, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 129–144 | Cite as

Kingship, Fatherhood, and the Abdication of History in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde



While Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde is not, strictly speaking, a translation, it is heavily indebted both to the medieval understanding of Trojan historiography and to Boccacio’s handling of the romance of Troiolo and Criseida in his Filostrado. While Chaucer was a capable translator with respect and fondness for Boccaccio’s text, he was also a confident innovator who was quite willing to modify, append, or totally change the text whenever the needs of his particular narrative warrant it. One such site of this deliberate alteration is in the handling of the character of Priam, King of Troy. While Chaucer includes every passage in which Boccaccio mentions Priam, he consistently modifies the phrasing or situation in order to downplay the king’s political role, emphasizing instead his interpersonal or familial bonds. Furthermore, the material that Chaucer adds concerning Priam expands the changes made in translation, furthering a move away from the social and political and toward the personal and the individual. This example, one of many, indicates that Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde is a work constructed around history that tries to suppress the political and historical, attempting instead to interpret events and characters in terms of their most immediate, personal settings or, when pressed, by eternal truths such as Love or Fortune. Such a focus allows us to see the “depth” of the individual or the philosophical foundations of their faith while attempting to deny the political and ideological construction of this subjectivity and belief.


Chaucer, Geoffrey Boccaccio, Giovanni Trojan historiography Translation Subjectivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, D. (1982). Theban history in Chaucer’s Troilus, Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 4, 109–133.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, C. D. (1980). The history of Troy in Middle English literature. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, L. D. (Ed.). (1987). The Riverside Chaucer (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, C. A. (1992). The king’s business: Negotiating chivalry in Troilus and Criseyde. The Chaucer Review, 26, 236–265.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, C. (1911). Another contemporary allusion in Chaucer’s Troilus, Modern Language Notes, 26, 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crow, M. M., & Olson, C. C. (Eds.). (1966). Chaucer life-records. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dronke, P. (1964). The conclusion of Troilus and Criseyde. Medium Ævum, 33, 47–52.Google Scholar
  8. Farnham, A. E. (1967). Chaucerian irony and the ending of the Troilus. The Chaucer Review, 1, 207–216.Google Scholar
  9. Federico, S. (2007). Chaucer and the masculinity of historicism. Medieval Feminist Forum, 43(1), 72–76.Google Scholar
  10. Ganim, J. M. (1990). Chaucer and the noise of the people. Exemplaria, 2, 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giancarlo, M. (2004). The structure of fate and the devising of history in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 26, 227–266.Google Scholar
  12. Gordon, R. K. (Ed.). (1937; rpt. 1978). The story of Troilus. Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America.Google Scholar
  13. Griffin, N. E., & Myrick, A. B. (Eds.). (1929; rpt 1967). The Filistrato of Giovanni Boccaccio. New York: Biblio and Tannen.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, L. B. (Ed. and trans.). (1965). The fates of illustrious men. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Havely, N. R. (1980). Chaucer’s Boccaccio. Edmunds: Bury St. D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
  16. Kaminski, A. R. (1980). Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde and the critics. Oberlin: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Leicester, H. M. (1990). The disenchanted self: Representing the subject in the Canterbury Tales. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. McCall, J. P. (1962). The Trojan scene in Chaucer’s Troilus. English Literary History, 29(3), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCall, J. P., & Rudisill, G., Jr. (1959). The parliament of 1386 and Chaucer’s Trojan parliament. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 58, 270–288.Google Scholar
  20. Nolan, B. (1992). Chaucer and the tradition of the Roman antique. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patch, H. R. (1931). Troilus on determinism. Speculum, 6(2), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patterson, L. (1991). Chaucer and the subject of history. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pratt, R. A. (1956). Chaucer and Le Roman de Troyle et de Criseida. Studies in Philology, 53, 509–539.Google Scholar
  24. Robertson, D. W., Jr. (1985). The probable date and purpose of Chaucer’s Troilus. Medievalia et Humanistica, 13, 143–172.Google Scholar
  25. Robins, W. (2010). Troilus in the gutter. In R. Epstein & W. Robins (Eds.), The sacred and the profane (pp. 91–112). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  26. Scanlon, L. (1992). Sweet persuasion: The subject of fortune. In R. A. Shoaf (Ed.), Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (pp. 211–223). Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.Google Scholar
  27. Sklute, L. (1984). Virtue of necessity: Inconclusiveness and narrative form in Chaucer’s poetry. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, A. (1980). A scriptural echo in the Trojan parliament of Troilus and Criseyde. Nottingham Medieval Studies, 24, 51–56.Google Scholar
  29. Urban, M. (2004). Myth and the past: Chaucer’s Troilus as a mirror for Ricardian England. In T. Honegger (Ed.), Riddles, knights and crossdressing saints (pp. 22–54). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Wallace, D. (1992). Chaucer as translator of Boccaccio. In R. A. Shoaf (Ed.), Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (pp. 257–268). Birmingham: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.Google Scholar
  31. Wallace, D. (1997). Chaucerian polity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Windeatt, B. (Ed.). (1995). The Oxford guides to Chaucer: Troilus and Criseyde. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Young, K. (1908). The origin and development of the story of Troilus and Criseyde. New York: The Chaucer Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Honors CollegeEast Tennessee State UniversityJohnson CityUSA

Personalised recommendations