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
1. Introduction
2. Boccaccio’s Il Filostrato
2.1. The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde
2.2. The relationship between Pandarus & Troilus
2.3. The relationship between Pandarus & Criseyde
2.4. The relationship between Criseyde & Troilus
3. Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde
3.1. The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde
3.2. The relationship between Pandarus & Troilus
3.3. The relationship between Pandarus & Criseyde
3.4. The relationship between Criseyde & Troilus
4. The ménage a trois in Boccaccio’s and Chaucer’s work
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the dynamics of the love triangle (ménage a trois) between Pandarus, Troilus, and Criseyde, comparing the portrayals in Giovanni Boccaccio's "Il Filostrato" and Geoffrey Chaucer's "Troilus and Criseyde" to define how each author presents their attitude toward love.
- Analysis of character presentation and individual motivations.
- Comparison of the social and structural role of Pandarus as either cousin or uncle.
- Evaluation of how the authors frame the central theme of love as either a source of consequence or a transformative development.
- Investigation of the influence of the narrator's perspective on the reader's interpretation of the tragedy.
- Study of the dependency of the lovers on the manipulative intervention of Pandarus.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde
The interaction of the characters Troilus, Criseyde and Pandarus does not only depend on either one’s actions or reactions within the ménage a trois, but also on the basic qualities of each character. That means, that the characters collaborate with each other, but this collaboration would not be possible if the characters would not have a specific interest in the relationship with one or another.
It is interesting to note that Boccaccio introduces Criseyde as well as Troilus not only characteristically, but also by their appearance - in contrast to the character of Pandarus. When Criseyde appears for the first time, it becomes quite clear that Criseyde’s character is closely connected with her physical beauty.
“[…] Criseida, who was so fair and so like an angel to look upon that she seemed not a mortal thing, and to my judgment as prudent, wise, modest, and well-bred as any lady born in Troy. […] And she was loved and honoured by all who knew her.”
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction establishes the comparative framework between Boccaccio and Chaucer, focusing on their respective portrayals of the "ménage a trois" and the role of Pandarus.
2. Boccaccio’s Il Filostrato: This chapter analyzes how Boccaccio uses the narrative to mirror his own experiences with unhappy love, centering the poem on Troilus’s suffering.
2.1. The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde: An examination of how Boccaccio introduces the three protagonists, highlighting their physical and character-based traits.
2.2. The relationship between Pandarus & Troilus: Explores the manipulative dynamic between the two, focusing on Pandarus's strategic intervention in Troilus’s love life.
2.3. The relationship between Pandarus & Criseyde: Discusses how Pandarus functions as a cousin and mediator, leveraging his relationship to manipulate Criseyde.
2.4. The relationship between Criseyde & Troilus: Analyzes the dependency of the lovers on Pandarus and whether their connection is rooted in genuine emotion or mere manipulation.
3. Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde: Discusses how Chaucer adopts Boccaccio’s plot while maintaining an emotional distance and expanding the characters' depth.
3.1. The presentation of the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde: Compares Chaucer’s expanded characterization and focus on the development of love versus Boccaccio’s focus on consequences.
3.2. The relationship between Pandarus & Troilus: Highlights the different dynamics in Chaucer's version, where Pandarus acts as a fatherly uncle/mentor.
3.3. The relationship between Pandarus & Criseyde: Examines the mutual respect and intimacy in the uncle-niece dynamic created by Chaucer.
3.4. The relationship between Criseyde & Troilus: Explores the more complex, active, and mentally fulfilled portrayal of the lovers in Chaucer’s work.
4. The ménage a trois in Boccaccio’s and Chaucer’s work: Synthesizes the findings to show how the position of Pandarus (uncle vs. cousin) fundamentally shifts the nature of the love triangle.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes that while both authors use the same constellation, Chaucer’s focus on love as a broader human experience contrasts with Boccaccio’s focus on the suffering of the individual.
Keywords
Chaucer, Boccaccio, Troilus and Criseyde, Il Filostrato, Pandarus, Love Triangle, ménage a trois, Literary Comparison, Medieval Literature, Narrative Analysis, Characterization, Love, Manipulation, Romance, Tragedy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this academic paper?
The paper provides a comparative analysis of the love triangle involving Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus as depicted in Giovanni Boccaccio's "Il Filostrato" and Geoffrey Chaucer's "Troilus and Criseyde."
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
Key themes include the manipulation of characters, the development of love versus its consequences, the influence of the narrator, and the structural differences in character positioning between the two works.
What is the main objective of the study?
The study aims to determine how the authors' distinct intentions and artistic perspectives shape the "ménage a trois," specifically focusing on whether the love depicted serves as a metaphor or an autobiographical reflection.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a comparative literary analysis approach, examining characterization, line-by-line interactions, and structural narratives to identify differences in interpretation between the Italian original and the English adaptation.
What is discussed in the main body of the work?
The main body breaks down the character presentations and the specific nature of the relationships between each member of the trio in both versions, followed by a comparative analysis of the overall ménage a trois construction.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Central keywords include Chaucer, Boccaccio, Pandarus, ménage a trois, literary comparison, characterization, and the nature of love.
How does the role of Pandarus differ between Boccaccio and Chaucer?
In Boccaccio’s work, Pandarus is Criseyde’s cousin and acts primarily as a manipulative operator, whereas in Chaucer’s version, he is her uncle, allowing for a more complex and "fatherly" mentor dynamic.
Does the research conclude that the lovers have genuine feelings?
The paper suggests that while the characters are heavily manipulated by Pandarus, they do develop genuine mutual sympathy and affection, though they remain dependent on Pandarus to navigate their relationship.
Why is the "ménage a trois" considered the central link of these stories?
The paper argues that without Pandarus’s interference, the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde would not initiate or proceed; he is the essential catalyst for both the joy and the eventual sorrow depicted in both poems.
- Quote paper
- Nicole Knuppertz (Author), 2005, The relationship between the characters Pandarus, Troilus & Criseyde in Boccaccio’s "Il Filostrato" and Chaucer’s "Troilus & Criseyde", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/48053
