Courtney’s Blog

Sadlek, Gregory M.  “Love Labor, and Sloth in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde.” The Chaucer Review 26.4 (1992): 350-368.

            In his essay “Love, Labor, and Sloth,” Sadlek discusses Troilus’s passivity and how Chaucer enhanced this trait from Boccaccio’s Troilo in order to create a more flawed character.  Troilus suffers from sloth on his private life, a failing recognized by Chaucer and his contemporaries.  Sadlek argues Troilus’s sloth impacts the interpretation of Troilus the lover.

            The first point in Sadlek’s argument is that love requires work to succeed.  Sadlek refers to Pandarus comparing a love affair to building a house, which emphasizes that a relationship requires sustained effort (354).  However, Troilus is unable to motivate himself to perform the necessary work to successfully pursue and keep Criseyde (Sadlek 355).  Instead, he is passive and prefers to lie in bed in the grips of despair and bemoan his life (Sadlek 356).  For Troilus, explains Sadlek, his fears regarding love overwhelm him to the point he does nothing (359).  According to Sadlek, Troilus represents medieval understandings of one of the seven deadly sins, sloth.  Sloth is a spiritual and physical failing, in which the sufferer sinks into despair and lacks the fortitude to take action in life (352). 

            Sadlek continues the connection between love and work when he explores how Pandarus acts as an enabler for the slothful Troilus.  Pandarus, Sadlek points out, is the one who takes on the work of arranging the affair between the lovers, and that Chaucer greatly increased his role from Boccaccio’s Pandaro (356).  When comparing Chaucer’s version to Boccaccio’s, Sadlek refers to the initial tryst between the two lovers.  Troilo is capable of actively pursuing sex with Criseyde, while in contrast Troilus is far more passive and requires the intervention of Pandarus to interact with Criseyde (Davis 360).  Sadlek explains that Chaucer must have a motive in changing the character of Troilo/Troilus to such a great degree.

            The motive that Sadlek favors is that Chaucer intended to introduce a flaw into Troilus.  Troilus is the hero, with a truly powerful fidelity to the ideals he holds and his love for Criseyde (364).  By creating this major flaw, the sin of sloth, in Troilus, Sadlek says that Chaucer is increasing the complexity in understanding the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde (365).  Since Troilus is more flawed, the balance of guilt between the two lovers becomes more equitable, since both are now less than perfect (363).

            Sadlek’s essay examines the character Troilus and declares that he exhibits the sin of sloth.  I think that Troilus’s behavior in the poem reveals Sadlek’s point to be a very valid interpretation.  I noticed that Sadlek’s argument could work in conjunction with several other essays I read on Troilus and Criseyde.  Love’s essay, “‘Al This Peynted Process” establishes that Troilus has an obsessive personality, and a single emotion can become his entire world.  I thought this interesting in connection with Sadlek’s assertion, because Sadlek argues that, a primary factor in Troilus’s sloth is his fear.  Since Love points out that Troilus is obsessive, it is clear that when Troilus is afraid, that feeling overwhelms him.  And now that Troilus is afraid, he cannot see beyond that fear, leading him to passively wait instead of taking action to deal with that fear.  For example, it is Troilus’s fear that Criseyde will not return his love that prevents him from seeking out Criseyde without Pandarus’s help.  Sadlek and Love’s arguments work together to interpret Troilus as someone too obsessive to move beyond the thought into action.

           
Moore’s article “Who’s Solipsistic Now?” is also interesting to relate to Sadlek’s essay. 
Moore argues that Troilus experiences a sort of religious conversion and surge in devotion when he sees Criseyde, which leads him to become a better person.  Sadlek’s argument contradicts this statement, as he proves Troilus continued the sinful behavior of sloth, even with his new religion.  However, Sadlek does argue that it is Troilus’s fidelity that enables him to enter heaven, despite his slothful behavior.  Fidelity is an important aspect of the devotion
Moore argues for in Troilus, suggesting that the religious component remains in Troilus, even as others see him as flawed.  Chaucer creates Troilus with the failing of sloth, but does not allow that fault to destroy him, as Troilus continues to possess the heroic trait of fidelity.

            In the essay, Sadlek explains that Chaucer creates Troilus with the sin of sloth in order to have a more flawed character.  Troilus remains passive in his private life because his fears are too strong to overcome.  This assertion works even when related to other essays regarding the behavior of Troilus in Chaucer’s poem.  Sadlek’s argument is important in understanding Troilus and Criseyde. 

            Courtney Brown