Windeatt on “Love that oughte ben secree”
Windeatt, Barry. “’Love that oughte ben secree” in Chaucer’s Troilus.” Chaucer Review 14.2 (1979): 116-131.
Barry Windeatt in his essay, “’Love that oughte ben secree” in Chaucer’s Troilus,” argues that Chaucer makes deliberate choices in his changes from Boccaccio’s Il Filistrato to emphasize the importance for secrecy in love affairs as well as introducing a society based on courtly love that affords lovers very little privacy (116). Chaucer’s interest is in how the love of Troilus and Criseyde is limited both by their society and by their own beliefs—Pandarus’ beliefs—about how lovers should behave. Pandarus especially is guilty of these crimes, as he often convinces Troilus about how secrecy in affairs is necessary not because of common sense but because of old romances and courtly love in literary tradition (116).
Using a wide variety of examples, Windeatt contrasts Il Filistrato and Chaucer’s Troilus. He emphasizes the differences between the characters and the society in which either author places the story. According to Windeatt, the English characters are afforded less privacy than Boccaccio’s characters are. Whenever Criseide needs privacy she merely leaves the company of others. Criseyde is rarely alone when she needs or wants to be, and in Book III the only way for Pandarus to have a private conversation with Criseyde is to tell her companions he needed to discuss a state secret (118). In Filistrato, Pandaro and Criseide have a much easier time getting privacy (117). In the name of the constraints of society, Chaucer deliberately makes it harder for the English lovers to progress their affair. Too much of their efforts has to be given to keeping up appearances and maintaining public life that entirely hides their private life.
Criseyde as a character is especially aware of how she is publicly viewed. When she is with Troilus’ family as they discuss the nature of his ‘illness’ in Book II, she feels the public distinction between herself and Troilus that Troilus never acknowledges. On the other hand, Troilus often feels the need to keep up public appearances as well. When first sighting Criseyde in the temple, Troilus deliberately looks at other things so that no one can tell he is staring. There is no effort made on the part of Boccaccio’s Troilo to hide his love in this way. The letters themselves are also indications of the false nature of public appearances. Both Troilus and Criseyde are told by Pandarus that there is a difference between composing a love letter an merely writing a letter. According to Windeatt, “For Chaucer’s Pandarus a letter is an essentially non-spontaneous, pre-considered statement, consciously designed to achieve maximum effect (122). Criseyde and Troilus are both too naïve to understand this and so Pandarus is able to manipulate them.
Windeatt’s essay is well formulated and persuasive. His thesis on the contrasts between private and public life in Chaucer’s Troilus and Boccaccio’s Il Filistrato is explained in its entirety. He suggests that Chaucer’s constant inclusion of social responsibilities that are not in Boccaccio’s text is to emphasize the eternal conflict between private and public life for Troilus and Criseyde. His examples are clear and illuminating, especially when speaking about the love letter or Troilus’ initial reaction to seeing Criseyde in the temple. The examination of Troilus as conflicted between his public and his private desires was especially interesting because he is a character that spends less time conflicted with himself than Criseyde does. Criseyde spends almost the entire poem analyzing the importance of her decisions and the possible consequences of her actions, especially as viewed by others. Pandarus too emphasizes to Troilus the importance of keeping the affair a secret and how Criseyde’s reputation would be ruined if Troy discovered their love. Troilus too often leaves the decision making to Pandarus and Criseyde, letting Pandarus choose where the relationship goes and placing himself in Criseyde’s hands as her servant. But Windeatt makes excellent arguments for Troilus’s conflicted views on what is expected of him from his family and from Troy versus what he wants to do and feel.
The weakest argument of the essay was that of the repetitious nature of literary romance, and Pandarus’ use of that. The idea that Troilus and Criseyde act the way they do because of their beliefs on how lovers act is not fully fleshed out. Windeatt uses fewer examples when he could have used more to better explain and support his thesis. However, his essay overall was excellent and does not suffer too greatly for the loss of these ideas.
