A close reading of rhetoric in Troilus and Diomede’s proposals to Criseyde Saturday, Nov 25 2006

            According to Aristotle, a successful persuasive speaker will use either ethos (emotional appeal), logos (appeal based on reason), or pathos (appeal of the speaker) in order to get his or her point across. Since Chaucer was a highly educated writer, it is reasonable that he would have been familiar with the works of Aristotle. In fact, in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, both Troilus’s and Diomede’s initial proposals to Criseyde utilize opposing rhetorical techniques. While Troilus’s proposal appeals to Criseyde’s emotional side with ethos, Diomede’s appeals to her sense of reason with logos.

            Found in Book III, Troilus’s original proposal to Criseyde is based almost entirely on emotional appeal. Troilus’s behavior seems to have been devised to make him look weak and pitiful so Criseyde would feel sorry for him and accept. As soon as Criseyde enters his room where he is bedridden, Troilus announces, “Allas, I may not rise, To knele and do yow honor in some wyse,” or basically that he is too helpless to sit up (Book III, 69-70). This would be more forgivable if Troilus had an actual illness besides lovesickness, but he makes it clear to Helen and his brother Deiphebus that his pain is “by cause, lo, that she a lady is” (Book II, 1633). When Troilus instead tries to woo Criseyde with the speech Pandarus wrote for him, he finds that: “And sire, his lessoun, that he wende koun To preyen hire, is thorugh his wit ironne” (Book III, 83-84). All Troilus can do then is stammer and “wex sodeynliche red,” emotional appeal in itself because it invokes pity on Criseyde’s part, as she was no fool and “al this aspied wel ynough” (82, 85). The words he does end up saying all focus on his suffering. In fact his first words to her are “Mercy, mercy, swete herte!” to make it clear to her that she is the cause of his pain (98). He implies that his end is near, “Now recche I nevere how soone that I deye” (112). By this point, Pandarus is reacting emotionally to his appeal, and he “wep as he to water wolde” (115). But not until Criseyde’s prying does Troilus stop his complaining to reveal his intent: “In trouthe alwey to don yow my servise” (133). In this proposal, invoking an emotional reaction was more important than conveying a point. This proposal is half successful, because while Criseyde does “receyven him fully to [her] servyse,” she feels a need to point out the logical flaws in their union:

 

                        “But natheles, this warne I yow,” quod she

                        A kynges sone although ye be, ywys,

                        Ye shal namore han sovereignete

                        Of me in love, than right in that cas is;”

 

Criseyde makes sure to stress that she is not giving away her whole person to Troilus while at the same time underlining their difference in status. Criseyde’s speech makes clear that Troilus’s emotional speech was intent on evoking emotions onto a blank slate of a person, not on adding to any concerns Criseyde might have already held. Therefore, Troilus’s idea of rhetoric is like that of the Greek Sophists: speech was considered a dramatic “spectacle” designed for performance, not for proving a point. Troilus’s theatrical behavior and use of ethos does just this.

            Meanwhile, Diomede’s original proposal to Criseyde is designed to appeal to her logical reasoning. To assess it, it is best to begin before he actually speaks to Criseyde, during his calculating preparation of the speech. When it is time for Criseyde to be traded to the Greeks, Diomede is aware that Criseyde has feelings for Troilus since as soon as she parts with him, “Ful sorfully she sighte, and seyde “Allas!… And forth she rit ful sorwfully a pas” (Book V, 58, 61). As he leads her horse away, he thinks to himself “Al my labour shal nat ben on ydel” and that he must wait to give his proposal at the correct time since she presumably “have in hire thought Hym that I gesse” (94, 102-103). It is clear that his sense of reason is at work even in his timing. When he does begin to speak, he first tries to relax her since she is upset, and she would be more likely to listen in a better mood. He says, “A Grek ye sholde among us alle fynde As any Troian is, and ek as kynde” (125-126). Though the Greeks are at war with the Trojans, Diomede realizes Criseyde’s feelings of nationalism and plays into her sympathies. Though he may not himself agree that the Trojans are in any way as good as the Greeks, he insists to Criseyde that they are hardly different, and “For though ye Troians with us Grekes wrothe… O god of Love in soth we serven bothe” (141, 143). Next, he flatters Criseyde with the intent of reviving her spirits: “Thus seyde I nevere er now to womman born… I loved never womman here-biforn” (155, 157). While Diomede’s admittance here is more hyperbolic than believable, it is exactly what a lady like Criseyde would expect to hear. He also states “Ther ben so worthi knyghtes in this place, And ye so fayr, that everich of hem alle Wol peynen hym to stonden in youre grace” to lay it on even thicker (169-171). Finally, like the final brick on top of a pyramid, Diomede requests simply to serve her: “That ye me for youre servant wolde calle, So lowly ne so trewely yow serve” (173-174). Unlike Troilus’s request to serve Criseyde, Diomede’s request utilizes all the elements he has already built up in his speech, like the conclusion to a point, whereas Troilus’s sounded more like an afterthought behind a performance. However, it is clear in Criseyde’s response that Diomede lacked ethos, since “she naught his tales herde But here and ther, now here a word or two” (179-180). If Diomede’s speech had been more dramatic, Criseyde would have felt more obliged to give a fitting response. Still, Diomede’s consideration of Criseyde’s previous feelings and use of rhetorical tools like flattery and hyperbole betray the logical workings within his speech.

            In Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, two romantic proposals are made to Criseyde during the course of the story. The first, by Troilus, utilizes ethos to persuade her, and the second, by Diomede, makes use of logos to appeal to her. Which of these two speeches was more successful? Ultimately, both led to the speaker gaining Criseyde’s interest. However, I would have to suggest that Diomede’s speech, focused on logical reasoning, is more successful in the long run. While both speeches used techniques that would have been approved by Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher stresses that the speaker must be aware of “all the available means of persuasion” and which type would be most appropriate. We already know from Book II that Criseyde considers herself a reasonable, independent actor: “I am myn owene womman, wel at ese” (Book II, 750). Therefore, Diomede was a better judge of character in deciding which rhetorical tools to use to win over Criseyde. 

One Response »

 

A Close Reading of Allusion in The Merchant’s Tale Sunday, Nov 5 2006

In The Merchant’s Tale, Chaucer deals with the question of whether women’s infidelity is justified in an unpleasant, age inappropriate marriage. By line 2225, Chaucer invites the mythological figures Pluto and Persephone to weigh in on the situation, although they themselves are near exact parallels of the scene. The two deities argue about whether Januarie should be granted sight so he can observe his wife’s transgressions. In lines 2225-2319 of The Merchant’s Tale, Chaucer uses allusion to show Pluto’s, Persephone’s, and his own direct opinion on the subject of women’s fidelity.

When Pluto assesses the situation, he develops an argument composed mainly of distinct allusions. He states that he has “ten hondred thousand [tales] tellen I
kan” but decides to list only two Christian biblical allusions (2240). First he invokes “Salomon” or Solomon, a biblical hero that most readers of the period would recognize as a generally good figure (2242). Pluto states that Solomon searched for worthy individuals, and while he found one worthy male, he proclaimed that he found not one adequate female, “thus seith the kyng that knoweth youre wikkednesse” (2248-9). This allusion serves to point out Pluto’s belief that even in ancient times there were no moral women. For his second allusion, Pluto recalls “Jhesus, filius Syrak,” the author/translator of Eclessiasticus, a text that was frequently read in Catholic churches during Chaucer’s time, and therefore taken as canon. Pluto states that Jhesus spoke frequently about the evil that lies in women, “…So falle upon youre bodyes yet to-nyght!” (2253). The purpose of this allusion is to demonstrate a more modern perspective of women and to show that they are still considered immoral in modern times. The fact that Pluto chooses to utilize two Christian allusions to state his opinion reinforces his identity as a patriarchal figure and a man who expects to always have power over women. As both a deity and a man who has taken a much younger wife, the patriarchal attitude of the church makes a fitting background for his belief that women have been considered immoral from antiquity to the present. On this base, he justifies his opinion to restore Januarie’s sight.

            Persephone also states her opinion by creating allusions. First, she refutes her husband’s biblical example by turning it against him. She replies that although Solomon did not find one good woman, “yet hath ther founde many another man,” basically that he found only one worthy man (2280). The purpose of this argument is to demonstrate that even Solomon found near equality in the morality of men and women. Since this is a generally weak argument, Persephone continues by stating that “made he eek a temple of false goddis,” and was therefore an “ydolastre” (2295, 2298). Persephone points out that although Solomon is written about in the Bible, and although “he were riche and glorious,” he still did not adhere to the god that Chaucer’s contemporary readers identified with (2294). Therefore, she suggests that Pluto’s allusion does not fit their modern situation. In a second argument, she invokes the Christian female saints, who “with martyrdom they preved hire
constance,” therefore reminding him that Christianity has its share of respected, pious women (2283). This allusion is in response to Pluto’s mention of Jhesus, who thought women to be impious. A third allusion Persephone makes is to “the Romayn geestes” or history (2284). Here, she states, there are records “of many a verray, trewe wyf” (2285). When Persephone uses an allusion that does not come from canon, she enforces her argument by using reason rather than religious sway. This evens out the argument, since it would be difficult for a woman to respond to every misogynistic reprimand of the church. Through these three allusions, Persephone justifies her opinion that not all women are immoral and unfaithful.

            Chaucer also manages to directly get his opinion across to the audience through allusion. The most obvious one, the proverbial “elephant in the room,” is that Pluto and Persephone are the antithesis of unbiased judges for the situation. The story of Pluto’s rape of the young Persephone would be common knowledge to Chaucer’s audience. Even if somebody managed to miss this allusion, Chaucer makes another: “In Claudyan ye may the stories rede,/ How in his grisely carte he hire fette” (2232-2233). Chaucer refers here to Claudian, the author of Rape of Proserpina. The irony of his choice of allusion becomes extremely direct after this explicit reference to Pluto’s rape of Persephone. Chaucer also alludes to maladies and medicines by using medical terms in his descriptions. When he has Pluto say that women’s morals are “a wylde fyr and corrupt pestilence,” he is directly to infection and disease (2252). When Persephone wants to emphasize what she believes is the corruption of Solomon, she states that “as ye his name emplastre,/ He was a lecchour and an ydolastre” (2298). A literal translation of “emplastre” would be to use a medicinal plaster, once again showing Chaucer’s penchant of alluding to medical terms when discussing corruption and immorality. Finally, Chaucer allows Pluto to get the last word and, if that is not direct enough, has Persephone apologize to him, saying, “I wol no lenger yow contrarie” (2319). Therefore, in Chaucer’s allusions to mythology, authorship, and medicine, he makes clear his opinion that women are more immoral than men are.

            Through allusion, Chaucer reveals Pluto’s, Persephone’s, and his own direct opinion on women’s morality and fidelity in lines 2225-2319 of The Merchant’s Tale. By the conclusion of these lines, Pluto and Persephone decide to grant Januarie his sight again so he can address his wife’s infidelity. This argument resulted in a victory for patriarchy because it allowed Januarie to once again opinion. keep his young wife in check. In conclusion, Chaucer sides with the deity that shares his own opinion about whether women’s infidelity is justified in any situation, and completes the scene that way.

One Response »

 

A Reading of Sexuality in the Diction of Marie de France’s Bisclavret Thursday, Sep 14 2006

            Out of all the lais of Marie de France, Bisclavret deals with the most unusual premise: that men can become temporary beasts. It is hard to swallow that Marie, an educated woman, believed that “it often used to happen” (68). However, if we interpret the baron’s condition as a metaphor for his mental state, a close reading of the lay’s diction leads brings forth hidden truths about the sexuality of Bisclavret, his wife, and the king.

            Right at the beginning of her lay, Marie explains that to be a werewolf is “to be possessed by… madness” (68). The use of the word “madness,” illuminates Marie’s belief that Bisclavret and other werewolves actually experience a psychological ailment. She also limits the ability to become a werewolf to men, signaling a tie between male sexuality and this illness. Becoming a werewolf appears to be necessary for Bisclavret because he always “returned home in high spirits” from his three day vacations each week (68). However, it must still be read as an illness because it causes his wife “great worry” and therefore marital unhappiness (68). Bisclavret’s “madness” also clashes with his reputation. He is considered a “good handsome knight who conducted himself nobly” (68). Marie uses the word “nobly” to deliberately conflict with the “ferocious beast” that Bisclavret becomes for three days out of every week (68). Bisclavret’s illness hints at a secret side of his sexuality that his wife cannot handle. Notice that when the baron is in werewolf form, he chooses to hide in “vast forests” (69). However, his wife demands explicitly “do not hide or doubt,” bespeaking her inability to acknowledge the clandestine nature of erotic love, which Bisclavret clearly desires (68). His illness can be seen as a way to release his sexual needs since he finds no outlet in his wife.

It should be noted that the wife’s first impulse about Bisclavret’s disappearances was that he must have taken a mistress. Even when she learns the truth, her first question is “whether he undressed or remained clothed” (69). When she realizes that he does undress, she continues to see Bisclavret’s werewolf form as a sexually threatening idea. She decides that she “no longer wished to lie with him” now that she has seen this primal side of him (69). The only option she sees next is to find a new man to lie with, a man “she had never loved or promised… her affection” (69). The fact that she doesn’t feel anything for the second man makes him unthreatening compared to the passionate and sexualized Bisclavret, who “loved her and she returned his love” (68). Before his wife can leave Bisclavret though, she must symbolically castrate him by stealing his clothes and therefore his manhood. She asks her new man to do this, signifying how, for her, one man must be present to remove another. However, Bisclavret’s passion and masculinity return when he gets his revenge and bites off his former wife’s nose in animal form. Marie describes how he “dashed towards her like a madman,” illuminating both his illness and the degree of hurt he felt when his wife could not accept him as a sexual being (71). The fact that he removes her sense of smell, the sense that is associated with being very strong in wolves, removes her from Bisclavret. Without a nose, there was no way she could ever understand his animal nature. Her female daughters, too, were “born without noses” and could presumably never learn to sniff out the primal desires of men (72).

The king is portrayed as a hyper-masculine figure in this lay, a great hunter and a great leader. He never had to ask for anything, he merely “commanded” or “summoned” a group of trusty followers (70). In fact, the reason that the king takes in werewolf Bisclavret is because the animal “ran up to him and begged for mercy” (70). The animal then “took hold of the stirrup and kissed [the king’s] foot and his leg” (70). In other words, the king immediately took to Bisclavret simply because he was able to act like a man. The werewolf’s ability to mimic his behavior amplifies the king’s love for himself and all men. His greatest compliment for Bisclavret is that he “has the intelligence of a human” (70). The wolf was permitted to sleep with men, “amongst the knights, just by the king” (70). The image here is one of love among men, which the king’s hyper-masculine image promotes. Werewolf Bisclavret is exactly the right kind of companion for the king because, while he is intelligent, he is also “gentle” (70). He becomes a loyal follower to the king when he “accompanied him constantly and showed clearly that he loved him” (70). However, there is a sexual side to the king’s relationship with Bisclavret when king places Bisclavret’s clothes before him to see if he turns into a man. The king’s advisor explains that “it is most humiliating for him” to have to change back into a man in front of the king (72). Therefore, they decide to leave the werewolf and the clothes in the king’s own bedchamber. In the intimacy of the king’s bedroom, Bisclavret is able to become human again and the king “ran forward to embrace him, and kissed him many times” (72). This is a reversal of when the werewolf kissed the king’s foot to beg for mercy, and signifies love being reciprocated. This also underlines the king’s masculinity and ideas of love among men; the only thing more ideal for the king than a wolf who acts like a human follower is an actual human follower.

Marie de France’s lay Bisclavret evolved into a complex tale of sexuality and secrecy when the main character’s ability to become a werewolf was read as a mental condition. Through such a lens, Marie’s diction bespeaks three main characters and their sexual conceptions and hang-ups. Note that after the sexually repressed wife and the dominant, masculine king, we find Bisclavret at the end of the story happy, but as a man with no sexual partner. Since he has the ability to remain alternating as man and beast for the rest of his life, he is in touch with both his civilized and primal sides, and therefore fulfilled.

Leave a Response »