The story of Troilus and Criseyd has been told many times by different authors during the centuries. Within this term paper a closer look will be taken at the works of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Troilus & Criseyde and Giovanni Boccaccio’ Il Filostrato to illustrate that the story of Troilus and Criseyde can be interpreted from two different angles. Whereas, Giovanni Boccaccio focuses on the consequences of the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde within his work, Chaucer seems to be much more focused on the development of love in general- using the story of Troilus and Criseyde as a metaphor. Therefore, Chaucer uses the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde to present in what way the perception of love can change from happiness in to sorrow. To be able to narrow down and define the intentions of Boccaccio and Chaucer the central aspect will be lain on the presentation of the relationship between Troilus, Criseyde & Pandarus. Since the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde would neither start, nor find its fulfilling without the inference of Pandarus, the character of Pandarus gains a specific position within the relationship of Troilus and Criseyde. Furthermore, an analysis of the relationship between these three characters might give an answer in what way both Chaucer and Boccaccio represent their attitude towards the central theme of love.
By concentrating on the ménage a trois between the characters, it is furthermore possible to analyse which position Pandarus inherits and in what way he uses or abuses it. Consequently, the question needs to be solved why Chaucer represents Pandarus as Criseyde’s uncle, whereas he is ‘only’ Criseyde’s cousin within Boccaccio’s poem. Therefore, the role of Pandarus will be analysed to answer the question in what way Pandarus position within the ménage a trios changes his influence on both Troilus and Criseyde within Chaucer’s and Boccaccio’s work.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Boccaccio's Il Filostrato
- The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde
- The relationship between Pandarus & Troilus
- The relationship between Pandarus & Criseyde
- The relationship between Criseyde & Troilus
- Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde
- The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde
- The relationship between Pandarus & Troilus
- The relationship between Pandarus & Criseyde
- The relationship between Criseyde & Troilus
- The ménage a trois in Boccaccio's and Chaucer's work
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to compare and contrast the portrayal of the relationship between Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus in Boccaccio's Il Filostrato and Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde. By focusing on the "ménage à trois," the analysis seeks to understand how each author presents their perspective on love and the role of the intermediary, Pandarus.
- The presentation and characterization of Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus in both works.
- The dynamics and evolution of the relationships between the three main characters.
- The contrasting perspectives of Boccaccio and Chaucer on love and its consequences.
- The role and function of Pandarus as mediator or manipulator.
- The impact of the authors' personal experiences and perspectives on their respective narratives.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This introductory chapter establishes the paper's objective: a comparative analysis of Boccaccio's Il Filostrato and Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, focusing on the relationship between Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus. It highlights the differing interpretations of the Troilus and Criseyde story by the two authors, emphasizing Boccaccio's focus on the consequences of the relationship and Chaucer's broader exploration of love's complexities. The chapter outlines the methodology, emphasizing the analysis of the "ménage à trois" to determine Pandarus's role and the authors' perspectives on love. The significance lies in understanding how differing cultural and personal contexts shape the representation of a classic narrative.
Boccaccio's Il Filostrato: This chapter introduces Boccaccio's Il Filostrato, noting its autobiographical elements and Boccaccio's focus on Troilus's suffering, mirroring his own feelings of despair during his mistress's absence. The chapter delves into the individual presentations of Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus, highlighting Boccaccio's emphasis on Criseyde's beauty and Troilus's initial independent nature. The analysis establishes the groundwork for understanding the relationships between the characters, emphasizing how their individual traits influence their interactions within the "ménage à trois". The importance of this chapter lies in establishing the base understanding of Boccaccio's narrative and character development before the comparison with Chaucer’s work.
Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde: This chapter shifts the focus to Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, presenting a parallel analysis of the character presentations and their relationships. It examines how Chaucer portrays Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus, comparing and contrasting these portrayals with Boccaccio's versions. The analysis delves into the dynamics of their interactions and the subtle shifts in their relationships over the course of the narrative. The chapter's significance lies in providing a point of comparison with Boccaccio's work, enabling a nuanced understanding of the authors' distinct approaches to the same narrative.
The ménage a trois in Boccaccio's and Chaucer's work: This chapter directly compares the "ménage à trois" in both works, analyzing Pandarus's role as mediator or manipulator in each narrative. It explores the differing consequences of his actions within the context of each author's portrayal of love and relationships. By examining the similarities and differences in how the relationship unfolds, this chapter provides a synthesis of the preceding analyses, drawing significant conclusions about the authors' divergent approaches to the same central theme. This chapter is crucial for the overarching argument of the paper.
Keywords
Boccaccio, Chaucer, Il Filostrato, Troilus and Criseyde, Pandarus, Troilus, Criseyde, Ménage à trois, courtly love, medieval literature, comparative literature, character analysis, narrative comparison, love, betrayal, manipulation, mediation.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comparative Analysis of Boccaccio's *Il Filostrato* and Chaucer's *Troilus and Criseyde*
What is the main focus of this paper?
This paper conducts a comparative analysis of Boccaccio's Il Filostrato and Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, concentrating on the relationships between Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus. The analysis uses the "ménage à trois" as a lens to understand each author's perspective on love and the role of the intermediary, Pandarus.
What are the key themes explored in the paper?
The key themes include the presentation and characterization of Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus in both works; the dynamics and evolution of their relationships; the contrasting perspectives of Boccaccio and Chaucer on love and its consequences; Pandarus's role as mediator or manipulator; and the impact of the authors' personal experiences and perspectives on their narratives.
What are the main chapters and their content?
The paper includes an introduction outlining its objectives and methodology; a chapter dedicated to Boccaccio's Il Filostrato, analyzing the characters and their relationships; a chapter focusing on Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, offering a parallel analysis; and a concluding chapter comparing the "ménage à trois" in both works, analyzing Pandarus's role and the consequences of his actions.
How does the paper analyze the characters?
The paper analyzes the presentation and characterization of Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus in both works, comparing and contrasting their portrayal by Boccaccio and Chaucer. It examines how individual traits influence their interactions and the dynamics of their relationships.
What is the significance of the "ménage à trois" in this analysis?
The "ménage à trois" serves as a central framework for understanding the authors' perspectives on love, betrayal, and manipulation. By analyzing the interactions within this dynamic, the paper highlights the similarities and differences in how the relationship unfolds in both narratives.
What are the key differences in Boccaccio's and Chaucer's portrayals?
The paper explores how Boccaccio and Chaucer present differing perspectives on love and its consequences. It highlights Boccaccio's emphasis on the suffering of Troilus and Chaucer's broader exploration of love's complexities, including themes of betrayal and manipulation.
What is the role of Pandarus in both narratives?
The paper examines Pandarus's role as a mediator or manipulator in both Il Filostrato and Troilus and Criseyde, analyzing the consequences of his actions within the context of each author's portrayal of love and relationships.
What is the methodology of this comparative analysis?
The paper employs a comparative literary analysis focusing on character analysis, narrative comparison, and thematic exploration. It utilizes close readings of both texts to identify similarities and differences in character portrayal, relationship dynamics, and thematic development.
What are the keywords associated with this paper?
Keywords include Boccaccio, Chaucer, Il Filostrato, Troilus and Criseyde, Pandarus, Troilus, Criseyde, Ménage à trois, courtly love, medieval literature, comparative literature, character analysis, narrative comparison, love, betrayal, manipulation, mediation.
- Citar trabajo
- Nicole Knuppertz (Autor), 2005, The relationship between the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde in Boccaccio’s "Il Filostrato" and Chaucer’s "Troilus & Criseyde", Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/48053
