Conceptions of love and courtliness in Amis and Amiloun and Troilus and Criseyde

 

Conceptions of love and courtliness in Amis and Amiloun and Troilus and Criseyde

 

James A. Schultz claims that ‘Courtly lovers are aristophiliacs: they fall in love with nobility and courtliness’. He clarifies that aristophilia is outside the standard framework of sexual orientation as it is not defined by gender. This understanding encompasses all courtiers, regardless of their sex, who are attracted to nobility and courtliness. Considering this, it is interesting to further examine the relationship between these two clearly involved conceptions of love and courtliness. This will be done by analysing Amis and Amiloun and Troilus and Criseyde comparatively. Particular consideration will be given to courtly gender expectations and their subsequent effect on love, the seemingly three-way union of love, courtliness and beauty, the problems in presenting the courtly experience of a character through their lover and finally, the effect of love on courtly structures. For the purpose of this essay, it is important to be aware that often the critics cited have vastly different opinions on the explored relationship between courtliness and love. 

 

It is interesting to consider the relationship between gender and courtliness, particularly in terms of how we understand love within the texts. As, despite aristophilia being gender inclusive, the courtly behaviour it is attracted to is rife with gender inflections. This is illustrated in the narrator’s depiction of Criseyde; ‘Never yet was anything seen that was to be praised more highly, nor so bright a star under a black cloud’. From this description, it is clear that Criseyde is considered courtly and beautiful in her role as a faithful mourning widow. This is confirmed in Schultz’s claim that ‘the grief women display over the death of husband or lover, has an aphrodisiac effect’ on courtly men. Schultz goes on to clarify that a woman’s courtliness is dependent on her modesty and womanly devotion.  Therefore, in initially presenting Criseyde as the beautiful widow he is simultaneously presenting her as an ideal courtly woman. While Criseyde’s courtliness is judged by her modesty, we can see that both Amis and Amiloun are judged by their knightliness. For instance, the narrator tells that; ‘whenever they went to joust or tournament, they were known as the doughtiest that rode with a shield and spear’. The men are adored by the court and kingdom for their displays of power, where Criseyde is admired for her submissive modesty. This lends to Boboc’s view that often in courtly love women have very little agency and are left dependent on men who traffic them.  It seems that this loss of female autonomy can often be, both a consequence of and a necessity in an aristophiliac relationship. As, if courtly lovers fall in love with courtliness, they must fall in love with modest, submissive women. Overall, it is true that astrophiliacs do not fall in love with gender, but rather an idealized representation of courtliness. However, as illustrated, the ways through which this ideal courtly behaviour is realised is partially dependant on the gender of the character. Therefore, there is the sense that characters must adhere to these accepted courtly gender expectations if they want to find love in the court. This leads us to the question of what happens when a character deviates from this ideal behaviour?

 

In both Amis and Amiloun and Troilus and Criseyde characters who possess courtly attributes are presented as beautiful. This is evidenced by Pandaras’ depiction of Criseyde; ‘she has sufficient good name, and wisdom and manners, and nobility too- you know yourself she’s beautiful.’ Similarly, when representing noble behaviour Amis and Amiloun are described as ‘the fairest of bone and blood in all the land’. These examples clearly illustrate a parallel between courtliness and beauty in both texts. Furthering this, we can see that deviating from courtly behaviour in turn induces, or rather highlights, unattractiveness in a character. As, when Amiloun impersonates Amis in courtly combat the dishonesty exhibited results in him being cursed with leprosy. The combination of his uncourtly behaviour and his consequential unattractive appearance results in all the aristophiliac love he previously received being revoked. This is described in the statement;

 All that had been his best friends, and all his rich kinsmen, had now become his worst enemies, and his wife, to speak truth, treated him more cruelly, night and day, than did any of them.

Not only has all courtly love for Amiloun been revoked, but rather it has been replaced with a powerful hatred. Dannenbaum disagrees that Amiloun’s leprosy is punishment for his dishonesty and believes it is rather a test of the friendship between the two men. However, this logic does not fit with Schultz’s framework of aristophilia. As, it requires that leprosy and the resultant unattractiveness, due to Amiloun’s uncourtly behaviour, act as a punishment. Interestingly, Amiloun’s beauty and courtliness are eventually restored, which in turn re-establishes the courts aristophiliac desire for him. For this restoration to take place Amis has to kill his children in a sacrifice, which is fortunately not permanent. Considering that these men have a love so powerful that they are physically identical, such possibilities should not be surprising. Amiloun’s love for Amis caused him to sacrifice both his position at the court and his physical attractiveness. Therefore, it is somewhat logical that Amis must also make a courtly sacrifice to redeem the beauty and courtliness of his love in turn. Overall, it is clear that beauty and courtliness are connected in their relationship with love, in both texts. Beauty, at least on a surface level, seems to represent courtliness and without it you cannot facilitate love in the courts. However, there does seem to be some limits to this argument, in that Amis is able to see through Amiloun’s unattractiveness and continues to love him regardless.

 

            There are many limits to Schultz’s proposed astrophiliac love, which seems to rely on the traditional notion that the blazon of a character represents their internal value. Blazon in the context of Troilus and Criseyde describes the physical attributes of feminine beauty as something that can be possessed by a man. Therefore, Boboc argues that Chaucer is not necessarily using beauty as a marker of courtliness, but rather as a means of presenting the female experience of love in the court. Schultz’s argument would have us believe that the appearance of Criseyde’s uni-brow in the final book is a result of her uncourtly betrayal of Troilus and his love. However, Boboc argues that her eyebrows were undoubtedly joined from the beginning, the only thing that has changed is the masculine perspective of her. Initially, we are told that Criseyde’s beauty is ‘heavenly’ and therefore there is the sense that her appearance is so awesome that it is beyond human comprehension. This perception immediately changes as soon as the couple engage in lovemaking. From this moment on Criseyde loses her sublime beauty and is reduced to physicality, she is merely a body under Troilus’ masculine gaze. Her perceived beauty continues to deteriorate and when she discovers that she is to be traded to the Greeks, in exchange for the safe return of Antenor, it is described particularly unfavourably. The narrator details her appearance with; ‘Her once radiant complexion, which was now pale, bore witness to her sorrow and her distress’. In this understanding, unattractiveness is not due to uncourtliness, as Criseyde’s beauty continues to decline, often entirely independent of her own behaviour and decisions. Rather, as we perceive Criseyde through lens of masculine desire, unattractiveness is measured exclusively through male emotion and fluctuates accordingly. Therefore, her depicted appearance only serves to illustrate the unreliability of a lover’s gaze in depicting the female experience in the court. A similar argument could be made to explain the deterioration of Amiloun’s beauty through leprosy. Dannenbaum explains it is important to remember that the only character who explicitly connects Amiloun’s leprosy to his dishonesty is his wife. She states; ‘Thou wretched caitiff, the steward was unjustly slain, as it appears in thee; and therefore, by St. Denis of France, art thou fallen into this evil case!’ Interestingly, like Troilus she is portrayed as a relatively unreliable narrator. She is described as ‘wicked and shrewish’ and there is the suggestion that in depicting her this way Chaucer intends for us to believe the opposite of her accusation. Overall, it is extremely difficult to determine the genuine courtly experience of a character when it is presented through the lens of their lover.

 

Garrison asserts that the blending of the lines between love and courtliness is extremely detrimental in Troilus and Criseyde. She claims that ‘One of the hallmarks of masculinity in the poem is a refusal to recognize the political implications of what appear to be internal desires.’ The problem lies within Troilus’ false belief that he is able to keep his public military concerns and private love of Criseyde separate. She argues that Troilus’ prioritization of his own internal state, in fixating over his love of Criseyde, is damaging to courtly system. One way this interiority presents itself in the text is through Troilus’ persistent spells of lovesickness. The idea that the effect of love can physically manifest itself in the body is extremely problematic, particularly in terms of Troilus’ role as a military leader. It is almost laughable to imagine that this strong warrior could faint mid battle from an unexpected spout of lovesickness. More alarmingly the text illustrates that it does not take much to provoke such a reaction. For instance, a mere heated discussion with Criseyde is enough to overwhelm Troilus with emotion and cause him to collapse. This is described with; ‘He lost all feeling of his sorrow, or his fear, or anything else, and very suddenly fell down in a faint.” Garrison links this behaviour to that of the contemporary Richard II and his court. She claims that Troilus’ behaviour is reflective of Richard II’s in that they both spend too much time fixated on displaying their interiority. The parallel even extends to military duty, in that just as Richard neglects the war with France, Troilus neglects the Trojan war. It is clear that this Medieval courtly fixation on interiority and focusing on one’s own desires was very problematic. It resulted in massive courtly corruption, the results of which extended out well beyond the court and into the whole country. This is also illustrated through clear entwinement of Troilus and Criseyde’s love plot and courtly plot from the very outset of the text. Criseyde is only left vulnerable to Troilus’ advances due to her father abandoning her to join the Greek side of the war. When Criseyde betrays Troilus with Diomede it is a direct consequence of her being given to the Greeks in exchanged for Antenor. It is evident that courtly pursuits drive the action in the text and in turn are responsible for the disintegration of Troilus and Criseyde’s relationship. Therefore, just as love and courtly pursuits are indistinguishable in Troilus’ mind, so are they in the narrative structure. Overall, Troilus’ fixation with Criseyde is a classic example of masculine interiority. It is extremely counterproductive to his role at Court as it jeopardises his role in the Trojan war.

                                                                                               

To conclude, conceptions of love and courtliness are seemingly entangled within the texts and they have a very complicated relationship to one another. In exploring ideas raised by Schultz we found that courtly gender expectations have a profound effect on love. To be an astrophiliac one must fall in love with courtliness. Therefore, if someone is not acting in coordination with their gender’s ideal courtly behaviour it seems that they would not be able to achieve this kind of love. Secondly, we evaluated the seemingly three-way union of love, courtliness and beauty. Schultz suggested that beauty is linked with courtliness and by extension, without it you cannot have love. However, this understanding is not absolute and also does not easily work alongside other criticism on the text. For instance, the work of critic Boboc, whose claims almost act in opposition to Schultz’s. She instead believes that the perceived beauty of Criseyde is used to represent the feminine experience. Her argument presents the limitations of depicting the courtly experience of a character through the eyes of their lover. Lastly, we utilised Garrisons criticism to explore the effect of love on courtly structures. Highlighting how Troilus’ fixation on his love for Criseyde is destructive in relation to his role at court.

 

Word Count: 2258

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Primary Texts

 

Chaucer, Geoffrey, Troilus and Criseyde A New Translation, ed. and trans. B. Windeatt (Oxford: Oxford World's Classics, 2008)

 

Rickert, Edith, Amis and Amiloun (Ontario: In parentheses Publications: 2000)

 

Secondary Texts

 

Boboc, Andreea, "Criseyde's Descriptions and the Ethics of Feminine Experience." The Chaucer Review, Vol. 47, no. 1, 2012.

Availabe: [Accessed: 24th October 2017]

 

Dannenbaum, Susan, The Story of Amis and Amiloun. Nephilologus Vol.67, issue 4, 1983.

Available: [Accessed: 25^th October 2017]

 

Garrison, Jennifer “Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde and the Danger of Masculine Interiority.” The Chaucer Review, Vol. 49,  No.3, 2015.

Available: [Accessed: 28^th October 2017]

 

Hill, John, “The Countervailing Aesthetic Joy in Troilus and Criseyde.” Chaucer Review, vol 39, no.3, 2005,

Available:  [Accessed: 28^th October 2017]

 

Schultz, James, Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality (USA: The University of Chicago Press, 2006)

 

 

James A. Shultz, Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality (USA: The University of Chicago Press, 2006) P.XX

Schultz, P.80

Schultz, P.91

Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde A New Translation, ed. and trans. B. Windeatt (Oxford: Oxford World's Classics, 2008) P.6

Schultz, P.90

Schultz, P.90

Schultz, P.90

Edith Rickert, Amis and Amiloun (Ontario: In parentheses Publications: 2000) P.4

Andreea Boboc, A. "Criseyde's Descriptions and the Ethics of Feminine Experience." The Chaucer Review, Vol. 47, no. 1, 2012, P.65

Availabe: [Accessed: 24th October 2017]

Chaucer, P.19

Rickert, P.2

Rickert, P.19

Rickert, P.19

Susan Dannenbaum, The Story of Amis and Amiloun. Nephilologus Vol.67, issue 4, 1983. P.620

Available: [Accessed: 25^th October 2017]

Rickert, P.28

Boboc, P.64

John M. Hill, “The Countervailing Aesthetic Joy in Troilus and Criseyde.” Chaucer Review, vol 39, no.3, 2005, P.294

Available:  [Accessed: 28^th October 2017]

Boboc, P.65

Chaucer, P.4

Boboc, P.75

Chaucer, P.104

Dannenbaum, P.620

Rickert, P.19

Rickert, P.19

Dannenbaum, P620

Jennifer Garrison, “Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde and the Danger of Masculine Interiority.” The Chaucer Review, Vol. 49,  No.3, 2015, P.322

Available: [Accessed: 28^th October 2017]

Chaucer, P77

Garrison, P.325

Garrison, P.329

Filed Under: English