoken love fervour. The entire story could end up at this point, if Chaucer didn’t include another character – Criseyde’s uncle Pandarus. If the phrase “nomen est omen” could ever be explained properly, Chaucer’s Pandarus would be the paragon. He ordained himself to be a nexus in-between his niece and young Troilus, constantly playing Mephistopheles’ game of pandering and matchmaking, constantly switching the advices when it comes that were faux. Troilus’ character is quite irritatingly settled, in lack with joie de vivre and assertiveness in the situations where he supposed to choose wisely. Instead of confrontation with impediments, Troilus became lovesick, bedridden, constantly weeping and wailing for always remote Criseyde, for Pandarus advised him to keep their love clandestine (as if it would be a scandal amidst the Trojan war for two beings to be in love – forsooth!). Hence, the pinnacle of their concealed lechery would be revealed to the reader just at the very end of the Book III:
Her slender arms, her back so soft and small,
Her long and ample thighs so smooth and white,
He now caressed, letting his praises fall
On her white throat, her fine, round breasts so slight;
So in paradise he did delight.
A thousand times he gave his love a kiss –
Quite overwhelmed he was, so great his bliss. (Book III, 245 (179)
These are, maybe, the utmost explicit and passionate stanzas within the entire epic, for it is written in quite sterile, Christian-pious tone, lack with lascivious humour which dominates in “The Canterbury Tales”. Moreover, it seems as the entire epic was written in the same tone, which became quite tedious and hence laborious for me to read, and in one moment I’ve almost ceased the reading, for Chaucer introduces the motive at the beginning of the each Book and then on succeeding pages he spends the metrics on the whining of the protagonists, their unuttered thoughts, covets and fancies, being mentally feeble to fight for their dreams. On the other hand, the character of Criseyde many critics labelled as adulteress. I would not agree with those, for the matter that occurred betwixt her and young Troilus was rather of sheer passion than of love per se (although for him, those were probably the best moments of his young life), hence her decision to sway herself to a Greek soldier in the moment when they, at the request of her father, used her as a hostage to be exchanged for an Trojan captive, I consider legitimate and should not be morally scrutinised. Contrariwise, Troilus’ infantile and melodramatic behaviour is quite irksome that I would rather punch him.
Overall, impressions regarding this epic is, maybe, slightly diminished due to overly contemporary translation of Stewart Boston from Middle-English to (quite) modern English, which silenced a lot archaic tone which I do fancy much in the narratives and poems like this, and since this Folio Society’s edition is bilingual – the left side is in original, Middle-English, and the right side is translation, I often was gazing on the left side, merely to sense that linguistic Verdigris that I prefer. I ought to find some translation in, at least, Victorian English to satisfy my lust. The beauty of Chaucer’s literary expression is indisputable such, for example, in the following verses:
O darkest Night, of whom it is set down
That you were made by God this world to hide
At certain intervals with your dark gown,
That under you men might in rest abide; (Book III, 255 (205)
However, I was quite bothered by the narration of the antique theme from a Christian angle, which is prominently present all the time and quite anachronistic. Nevertheless, I believe that this epic should be read as it is an important and authentic literary gem written in the Middle-English language.
December 30, 2016
Bored me to tears. Gave me headaches.
December 2, 2024
unsure if i will ever be able to put into words the torment that this stupid poem put me through
July 4, 2023
I'm sorry if this spoils you for what this book is.
Boy meets girl. Becomes a fool in love. The typical (ahem) adult male bosses around the girl and makes choices for her and manipulates her into believing she loves the boy. Devil's tango. Girl decides she deserves better. Cheats on him and moves on. The boy, devastated dies.
Wars in the background fade into a hum, as this ridiculousness somehow takes the cake.
Boy meets girl. Becomes a fool in love. The typical (ahem) adult male bosses around the girl and makes choices for her and manipulates her into believing she loves the boy. Devil's tango. Girl decides she deserves better. Cheats on him and moves on. The boy, devastated dies.
Wars in the background fade into a hum, as this ridiculousness somehow takes the cake.
Read
April 3, 20251) ohh i think this is in middle english…should i find another download 2) noo i read t&c by shakespeare alffksanfk years ago, so i know the broad strokes 3) k i don’t remember but it’s okay when you get into zee flow of it 4) despair for two months 5) oh. i finished. awesome.
April 27, 2025
had to read this for class and it was so boring they don’t even talk for hundreds of pages. pandarus doesn’t stfu and chaucer also spoils it on the first page. father of english, do better 🥀
February 22, 2024
A heartbreaking and yet surely primarily ironic study of love and its rhetoric.
March 29, 2016
"And for to have of hem compassioun
As though I were hir owene brother dere.
Now herkeneth with a gode entencioun,
For now wol I gon streight to my matere,
In which ye may the double sorwes here
Of Troilus, in loving of Criesyde,
And how that she forsook him er she deyde."
-Book I
Some call Troilus and Criseyde Chaucer's best, most sophisticated work. I am not entirely sure where they're coming from when they say that. In comparison to The Canterbury Tales, this lengthy poem comes off to me as a bit stiff and courtly with a plot that is clearly explained by Chaucer in the first book before it even happens. I am not denying that Chaucer's writing itself is sophisticated and entertaining as it always is (perhaps a bigger reason this poem gets so much praise), but I really did not get into the plot very much, at least not as much as I had hoped.
I think that my largest complaint is that Troilus and Criseyde themselves are not exactly great characters. Rather than actual people, they strike me simply as ideals of courtly love as Chaucer would have known in his time; maybe this statement applies to the entire work, but to me it comes through especially through the two main characters themselves. Of course, Troilus' dilemma really shines through in the end and Chaucer's true point eventually leaves a good impression, but I had to read through a lot of fluff to get to that. And I suppose in Criseyde's case, she's not really supposed to be all that great in the end anyways considering what happens, but I would have loved to have a stronger connection. Instead, I got two representations of ideals or lack thereof rather than characters that really feel like they're made of flesh and blood.
The other big issue I had with this is that the setting and the tone of the poem don't line up. So according to the exposition, it's set in Troy. I had to constantly remind myself of that because Chaucer's ideas of courtly love and ideals made it feel like it was set in a later time and a completely different place. Maybe that's just something that bothered me and not a true criticism, but it was very distracting for me.
For a work that is praised as better than Chaucer's true masterpiece, I found it a bit underwhelming. It's well-written but just not what I have come to expect based on better poems by this author.
As though I were hir owene brother dere.
Now herkeneth with a gode entencioun,
For now wol I gon streight to my matere,
In which ye may the double sorwes here
Of Troilus, in loving of Criesyde,
And how that she forsook him er she deyde."
-Book I
Some call Troilus and Criseyde Chaucer's best, most sophisticated work. I am not entirely sure where they're coming from when they say that. In comparison to The Canterbury Tales, this lengthy poem comes off to me as a bit stiff and courtly with a plot that is clearly explained by Chaucer in the first book before it even happens. I am not denying that Chaucer's writing itself is sophisticated and entertaining as it always is (perhaps a bigger reason this poem gets so much praise), but I really did not get into the plot very much, at least not as much as I had hoped.
I think that my largest complaint is that Troilus and Criseyde themselves are not exactly great characters. Rather than actual people, they strike me simply as ideals of courtly love as Chaucer would have known in his time; maybe this statement applies to the entire work, but to me it comes through especially through the two main characters themselves. Of course, Troilus' dilemma really shines through in the end and Chaucer's true point eventually leaves a good impression, but I had to read through a lot of fluff to get to that. And I suppose in Criseyde's case, she's not really supposed to be all that great in the end anyways considering what happens, but I would have loved to have a stronger connection. Instead, I got two representations of ideals or lack thereof rather than characters that really feel like they're made of flesh and blood.
The other big issue I had with this is that the setting and the tone of the poem don't line up. So according to the exposition, it's set in Troy. I had to constantly remind myself of that because Chaucer's ideas of courtly love and ideals made it feel like it was set in a later time and a completely different place. Maybe that's just something that bothered me and not a true criticism, but it was very distracting for me.
For a work that is praised as better than Chaucer's true masterpiece, I found it a bit underwhelming. It's well-written but just not what I have come to expect based on better poems by this author.
October 11, 2022
Although Troilus is a character from Ancient Greek literature, the expanded story of him as a lover was of Medieval origin. The first known version is from Benoît de Sainte-Maure's poem Roman de Troie, but Chaucer's principal source appears to have been Boccaccio, who re-wrote the tale in his Il Filostrato. It recounts the love story of Troilus, son of the Trojan king Priam, and Criseyde, widowed daughter of the deserter priest Calchas. The poem moves in leisurely fashion, with introspection and much of what would now be called psychological insight dominating many sections. Aided by Criseyde’s uncle Pandarus, Troilus and Criseyde are united in love about halfway through the poem.
April 8, 2024
you expect me to believe that Troilus, a man who spends 500 pages crying and fainting, goes into battle with the Trojans and slays THOUSANDS of them???? THOUSANDS???? insane, Chaucer. insane.
also, how can you write a book set in the middle of the SEIGE of TROY and give me NO BATTLE SCENES. NONE. you could have sacrificed a few of Pandarus's 50,0000 lines of nonsense for just a good SWORD fight! we don't even get to see Diomede and Troilus fight!!!!!!!!!!! not even once!!!!!!!!
also, how can you write a book set in the middle of the SEIGE of TROY and give me NO BATTLE SCENES. NONE. you could have sacrificed a few of Pandarus's 50,0000 lines of nonsense for just a good SWORD fight! we don't even get to see Diomede and Troilus fight!!!!!!!!!!! not even once!!!!!!!!
January 2, 2023
3.5/5
is it fate or free will?
is it fate or free will?
Read
October 19, 2023I wanted to like this a lot more than I did. The poem was good on a technical level, but the characters were annoying. The best part is when Achilles finally puts Troilus out of his misery.
March 14, 2025
This book is a big deal because it elevated English at a time when the best writers all wrote in French - Chaucer was the OG Shakespeare!
October 9, 2024
Panda de llorones pedorros, encima el tío muere de forma súper súbita, después de darme el coñazo durante tres libros la madre q lo parió
+1 estrella por las padreadas de Pándaro
+1 estrella por las padreadas de Pándaro
October 16, 2023
First Chaucer poem I’ve ever read. It was hard to get past the language barrier, but once I did, WOW this story is amazing. Troilus and Criseyde has everything: It’s sad, smart, sexy, funny, enraging, and beautiful.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 384 reviews