Courtney’s Blog

Davis, Adam Brooke.  “The Ends of Fiction: Narrative Boundaries and Chaucer’s Attitude toward Courtly Love.”  The Chaucer Review 28.1 (1993): 54-65.

            According to
Davis in his essay, Chaucer uses the opposing discourses of courtly love and religion in order to question the ability of either to understand the complexities of love. 
Davis emphasizes the beginning and ending and their different approaches in his argument, but in his interpretations of why Chaucer designs those approaches to ultimately fail, I noticed some distinct flaws.

            The beginning and ending of Troilus and Criseyde use distinctly different approaches.  Chaucer opens the poem with references to courtly love (
Davis 56).  The beginning establishes its pagan past in the references to both the Fury Thesiphone and Cupid (Davis 56). 
Davis states that the narrator appeals to lovers, and creates itself as a sort of “love priest,” an authoritative voice on the religion of love (58-59).  Chaucer sets up the reader to accept certain conventions and behaviors, such as the reader’s willingness to accept Troilus’s odd behavior as the price to enter the story (
Davis 59).  Once the conventions are in place, the poem explores how they do not work. 
Davis points out how the narrator’s counterpart in the text, Pandarus, who is also a self styled love authority, is unable to successfully orchestrate Troilus and Criseyde’s affair (59).  Criseyde leaves Troilus, and Troilus dies.  These events undermine the authority of the courtly love.  The system does not prove to be as good an authority as the narrator initially created it.

            In contrast to the earlier domination of courtly love,
Davis reveals how the narrator ends the poem by advising a contemplative lifestyle (56). 
Davis refers to the multiple religious references of the ending, such as the advice to love God, Chaucer’s request for correction in morals and philosophy, and the invocation of the Holy Trinity (57).  Since the religion of sex and Cupid has failed, the narrator turns to Christianity according to
Davis (62). 
Davis says this switch in focus reflect Chaucer’s desire to undermine a discourse that tries to be an absolute authority (62).  The two systems oppose each other in a way that encourages the reader to question both (
Davis 63). 
Davis argues that the narrator’s initial approach is proven unreliable, which suggests that any further recommendations from the narrator could also be tainted.  Chaucer gives no discourse absolute authority over understanding love.

           
Davis says the reason both systems fail at understanding love is because courtly love and medieval Christianity deny power to women.  According to
Davis, a successful love is a mutual love, which cannot happen when a relationship is unbalanced (65).  The conventions of courtly love may promise women a more power in romance, but in the end, the man’s desires dominate the tradition (
Davis 62). 
Davis argues that Criseyde internalizes the importance of male desire over own under the tutelage of Pandarus and Troilus, which leads her to submit to the next man desiring her, Diomede (60). 
Davis then dissects the other authority on love, the religious perspective.  Medieval Christianity marginalized the voice of women and maintained the superiority of masculine opinions, which would also limit Criseyde’s ability to love well (
Davis 63).  Neither system can be relied upon as the basis for sustaining a relationship according to
Davis.

            After reading
Davis’s essay, I found that the most interesting contribution was the exploration of the contrasting philosophies of the beginning and end of Troilus and Criseyde.  Any noticeable change in narrative style is important, and
Davis creates that change as being Chaucer’s way of undermining his narrator’s credibility to the reader. 
Davis does not give the final verses greater weight in interpreting the poem than the beginning, despite the fact that it is easy to assume the last words are most important.  The radical shift that marks of the end of Book V must be more important than Chaucer’s quick reassertion of proper values in the face of his romance, and Davis explores how that can be so.

            However,
Davis weakened the argument by explaining why both the courtly love and religious discourses fail Criseyde.  I agree that the tradition of courtly love proves problematic in actuality for the lovers, because it is so artificial.  But
Davis interprets part of the problem to be the effects of the rules on Criseyde, and credited that with her decision to choose Diomede. 
Davis argued that Criseyde chose Diomede because Pandarus and Troilus trained her to obey the rules of courtly love, which require a lady to favor the man who shows interest. 
Davis neglects the fact that Diomede is not only Criseyde’s second lover in the poem, but that he is the more effective lover. 
Davis complains that courtly love limits a woman’s voice, and it is true that for Troilus this is the case, as Troilus’s speeches about his love remain self centered.  However, Diomede asks Criseyde for her opinions and seeks her voice (Book V, 858).  Diomede is working the false reversal of power in courtly love, but he does so much more effectively than Troilus does under Pandarus’s instruction. 
Davis argues that Criseyde learns to tolerate the lies of men in her relationship with Troilus, and that is what makes her susceptible to Diomede.  However, Diomede is simply a more effective lover; his lies are nicer than those of Troilus. 
Davis does not consider how the differences between Troilus and Diomede affect Criseyde’s decision. 

           
Davis also has some difficulty in supporting why religion is not the perfect authority on love. 
Davis’s argument against medieval Christianity as a guide for lovers revolves around the lack of equality between men and women.  This does not seem supported in the text, especially as the outright Christian element enters late.  A side note to this argument that
Davis briefly mentions would be a better starting point: since religion advises against physical love, it sidesteps the very real issue of a more secular love.  This would have been a better place to explain how Chaucer is subtly undermining the answers each system claims to provide.  The tradition of courtly love creates a highly limited set of rules to govern romantic encounters, and it is not trustworthy because people are more complicated that a rulebook will allow.  When someone breaks from the mold of courtly love, as Criseyde does when she initially ignores Pandarus’s attempts to involve her, the system breaks down.  Courtly love is a limited system, but in this argument
Davis suggests but does not explore, so is the purely spiritual answer.  Ignoring a situation creates its own set of limitations in how to deal with an issue as complex as love.  Since this is the advice espoused in the ending,
Davis would have done better to focus on that, and not the tenuously connect subject of women in the Church. 

            In “The Ends of Fiction: Narrative Boundaries and Chaucer’s Attitude toward Courtly Love,”
Davis discusses how Chaucer contrasts discourses in the literal boundaries of the text, the beginning and end.  Troilus and Criseyde does reflect on the relationship between courtly love and religion, but I disagreed with
Davis’s exact interpretation. 
Davis wants to prove both discourses false in the poem, but does not examine all elements in the course of doing so, an unfortunate flaw in an otherwise valuable essay.

                  Courtney Brown