Pandarus, from Troilus and Criseyde written by Geoffrey Chaucer, behaves as an intermediary in developing a relationship between Troilus and Criseyde. He is often seen as pedantic, meddling and self motivated, although the reader never discovers his true intent, he is a central role in the poem. Pandarus is an unsuccessful lover but sets himself up as a “servant of love’s servants” (pg 63) such as the narrator does. His credibility is undermined because of his unsuccessful previous ventures into love and this suggests that his involvement in Troilus and Criseyde love is useless. Regardless of his failed love, Pandarus, using various forms of manipulation, weaves the love story between Troilus and Criseyde and advances their relationship in an insincere way.
Pandarus initially uses different rhetorical devices, such a false analogies and pedantic examples in his speech, to influence Criseyde’s response to Troilus’ love. Criseyde moves from indifference to interest in Troilus through Pandarus’ persuasion when he convinces Criseyde everyone would assume that she is only friends with Troilus. Pandarus persuades her the relationship will be innocent using the analogy that no one would assume a man goes to a temple to eat the images rather than to pray (II.372-373). This analogy, although completely inaccurate, is used in a favourable way to make a point. The two ideas are unconnected because Pandarus creates assumed similarities between the man going to the temple and Troilus’ meeting Criseyde, but the conclusion is not accurate since there are more differences than similarities in the situations. No one would assume a man is eating images while Troilus having an affair with Criseyde is believable. Pandarus also uses prose to script...
... middle of paper ...
...ping up appearances to take a chance so Pandarus was essential to push the plot along. Pandarus’ ideas to further the love were too artificial to ever be genuine. By putting Criseyde in a position of inferiority, where Troilus and Pandarus have more knowledge over the situation and therefore more power, creates more of a predatory relationship than any of genuine intent. His use of violence, when referring to their love as a hunt, and manipulation compromised the love’s integrity. Although it may have helped Troilus and Criseyde come together, the false authenticity of his plot, compared to the possible natural progression of love that could have occurred, demonstrates how he thinks of their relationship as more of a game.
Works Cited
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. Ed. Barney Stephen A.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 9-427. Print.
Hence, The Wenders’ determination to protect their daughter in a hostile society, Uncle Axel’s willingness to love and guide his insecure nephew, and the telepaths’ devotion to their closely-knitted group remind us that no matter how corrupt the majority of society becomes, there will always be those who will keep alive the beautiful qualities that make us human. Thus, it is clear that Wyndham purposely incorporated loving relationships in the midst of suffering to keep alive our hope in the human race. Love is an unique quality that can emerge through hardships. The Chrysalids is meant to remind us that the power of this emotion can overcome despair.
Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus can be argued that it is related loosely to Rita Dove's The Darker Face of the Earth. This comparative and contrasting characteristics that can be seen within both plays make the reader/audience more aware of imagery, the major characters, plot, attitudes towards women, and themes that are presented from two very different standpoints. The authors Sophocles and Dove both have a specific goal in mind when writing the two plays. In this paper I will take a closer look of the two, comparing and contrasting the plays with the various elements mentioned previously.
Gender is made explicit as a theme throughout the Oresteia through a series of male-female conflicts and incorrectly gendered characters dominated by the figure of Clytemnestra, a woman out of place. This opposition of gender then engenders all the other oppositions of the trilogy; conflicts of oikos and polis, chthonic and Olympian, old and young can be assigned to female and male spheres respectively. In this essay I will look at how the polis examines itself in terms of gender by focusing on the Eumenides' exploration of the myth of matriarchy, issues of the conflict between oikos and polis and the use of speech within the polis. I will then look at how these themes are brought together in the trial and the play provides an image of resolution. Many of these issues are set up in the opening speech of the priestess Pythia as already resolved and are then reconfirmed by the trial itself and closing images order.
William Shakespeare, an illustrious and eminent playwright from the Elizabethan Age (16th Century) and part owner of the Globe theatre wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream in which he portrays the theme of love in many different ways. These include the paternal love seen in the troubled times for Egeus and his rebellious daughter Hermia, true Love displayed with the valiant acts of Lysander and Hermia and the destructive love present in the agonizing acts of Titania towards her desperate lover Oberon. Through the highs and lows of love, the first love we clasp is the paternal love from our family.
Elements in the poetry of courtly love express the need for a love affair to remain secret. The object of a poet’s love in these poems is typically a married woman, or unattainable by some other means. Andreas Capellanus’s The Rules of Courtly Love captures this element of forbidden love by saying, "marriage (was) no real excuse for not loving" (Cap 115-116). As Patrick Ford wisely pointed out, the need to maintain secrecy in a forbidden affair is not a new idea to modern readers. These elements of courtly love do not escape Dafydd’s poetry. His poem "Secret Love," among others, emphasizes the level of secrecy necessary in maintaining a love affair. Dafydd considers himself a learned lover, who found that "The best form of the words that work / Is to speak love in secrecy" (Sec 1-2).
If Augustine’s views on free will are taken to be true, then the binding prophecies and supernatural interventions of the Aeneid emerge as fictional devices which serve to channel the characters into archetypal roles. In other words, characters ruled by destiny remain useful as universal examples to readers who believe themselves to have free will. As I do not consider myself to be living under the binding prophecies of the Fates or any “orders of the gods” (I have yet to receive any visits from my goddess-mother), I must regard the story of Aeneas and Dido as an allegory representing some of the choices open to my free will. Either their romance must be wrong, morality therefore demanding an end to it, or there is nothing really wrong with their sexual relations...
Pandaro’s influence on Trolio is so resilient that it somewhat changes Trolio’s way of thinking, and behavior which test him to do things he normally wouldn’t do. Trolio who doesn’t believe in love or ever been in love finally witness firsthand the experience of the passionate feeling and vows to keep it to himself because he do not want to be made a fool of. Pandaro being the sweet influential talker gets Trolio to open up to him what is causing him so much agony and distress. Pandaro states “if your friendship is now, as it used to be, a pleasure to you, disclose to me what cruelty it is that makes you care so much to die; it is not the act of a friend to keep anything hidden from his friend” (40) He uses the friends never keep anything hidden from each other saying to get out of Trolio what constrained him so much that of which is love. But Pandaro still being inquisitive wanted to know who the person is his friend has fallen in love with. He states “perhaps she who torments you will be such that I shall be able to do a lot for your pleasure, and I would satisfy your wish, if I could more than I would ever my own if only I may hear who she is for whom you have this pain. Rise up; do no...
Throughout many ancient Greek texts, there are aspects of nature playing important roles in the main plot. Sometimes they assist the thesis through a metaphor or simile which better visualizes the author's true meaning. Lions have many different personality traits which make them extremely diverse creatures. This also promotes various applications to characters in literary works. In two works, the Oresteia by Aeschylus and Euripides' Bacchae, we see a continuing line of examples of lion imagery. Alongside this literary aspect, the analysis of characters' gender roles is possible. When observing these two concepts both individually and in conjunction with each other, the reader is better able to grasp the true meaning of the authors' intended point.
As with many plays from the same time period as Oedipus the King, there seems to be more to the story than the tragic story of a simple man. One way that Oedipus the King can be interpreted is as a political commentary about the str...
Female Sexuality in All's Well That Ends Well, Measure for Measure, and Troilus and Cressida
Shakespeare’s works are some of the finest examples of Tragedy and Comedy from the English cannon of literature. The reason that his works are so poignant and reflective is his use of both emotions in order to progress the other. In his interpretation of Troilus and Cressida the traditional story of tragic love and loss are peppered with irony and satire in order to address topical issues of Gender roles, Government action/inaction, and hero worship through juxtaposition and humor.
Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex has fascinated readers for over two millennia with its tale of a man who falls from greatness to shame. The enigmatic play leaves many questions for the reader to answer. Is this a cruel trick of the gods? Was Oedipus fated to kill his father and marry his mother? Did he act of his own free will? Like the Greeks of centuries past, we continue to ponder these perennial questions. Part of the genius of Sophocles is that he requires a great deal of mental and spiritual involvement from his audience.
The characters in a novel or play are attributed certain characteristics by the author. The opinions one might form of a character are based on these; therefore, the characteristics suggested by an author are intrinsic to the reader having a complete and subjective understanding of a work. Characteristics are often displayed through a character s actions, in what is said about them, and what they themselves say, which shall be the focus of this essay. Both Oedipus, in Sophocles' King Oedipus and Odysseus, in The Odyssey of Homer, oftenare spoken of by others, but their own words are telling, as certain emotions and traits can be seen. Traits of a character can often be masked or distorted by favorable or unfavorable descriptions by others, but their own speech, however calculated or controlled, often clearly shows character flaws and attributes that one might not come across otherwise. Strict narration often polarizes a character, casting them as black or white, good or evil. However, in most writings, and certainly in The Odyssey and King Oedipus, the speech of a characterallows us to see the various shades of grey, thus portraying the character more fairly. One might see Oedipus and Odysseus as being in some ways quite similar, but their speech and the characteristics revealed therein is what sets them apart.
Troilus falling in love with Cressida is an example of love. Troilus ostensibly falls in love with Cressida, but not for who Cressida really is. In this case, love is blind. Cressida may not really have feelings for Troilus; instead Troilus is going to break his own heart. In this case, he should not fall in love with her because they come from different countries that are at war.
Two of the greatest masters of British literature, Shakespeare and Chaucer, tended to look to the classics when searching for inspiration. A lesser-known example of this lies in an ancient tale from Greece about two star-crossed lovers. There are many variations on the names of these lovers, but for the purpose of solidarity, they shall henceforth be referred to as “Troilus and Criseyde” for Chaucer and “Troilus and Cressida” for Shakespeare. Chaucer’s “Troilus and Criseyde” offers up a classic tale of love that is doomed, whereas Shakespeare’s “Troilus and Cressida” is not only tragic but also biting in its judgment and representation of characters. This difference may be due to the differences in time periods for the two authors, or their own personal dispositions, but there can be no denying the many deviations from Chaucer’s work that Shakespeare employs. Shakespeare’s work, by making the characters and situations more relatable, builds upon Chaucer’s original work, rather than improving it or shattering it.