Courtney’s Blog

Moore, Marilyn Reppa.  “Who’s Solipsistic now?  The Character of Chaucer’s Troilus.”  The Chaucer Review 33.1 (1998): 43-57.

            In
Moore’s analysis of Chaucer’s Troilus, she argues that reading Troilus as self centered is incorrect, and in fact, Troilus gains an understanding of the world outside himself through his devotion to Criseyde. 
Moore says that Troilus’s relationship with Criseyde is not about romantic love, but instead about Troilus converting to a more moral life.  I thought that
Moore’s exploration of the religious element of the poem was interesting, but disagreed in the application.

            According to
Moore, Troilus is only self centered at the beginning of the poem, but changes when he sees Criseyde (44).  Prior to seeing Criseyde, Troilus is an arrogant young man mocking others while in the temple (
Moore 48).  However, when he sees her, Moor argues, Troilus experiences a significant change.  Moore characterizes this change as being parallel to a religious conversion, pointing out that many of Troilus’s speeches regarding Criseyde are prayer like, such as in his songs (45). 
Moore furthers this understanding in her interpretation of Troilus’s decision to seclude himself in his room after seeing Criseyde.  While some critics see this as proof of a self centered Troilus despairing over his life,
Moore views this scene as proof of Troilus’s new devotion (47). 
Moore interprets Troilus’s behavior as a form of meditation, in which he focuses on the image of Criseyde in order to discover the greater concept of love (49).  In connection to this argument, Moore refers to the philosophy of St. Anselm of
Canterbury, which encourages the devout to seclude themselves when in prayer, and to meditate on the face of God (54).  Chaucer would have known this discourse,
Moore says, and therefore the close parallels between Anselm’s advice and Troilus’s behavior are intentional (53). 
Moore believes that the intended perception of Troilus is that he discovers devotion to others through his love for Criseyde.

           
Moore also argues that Troilus’s devotion makes him a better person. 
Moore states that the Narrator establishes a change in Troilus’s public behavior, which proves Troilus has learned empathy from his devotion (51). 
Moore refers to lines in Book I describing Troilus as becoming “the frendlieste wight… dede were his japes and cruelte” (51).  Another example
Moore uses is from Book III, in which the virtues of Troilus become so laudable that they reach the “yate of hevene”, a phrase that suggests a strong religious component to the change in Troilus’s behavior.  According to
Moore’s interpretation, Troilus becomes an improved member of society.

            After reading
Moore’s essay, I noticed several things.  The first was that out of the essays I read,
Moore focused the most on the religious aspect of Troilus and Criseyde.  In the essays by Love and Davis, they discuss religion and contemporary religious discourse, but not to the degree that
Moore did, as those essays covered other subjects as well.  However, I was disappointed in
Moore’s application of the elements she discussed.  Moore’s analysis creates Criseyde as the one who inspires Troilus, and
Moore makes no mention of how that concept relates to the tradition of courtly love, a central topic in Troilus and Criseyde.  In fact,
Moore dismisses the romantic aspect of Troilus in favor of religious devotion.  This weakened the argument, as the romance of Troilus and Criseyde is the subject of Chaucer’s poem.  The story of the failed lovers overwhelms a story about a converted Troilus.  By dismissing the larger plot, 
Moore neglected to consider how the interpretation of the devoted Troilus could connect to the love story.

However, I found
Moore’s connection between Troilus’s behavior and the philosophy of St. Anselm intriguing.  I would have preferred
Moore to explore this further, and determine how those parallels tie in with the conventions of courtly love.  In his essay, “The Ends of Fiction,” Adam Davis suggests that courtly love represents a sort of counter religion to Christianity. 
Moore establishes Criseyde as a godlike figure, and then does not discuss how in the courtly tradition, the woman is created as a sort of goddess to which the man pledges his devotion.  I think that if Chaucer is drawing on the works of
St. Anselm, he does so to underscore the parallels between a courtly lover and the faithful.  By ignoring the romance,
Moore does not explore how the changed Troilus reflects a courtly lover.  In the courtly tradition that the Narrator uses, Troilus must be changed to a better person by his love for Criseyde, because in that tradition the lover always strives to be worthy of his lady. 
Moore does not discuss how the appearance of a religious discourse in Troilus’s behavior connects with the other traditions Chaucer uses.  I believe that the religious element Moore notices could be used to understand the complexity of the world Chaucer creates; a world in which different traditions interact and use each other to achieve their ends.

Moore examines the religious component in Troilus and Criseyde, and in doing so reveals why a narrow examination of a complicated text like the poem is unwise. 
Moore’s reading of Troilus as devout, and not merely a lover, limits the interpretation of the character.  Chaucer thrives on ambiguities, and
Moore does not discuss how someone like Troilus can reflect multiple traditions, even when one tradition appears to contradict the other.  In this essay,
Moore has the opportunity to examine layers but instead chose to be limited, a decision that weakens the impact of the essay.

Courtney Brown