THE MARCHANTES TALE. Mr. Stewart refers ll. 1311-4 to Boethius, but they are more likely from Albertanus Brixiensis, Liber de Amore dei, fol. 30 a (as shewn by Dr. Köppel):--'Et merito uxor est diligenda, qui donum est Dei,' followed by a quotation from Prov. xix. 14.
1582. a mirour--B. v. met. 4. 8.
1784. O famulier foo.--B. iii. pr. 5. 50.
1849. The slakke skin.--B. i. met. 1. 12.
1967-9. Were it by destinee or aventure, &c.--B. iv. pr. 6. 62-71.
2021. felicitee Stant in delyt.--B. iii. pr. 2. 55.
2062. O monstre, &c.--B. ii. pr. 1. 10-14.
GROUP F.
THE SQUIERES TALE. *258. As sore wondren somme on cause of thonder. Cf. B. iv. met. 5. 6. (Somewhat doubtful.)
608. Alle thing, repeiring to his kinde.--B. iii. met. 2. 27-29.
611. As briddes doon that men in cages fede.--B. iii. met. 2. 15-22.
THE FRANKELEINS TALE. 865. Eterne god, that thurgh thy purveyaunce, &c.--B. i. met. 5. 22, 23; iii. met. 9. 1; cf. iii. pr. 9. 147, 148.
879. Which mankinde is so fair part of thy werk.--B. i. met. 5. 38.
886. Al is for the beste.--B. iv. pr. 6. 194-196.
1031. God and governour, &c.--B. i. met. 6. 10-14.
GROUP G.
THE SECONDE NONNES TALE. I think it certain that this early Tale is quite independent of Boethius. L. 114, instanced by Mr. Stewart, is from 'Ysidorus'; see my note.
THE CANOUNS YEMANNES TALE. *958. We fayle of that which that we wolden have.--B. iii. pr. 9. 89-91. (Very doubtful.)
GROUP H.
THE MAUNCIPLES TALE. 160.
ther may no man embrace
As to destreyne a thing, which that nature
Hath naturelly set in a creature.--B. iii. met. 2. 1-5.
163. Tak any brid, &c.--B. iii. met. 2. 15-22.
GROUP I.
THE PERSONES TALE. *212. A shadwe hath the lyknesse of the thing of which it is shadwe, but shadwe is nat the same thing of which it is shadwe.--B. v. pr. 4. 45, 46. (Doubtful.)
*471. Who-so prydeth him in the goodes of fortune, he is a ful greet fool; for som-tyme is a man a greet lord by the morwe, that is a caitif and a wrecche er it be night.--B. ii. met. 3. 16-18. (I think this is doubtful, and mark it as such.)
472. Som-tyme the delyces of a man is cause of the grevous maladye thurgh which he dyeth.--B. iii. pr. 7. 3-5.
§ 24. It is worth while to see what light is thrown upon the chronology of the Canterbury Tales by comparison with Boethius.
In the first place, we may remark that, of the Tales mentioned above, there is nothing to shew that The Seconde Nonnes Tale, the Clerkes Tale, or even the Tale of Melibeus, really refer to any passages in Boethius. They may, in fact, have been written before that translation was made. In the instance of the Second Nonnes Tale, this was certainly the case; and it is not unlikely that the same is true with respect to the others.
But the following Tales (as revised) seem to be later than 'Boece,' viz. The Knightes Tale, The Man of Lawes Tale, and The Monkes Tale; whilst it is quite certain that the following Tales were amongst the latest written, viz. the Nonne Preestes Tale, the three tales in Group D (Wyf, Frere, Somnour), the Marchantes Tale, the Squieres Tale, the Frankeleins Tale, the Canouns Yemannes Tale, and the Maunciples Tale; all of which are in the heroic couplet, and later than 1385.
The case of the Knightes Tale is especially interesting; for the numerous references in it to Boece, and the verbal resemblances between it and Troilus shew that either the original Palamoun and Arcite was written just after those works, or else (which is more likely) it was revised, and became the Knight's Tale, nearly at that time. The connection between Palamon and Arcite, Anelida, and the Parlement of Foules, and the introduction of three stanzas from the Teseide near the end of Troilus, render the former supposition unlikely; whilst at the same time we are confirmed in the impression that the (revised) Knightes Tale succeeded Boece and Troilus at no long interval, and was, in fact, the first of the Canterbury Tales that was written expressly for the purpose of being inserted in that collection, viz. about 1385-6.
§ 25. THE MANUSCRIPTS.
I have now to explain the sources of the present edition.
1. MS. C. = MS. Camb. Ii. 3. 21. This MS., in the Cambridge University Library, is certainly the best; and has therefore been taken as the basis of the text. The English portion of it was printed by Dr. Furnivall for the Chaucer Society in 1886; and I have usually relied upon this very useful edition. It is a fine folio MS., wholly occupied with Boethius (De Consolatione Philosophiae), and comments upon it.
It is divided into two distinct parts, which have been bound up together. The latter portion consists of a lengthy commentary upon Boethius, at the end of which we find the title, viz.--'Exposicio preclara quam Iohannes Theutonicus prescripsit et finiuit Anno domini M^oCCCvj viij ydus Iunii;' i.e. An Excellent Commentary, written by Johannes Teutonicus, and finished June 6, 1306. This vast commentary occupies 118 folios, in double columns.
The former part of the volume concerns us more nearly. I take it to be, for all practical purposes, the authentic copy. For it presents the following peculiarities. It contains the whole of the Latin text, as well as Chaucer's English version; and it is surprising to find that these are written in alternate chapters. Thus the volume begins with the Latin text of Metre 1, at the close of which there follows immediately, on the same page, Chaucer's translation of Metre 1. Next comes Prose 1 in Latin, followed by Prose 1 in English; and so throughout.
Again, if we examine the Latin text, there seems reason to suppose that it fairly represents the very recension which Chaucer used. It abounds with side-notes and glosses, all in Latin; and the glosses correspond to those in Chaucer's version. Thus, to take an example, the following lines occur near the end of Bk. iii. met. 11:--
'Nam cur rogati sponte recte censetis
Ni mersus alto uiueret fomes corde.'
Over rogati is written the gloss i. interrogato.
Over censetis is written i. iudicatis.
Over Ni is i. nisi; over mersus alto is i. latenter conditos; over uiueret is i. vigeret; and over fomes is i. radix veritatis.
Besides these glosses, there is here the following side-note:--'Nisi radix veritatis latenter conditus vigeret in abscondito mentis, homo non iudicaret recta quacunque ordinata interrogata.'
When we turn to Chaucer's version, we find that he first gives a translation of the two verses, thus:--
'For wherefor elles demen ye of your owne wil the rightes, whan ye ben axed, but-yif so were that the norisshinge of resoun ne livede y-plounged in the depthe of your herte?'
After this he adds, by way of comment:--'This is to seyn, how sholden men demen the sooth of anything that were axed, yif ther nere a rote of soothfastnesse that were y-plounged and hid in naturel principles, the whiche soothfastnesse lived with-in the deepnesse of the thought.'
It is obvious that he has here reproduced the general sense of the Latin side-note above quoted. The chief thing which is missing in the Latin is the expression 'in naturel principles.' But we have only to look to a passage a little higher up, and we find the line--
'Suis retrusum possidere thesauris.'
Over the word retrusum is written i. absconditum; and over thesauris is i. naturalibus policiis et principiis naturaliter inditis. Out of these we have only to pick the words absconditum naturalibus ... principiis, and we at once obtain the missing phrase--'hid in naturel principles.'
Or, to take another striking example. Bk. iv. met. 7 begins, in the MS., with the lines:
'Bella bis quinis operatus annis
Vltor attrides frigie ruinis,
Fratris amissos thalamos piauit.'
At the beginning, just above these, is written a note: 'Istud metrum est de tribus exemplis: de agamenone (sic); secundum de vlixe; tertium, de hercule.'
The glosses are these; over quinis is i. decim; over attrides is agamenon (sic); over Fratris is s. menelai; and over piauit is i. vlcissendo (sic) purgauit: troia enim erat metropolis Frigie.
If we turn to Chaucer's version, in which I print the additions to the text in italics, we find that it runs thus:--
'The wreker Attrides, that is to seyn, Agamenon, that wroughte and continuede the batailes by ten yeer, recovered and purgede in wrekinge, by the destruccioun of Troye, the loste chaumbres of mariage of his brother; this is to seyn, that he, Agamenon, wan ayein Eleyne, that was Menelaus wyf his brother.'
We see how this was made up. Not a little curious are the spellings Attrides and Agamenon, as occurring both in the Latin part of this MS. and in Chaucer's version. Again, Chaucer has ten, corresponding to the gloss decim, not to the textual phrase bis quinis. His explanation of piauit by recovered and purgede in wrekinge is clearly due to the gloss ulciscendo purgauit. His substitution of Troye for Frigie is due to the gloss: troia enim erat metropolis Frigie. And even the name Menelaus his brother answers to Fratris, s. menelai. And all that is left, as being absolutely his own, are the words and continuede, recovered, and wan ayein Eleyne. We soon discover that, in a hundred instances, he renders a single Latin verb or substantive by two English verbs or substantives, by way of making the sense clearer; which accounts for his introduction of the verbs continuede and recovered; and this consideration reduces Chaucer's additional contribution to a mention of the name of Eleyne, which was of course extremely familiar to him.
Similarly, we find in this MS. the original of the gloss explaining coempcioun (p. 11); of the 'Glose' on p. 15; of the 'Glosa' on p. 26; and of most of the notes which, at first sight, look like additions by Chaucer himself.
The result is that, in all difficulties, the first authority to be consulted is the Latin text in this particular MS.; for we are easily led to conclude that it was intentionally designed to preserve both Chaucer's translation and the original text. It does not follow that it is always perfect; for it can only be a copy of the Latin, and the scribe may err. In writing recte for recta (see note on p. xxxviii), he has certainly committed an error by a slip of the pen. The same mistake has been observed to occur in another MS., viz. Codex Gothanus I.
The only drawback is this. The MS. is so crowded with glosses and side-notes, many of them closely written in small characters, that it is almost impossible to consult them all. I have therefore contented myself with resorting to them for information in difficult passages only. For further remarks on this subject, I must refer the reader to the Notes.
Lastly, I may observe that the design of preserving in this MS. all the apparatus referring to Chaucer's Boethius, is made the more apparent by the curious fact that, in this MS. only, the two poems by Chaucer that are closely related to Boethius, viz. The Former Age, and Fortune, are actually inserted into the very body of it, immediately after Bk. ii. met. 5. This place was of course chosen because The Former Age is, to some extent, a verse translation of that metre; and Fortune was added because, being founded upon scraps from several chapters, it had no definite claim to any specific place of its own.
In this MS., the English text, like the Latin one, has a few imperfections. One imperfection appears in certain peculiarities of spelling. The scribe seems to have had some habits of pronunciation that betoken a greater familiarity with Anglo-French than with English. The awkward position of the guttural sound of gh in neighebour seems to have been too much for him; hence he substituted ssh (= sh-sh) for gh, and gives us the spelling neysshebour (Bk. ii. pr. 3. 24, foot-note; pr. 7. 57, foot-note.) Nevertheless, it is the best MS. and has most authority. For further remarks, see the account of the present edition, on pp. xlvi-xlviii.
2. MS. Camb. Ii. 1. 38. This MS. also belongs to the Cambridge University Library, and was written early in the fifteenth century. It contains 8 complete quires of 8 leaves, and 1 incomplete quire of 6 leaves, making 70 leaves in all. The English version appears alone, and occupies 68 leaves, and part of leaf 69 recto; leaf 69, verso, and leaf 70, are blank. The last words are:--'þe eyen of þe Iuge þat seeth and demeth alle thinges. Explicit liber boecij, &c.' Other treatises, in Latin, are bound up with it, but are unrelated. The readings of this MS. agree very closely with those of Ii. 3. 21, and of our text. Thus, in Met. i. l. 9, it has the reading wyerdes, with the gloss s. fata, as in Ii. 3. 21. (The scribe at first wrote wyerldes, but the l is marked for expunction.) In l. 12, it has emptid, whereas the Addit. MS. has emty; and in l. 16 it has nayteth, whereas the Addit. MS. wrongly has naieth. On account of its close agreement with the text, I have made but little use of it.
It is worth notice that this MS. (like Harl. 2421) frequently has correct readings in cases where even the MS. above described exhibits some blunder. A few such instances are given in the notes. For example, it has the reading wrythith in Bk. i. met. 4. 7, where MS. C. has the absurd word writith, and MS. A. has wircheth. In the very next line, it has thonder-leit, and it is highly probable that leit is the real word, and light an ignorant substitution; for leit (answering to A.S. l[=e]get, l[=i]get) is the right M.E. word for 'lightning'; see the examples in Stratmann. So again, in Bk. ii. met. 3. 13, it reads ouer-whelueth, like the black-letter editions; whilst MS. C. turns whelueth into welueeth, and MS. A. gives the spelling whelweth. In Bk. ii. pr. 6. 63, it correctly retains I after may, though MSS. C. and A. both omit it. In Bk. ii. pr. 8. 17, it has wyndy, not wyndynge; and I shew (in the note at p. 434) that windy is, after all, the correct reading, since the Lat. text has uentosam. In Bk. iii. met. 3. 1, it resembles the printed editions in the insertion of the words or a goter after river. In Bk. iv. pr. 3. 47, 48, it preserves the missing words: peyne, he ne douteth nat þat he nys entecchid and defouled with. In Bk. iv. met. 6. 24, it has the right reading, viz. brethith. Finally, it usually retains the word whylom in places where the MS. next described substitutes the word somtyme. If any difficulty in the text raises future discussion, it is clear that this MS. should be consulted.
3. MS. A. = MS. Addit. 10340, in the British Museum. This is the MS. printed at length by Dr. Morris for the Early English Text Society, and denoted by the letter 'A.' in my foot-notes. As it is so accessible, I need say but little. It is less correct than MS. Ii. 3. 21 in many readings, and the spelling, on the whole, is not so good. The omissions in it are also more numerous, but it occasionally preserves a passage which the Cambridge MS. omits. It is also imperfect, as it omits Prose 8 and Metre 8 of Bk. ii., and Prose 1 of Bk. iii. It has been collated throughout, though I have usually refrained from quoting such readings from it as are evidently inferior or wrong. I notice one peculiarity in particular, viz. that it almost invariably substitutes the word somtyme for the whylom found in other copies; and whylom, in this treatise, is a rather common word. Dr. Morris's account of the MS. is here copied.
'The Additional MS. is written by a scribe who was unacquainted with the force of the final -e. Thus he adds it to the preterites of strong verbs, which do not require it; he omits it in the preterites of weak verbs where it is wanted, and attaches it to passive participles of weak verbs, where it is superfluous. The scribe of the Cambridge MS. is careful to preserve the final -e where it is a sign (1) of the definite declension of the adjective; (2) of the plural adjective; (3) of the infinitive mood; (4) of the preterite of weak verbs; (5) of present participles; (6) of the 2nd pers. pret. indic. of strong verbs; (7) of adverbs; (8) of an older vowel-ending.
'The Addit. MS. has frequently thilk (singular and plural) and -nes (in wrechednes, &c.), when the Camb. MS. has thilke (as usual in the Canterbury Tales) and -nesse.'
The copy of Boethius is contained on foll. 3-40. On fol. 41, recto, is a copy of Chaucer's Truth, and the description of the 'Persone,' extracted from the Prologue to the Cant. Tales. The other side of the leaf is blank. This is, in fact, the MS. which I denote by 'At.,' as described in the Introduction to the 'Minor Poems' in vol. i. p. 57.
4. MS. Addit. 16165, in the British Museum. This is one of Shirley's MSS., being that which I denote by 'Ad.,' and have described in the Introduction to the 'Minor Poems' in vol. i. p. 56. I believe this MS. to be of less value than MS. A. (above), and have therefore not collated it; for even A. is not a very good authority.
5. MS. Harl. 2421. The Harleian Catalogue describes it thus: 'Torq. Sever. Boetius: his 5 Books of the Comfort of Philosophy. Translated into English. On vellum, 152 leaves. XV century.'
A small quarto MS. of the middle of the fifteenth century. The first Prose of Bk. i. begins (like MS. A.) with the words: 'In þe mene while þat y stil recorded þese þinges;' &c. Hence are derived the readings marked 'H.' in Morris's edition, pp. 62-64. It rightly reads writheth, wyndy, bretheth (see p. xlii).
6. The celebrated Hengwrt MS. of the Canterbury Tales (denoted by 'Hn.' in the foot-notes to that poem) contains a part of Chaucer's Boethius. See the Second Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, p. 106.
7. There is also a copy in a MS. belonging to the Cathedral Library at Salisbury. It was discovered by Dr. Wülker in 1875; see the Academy for Oct. 5, 1875. Bk. i. met. 1 was printed, from this MS., by Dr. Wülker in Anglia, ii. 373. It resembles MS. A.
8. In the Phillipps collection, MS. no. 9472 is described as 'Boetius' Boke of Comfort,' and is said to be of the fifteenth century. I do not know its real contents.
§ 26. THE PRINTED EDITIONS.
CAXTON. Chaucer's Boethius was first printed by Caxton, without date; but probably before 1479. See the description in The Biography and Typography of W. Caxton, by W. Blades; second edition, 1882; p. 213. A complete collation of this text with MS. A., as printed by Morris, was printed by L. Kellner, of Vienna, in Englische Studien, vol. xiv, pp. 1-53; of which I have gladly availed myself. The text agrees very closely indeed with that printed by Thynne in 1532, and resembles MS. C. rather than MS. A.
Perhaps it is necessary to remark that the readings of MS. C., as given in Kellner's collation, are sometimes incorrect, because MS. C. had not at that time been printed, and the readings of that MS. were only known to him from the foot-notes in Morris's edition, which are not exhaustive, but only record the more important variations. There is a curious but natural error, for example, in his note on l. 1002 of Morris's edition (Bk. ii. met. 3. 14, p. 32, l. 1), where MS. C. has [gh]eelde (= zeelde). The word is missing in MS. A., but Morris supplied it from C. to complete the text. Hence the foot-note has: '[[gh]eelde]--from C.'; meaning that A. omits [gh]eelde, which is supplied from C. This Kellner took to mean that A. has [gh]eelde, and C. has from. However, the readings of A. and of Caxton are given with all possible care and minuteness; and now that C. is also in type, the slight inevitable errors are easily put right. This excellent piece of work has saved me much trouble.
It turns out that Caxton's text is of great value. He followed a MS. (now lost) which is, in some places, even more correct than MS. C. The following readings are of great importance, as they correct MSS. C. and A. (I denote Caxton's edition by the symbol Cx.)
Bk. i. met. 4. 7. Cx. writheth. (Cf. p. xlii. above, l. 6.)
Bk. i. met. 4. 8. Cx. thonder leyte.
Bk. i. met. 5. 26. Cx. punisheth.
Bk. i. met. 5. 28. Cx. on the nekkes.
Bk. i. pr. 6. 54. Cx. funden (but read founden).
Bk. i. pr. 6. 65. Cx. norissing. (Perhaps better than norisshinges, as in the MSS.; for the Lat. text has the sing. fomitem.) Cf. Bk. iii. met. 11. 27.
Bk. ii. pr. 3. 59. Cx. seeld (better selde). It is clear that yelde in MS. A. arose from a reading [gh]elde, which really meant zelde, the Southern form of selde. See below.
Bk. ii. met. 3. 14. Cx. selde (correctly). And so again in Bk. ii. pr. 6. 15.
Bk. ii. pr. 6. 63. Cx. may I most. (MSS. C. A. omit I.)
Bk. ii. pr. 8. 17. Cx. wyndy (which is right; see note, p. 434).
Bk. iii. pr. 1. 26. Cx. thyne (better thyn, as in Thynne).
Bk. iii. pr. 10. 10. Cx. denyed (or read deneyed).
Bk. iii. pr. 10. 51. Cx. that the fader. (MSS. that this prince.) Caxton's translation is closer; Lat. text, patrem.
Bk. iii. pr. 11. 116. Cx. slepen.
Bk. iii. pr. 11. 152. Cx. maistow (Thynne has mayst thou) MS. C. omits thou; and MS. A. is defective.
Bk. iii. pr. 12. 143. Cx. Parmenides.
Bk. iv. pr. 6. 52. Cx. be cleped.
Bk. iv. pr. 6. 188, 189. Cx. and some dispyse that they mowe not here (misprint for bere). MSS. C. and A. omit this clause.
Bk. v. pr. 1. 9, 10. Cx. assoilen to the the dette (where the former the = thee).
Bk. v. pr. 3. 142. Cx. impetren.
In a few places, Caxton's text is somewhat fuller than that of the MSS. Thus in Bk. ii. pr. 3. 8, Cx. has: thei ben herd and sowne in eeres thei, &c. However, the Lat. text has merely: 'cum audiuntur.' And again, only 9 lines lower (l. 17), Cx. inserts and ajuste after moeve; but the Lat. text has merely: 'admouebo.' In some cases, it is closer to the Latin text; as, e. g. in Bk. i. met. 3. 9, where Cx. has kaue (Lat. antro), whereas MSS. C. and A. have the pl. kaues. In Bk. i. pr. 3. 41, where C. has the E. form Sorans, Cx. preserves the Latin form Soranos.
It thus appears that a collation with Caxton's text is of considerable service.
THYNNE. Thynne's edition of Chaucer, printed in 1532, contains Boethius. I suspect that Thynne simply reprinted Caxton's text, without consulting any other authority; for it is hard to detect any difference, except that his spellings are somewhat less archaic. Hence this text, by a lucky accident, is an extremely good one, and I have constantly referred to it in all cases of difficulty. Readings from this edition are marked in the foot-notes with the symbol 'Ed.'
The later black-letter copies are mere reprints of Thynne's text, each being, as usual, a little worse than its predecessor, owing to the introduction of misprints and later forms. I have consulted the editions of 1550 (undated) and 1561. Perhaps the most readable edition is that by Chalmers, in vol. i. of his British Poets, as it is in Roman type. It closely resembles the edition of 1561, and is therefore not very correct.
§ 27. THE PRESENT EDITION.
The present edition is, practically, the first in which the preparation of the text has received adequate attention. Caxton's edition probably represents a single MS., though a very good one; and all the black-letter editions merely reproduce the same text, with various new errors. Dr. Morris's edition was unfortunately founded on an inferior MS., as he discovered before the printing of it was completed. Dr. Furnivall's text reproduces the excellent MS. C., but collation was rightly refrained from, as his object was to give the exact spellings of the MS. for the benefit of students. Hence there are several passages, in both of these editions, which do not afford the best sense; in a few places, they are less correct than the black-letter editions. It is also a considerable drawback to the reader, that they reproduce, of course intentionally and fully, the troublesome and obscure punctuation-marks of the MSS.
Finding the ground thus clear, I have taken occasion to introduce the following improvements. The text is founded on MS. C., certainly the best extant authority, which it follows, on the whole, very closely. At the same time, it has been carefully collated throughout with the text of MS. A., and (what is even more important) with the texts printed by Caxton and Thynne and with the original Latin text (1) as given in the edition by Obbarius (Jena 1843) and (2) as existing in MS. C. The latter usually gives the exact readings of the MS. used by Chaucer himself. By taking these precautions, I have introduced a considerable number of necessary corrections, so that we now possess a very close approximation to the original text as it left Chaucer's hands. In all cases where emendations are made, the various readings are given in the foot-notes, where 'C.' and 'A.' refer to the two chief MSS., and 'Ed.' refers to Thynne's first edition (1532). But I have intentionally refrained from crowding these foot-notes with inferior readings which are certainly false. Some readings from the excellent MS. Ii. 1. 38 are given in the Notes; I now wish that I had collated it throughout. I have introduced modern punctuation. As I am here entirely responsible, the reader is at liberty to alter it, provided that he is justified in so doing by the Latin text.
Wherever Chaucer has introduced explanatory words and phrases which are not in the Latin text, I have printed them in italics; as in lines 6, 7, and 18 on page 1. However, these words and phrases are seldom original; they are usually translated or adapted from some of the Latin glosses and notes with which MS. C. abounds; as explained above, at p. xxxviii.
I have also adopted an entirely new system of numbering. In Dr. Morris's edition, every line of the printed text is numbered consecutively, from 1 up to 5219, which is the last line of the treatise. In Dr. Furnivall's print of MS. C., a new numbering begins on every page, from 1 to 32, 33, 34, or 35. Both these methods are entirely useless for general reference. The right method of reference is Tyrwhitt's, viz. to treat every chapter separately. Thus a reference to 'Bk. 1. met. 2' serves for every edition; but I have further taken occasion to number the lines of every chapter, for greater convenience. Thus the word acountinge occurs in Bk. i. met. 2. 10: and even in referring to a black-letter edition, the number 10 is of some use, since it shews that the word occurs very nearly in the middle of the Metre. The usual method of referring to editions by the page is an extremely poor and inconvenient makeshift; and it is really nearly time that editors should learn this elementary lesson. Unfortunately, some difficulty will always remain as to the numbering of the lines of prose works, because the length of each line is indefinite. The longest chapter, Bk. iv. pr. 6, here extends to 258 lines; the shortest, Bk. iii. met. 3, has less than 7 lines.
I have also corrected the spelling of MS. C. in a large number of places, but within very narrow limits. The use of the final e in that MS. is exceedingly correct, and has almost always been followed, except where notice to the contrary is given in the notes. My corrections are chiefly limited to the substitution of in for yn, and of i for short y, in such words as bygynnen, for which I write biginnen; the substitution of y for long i, as in whylom, when the MS. has whilom; the use of v for the MS. symbol u (where necessary); the substitution of sch or ssh for ss, when the sound intended is double sh; and the substitution of e and o for ee and oo where the vowels are obviously long by their position in the word. I also substitute -eth and -ed for the variable -eth or -ith, and -ed, -id, or -yd of the MS. Such changes render the text more uniformly phonetic, and much more readable, without really interfering with the evidence. Changes of a bolder character are duly noted.
The introduction of these slight improvements will not really trouble the reader. The trouble has been the editor's; for I found that the only satisfactory way of producing a really good text was to rewrite the whole of it. It seemed worth while to have a useful critical edition of 'Boethius' for general reference, because of the considerable use which Chaucer himself made of his translation when writing many of his later poems.
The Notes are all new, in the sense that no annotated edition of Chaucer's text has hitherto appeared. But many of them are, necessarily, copied or adapted from the notes to the Latin text in the editions by Vallinus and Valpy.
INTRODUCTION TO TROILUS.
§ 1. DATE OF THE WORK. The probable date is about 1380-2, and can hardly have been earlier than 1379 or later than 1383. No doubt it was in hand for a considerable time. It certainly followed close upon the translation of Boethius; see p. vii above.
§ 2. SOURCES OF THE WORK. The chief authority followed by Chaucer is Boccaccio's poem named Il Filostrato, in 9 Parts or Books of very variable length, and composed in ottava rima, or stanzas containing eight lines each. I have used the copy in the Opere Volgari di G. Boccaccio; Firenze, 1832.
Owing to the patient labours of Mr. W. M. Rossetti, who has collated the Filostrato with the Troilus line by line, and published the results of his work for the Chaucer Society in 1875, we are able to tell the precise extent to which Chaucer is indebted to Boccaccio for this story. The Filostrato contains 5704 lines; and the Troilus 8239 lines, if we do not reckon in the 12 Latin lines printed below, at p. 404. Hence we obtain the following result.
Total of lines in Troilus 8239
Adapted from the Filostrato
(2730 lines, condensed into) 2583
----
Balance due to Chaucer 5656
In other words, Chaucer's debt to Boccaccio amounts to less than one-third of the whole poem; and there remains more than two-thirds of it to be accounted for from other sources. But even after all deductions have been made for passages borrowed from other authors, very nearly two-thirds remain for which Chaucer is solely responsible. As in the case of the Knightes Tale, close investigation shews that Chaucer is, after all, less indebted to Boccaccio than might seem, upon a hasty comparison, to be the case.
As it was found impracticable to give Mr. Rossetti's results in full, I have drawn up lists of parallel passages in a somewhat rough way, which are given in the Notes, at the beginning of every Book; see pp. 461, 467, 474, 484, 494. These lists are sufficiently accurate to enable the reader, in general, to discover the passages which are in no way due to the Filostrato.
§ 3. I have taken occasion, at the same time, to note other passages for which Chaucer is indebted to some other authors. Of these we may particularly note the following. In Book I, lines 400-420 are translated from Petrarch's 88th Sonnet, which is quoted at length at p. 464. In Book III, lines 813-833, 1625-9, and 1744-1768 are all from the second Book of Boethius (Prose 4, 86-120 and 4-10, and Metre 8). In Book IV, lines 974-1078 are from Boethius, Book V. In Book V, lines 1-14 and 1807-27 are from various parts of Boccaccio's Teseide; and a part of the last stanza is from Dante. On account of such borrowings, we may subtract about 220 lines more from Chaucer's 'balance'; which still leaves due to him nearly 5436 lines.
§ 4. Of course it will be readily understood that, in the case of these 5436 lines, numerous short quotations and allusions occur, most of which are pointed out in the notes. Thus, in Book II, lines 402-3 are from Ovid, Art. Amat. ii. 118; lines 716-8 are from Le Roman de la Rose; and so on. No particular notice need be taken of this, as similar hints are utilised in other poems by Chaucer; and, indeed, by all other poets. But there is one particular case of borrowing, of considerable importance, which will be considered below, in § 9 (p. liii).
§ 5. It is, however, necessary to observe here that, in taking his story from Boccaccio, Chaucer has so altered and adapted it as to make it peculiarly his own; precisely as he has done in the case of the Knightes Tale. Sometimes he translates very closely and even neatly, and sometimes he takes a mere hint from a long passage. He expands or condenses his material at pleasure; and even, in some cases, transposes the order of it. It is quite clear that he gave himself a free hand.
The most important point is that he did not accept the characters of the three chief actors, Troilus, Criseyde, and Pandarus, as pourtrayed by Boccaccio; he did not even accept all the incidents which gave occasion for their behaviour. Pandarus is no longer the cousin of Criseyde, a young and dashing gallant, but her middle-aged uncle, with blunted perceptions of what is moral and noble. In fact, Chaucer's Pandarus is a thorough and perfect study of character, drawn with a dramatic skill not inferior to that of Shakespeare, and worthy of the author of the immortal Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. I must leave the fuller consideration of these points to others; it is hardly necessary to repeat, at full length, the Prefatory Remarks by Mr. Rossetti, whilst at the same time, if I begin to quote from them, I shall hardly know where to stop. See also Ten Brink's English Literature, and Morley's English Writers, vol. v.
§ 6. It has been observed that, whilst Chaucer carefully read and made very good use of two of Boccaccio's works, viz. Il Filostrato and Il Teseide, he nowhere mentions Boccaccio by name; and this has occasioned some surprise. But we must not apply modern ideas to explain medieval facts, as is so frequently done. When we consider how often MSS. of works by known authors have no author's name attached to them, it becomes likely that Chaucer obtained manuscript copies of these works unmarked by the author's name; and though he must doubtless have been aware of it, there was no cogent reason why he should declare himself indebted to one in whom Englishmen were, as yet, quite uninterested. Even when he refers to Petrarch in the Clerk's Prologue (E 27-35), he has to explain who he was, and to inform readers of his recent death. In those days, there was much laxity in the mode of citing authors.
§ 7. It will help us to understand matters more clearly, if we further observe the haphazard manner in which quotations were often made. We know, for example, that no book was more accessible than the Vulgate version of the Bible; yet it is quite common to find the most curious mistakes made in reference to it. The author of Piers Plowman (B. text, iii. 93-95) attributes to Solomon a passage which he quotes from Job, and (B. vii. 123) to St. Luke, a passage from St. Matthew; and again (B. vi. 240) to St. Matthew, a passage from St. Luke. Chaucer makes many mistakes of a like nature; I will only cite here his reference to Solomon (Cant. Tales, A 4330), as the author of a passage in Ecclesiasticus. Even in modern dictionaries we find passages cited from 'Dryden' or 'Bacon' at large, without further remark; as if the verification of a reference were of slight consequence. This may help to explain to us the curious allusion to Zanzis as being the author of a passage which Chaucer must have known was from his favourite Ovid (see note to Troil. iv. 414), whilst he was, at the same time, well aware that Zanzis was not a poet, but a painter (Cant. Tales, C 16); however, in this case we have probably to do with a piece of our author's delicious banter, since he adds that Pandarus was speaking 'for the nonce.'
There is another point about medieval quotations which must by no means be missed. They were frequently made, not from the authors themselves, but from manuscript note-books which contained hundreds of choice passages, from all sorts of authors, collected by diligent compilers. Thus it was, I strongly suspect, that Albertano of Brescia was enabled to pour out such quantities of quotations as those which Chaucer copied from him in his Tale of Melibeus. Thus it was that borrowers of such note-books often trusted to their strong memories for the words of a quotation, yet forgot or mistook the author's name; as was readily done when a dozen such names occurred on every page. A MS. of this character is before me now. It contains many subjects in alphabetical order. Under Fortitudo are given 17 quotations which more or less relate to it, from Ambrose, Gregory, Chrysostom, and the rest, all in less than a single page. And thus it was, without doubt, that Chaucer made acquaintance with the three scraps of Horace which I shall presently consider. It is obvious that Chaucer never saw Horace's works in the complete state; if he had done so, he would have found a writer after his own heart, and he would have quoted him even more freely than he has quoted Ovid. 'Chaucer on Horace' would have been delightful indeed; but this treat was denied, both to him and to us.
§ 8. The first and second scraps from Horace are hackneyed quotations. 'Multa renascentur' occurs in Troil. ii. 22 (see note, p. 468); and 'Humano capiti' in Troil. ii. 1041 (note, p. 472). In the third case (p. 464), there is no reason why we should hesitate to accept the theory, suggested by Dr. G. Latham (Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1868) and by Professor Ten Brink independently, that the well-known line (Epist. I, 2. 1)--
'Troiani belli scriptorem, maxime Lolli,'
was misunderstood by Chaucer (or by some one else who misled him) as implying that Lollius was the name of a writer on the Trojan war. Those who are best acquainted with the ways of medieval literature will least hesitate to adopt this view. It is notorious that first lines of a poem are frequently quoted apart from their context, and repeated as if they were complete; and, however amazing such a blunder may seem to us now, there is really nothing very extraordinary about it.
We should also notice that Lollius was to Chaucer a mere name, which he used, in his usual manner, as a sort of convenient embellishment; for he is inconsistent in his use of it. In Book i. 394, 'myn autour called Lollius' really means Petrarch; whereas in Book v. 1653, though the reference is to the Filostrato, Bk. viii. st. 8, Chaucer probably meant no more than that Lollius was an author whom the Italian poet might have followed. Cf. my note to the House of Fame, 1468, where the name occurs for the third time. We may also notice that, in Book iii. 1325, Chaucer bears testimony to the 'excellence' of his 'auctor.' The statement, in Book ii. 14, that he took the story 'out of Latin' is less helpful than it appears to be; for 'Latin' may mean either Latin or Italian.
§ 9. I have spoken (§ 4) of 'a particular case of borrowing,' which I now propose to consider more particularly. The discovery that Chaucer mainly drew his materials from Boccaccio seems to have satisfied most enquirers; and hence it has come to pass that one of Chaucer's sources has been little regarded, though it is really of some importance. I refer to the Historia Troiana of Guido delle Colonne, or, as Chaucer rightly calls him, Guido de Columpnis, i.e. Columnis (House of Fame, 1469). Chaucer's obligations to this author have been insufficiently explored.
When, in 1889, in printing the Legend of Good Women with an accuracy never before attempted, I restored the MS. reading Guido for the Ouyde of all previous editions in l. 1396, a clue was thus obtained to a new source for some of Chaucer's work. It was thus made clear that the Legend of Hypsipyle and Medea was primarily derived from this source; and further, that it was from Guido that Chaucer derived his use of Ilioun to mean the citadel of Troy (Leg. of Good Women, 936, and note). In the Nonne Prestes Tale, B 4331, as was pointed out by Tyrwhitt long ago, the dream of Andromache is taken from Guido. And I find in Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, ii. 315, the significant but insufficient remark, that 'it was in Guido da (sic) Colonna's work that Chaucer found the martial deeds of Troilus recounted in full, the slaughter he wrought, and the terror he inspired.' Hence we naturally come to the question, what incidents in Troilus are expressly due to Guido?
§ 10. Before answering this question, it will be best to consider the famous crux, as to the meaning of the word Trophee.
When Lydgate is speaking of his master's Troilus, viz. in his Prologue to the Falls of Princes, st. 3, he says that Chaucer
'made a translacion
Of a boke which called is Trophe
In Lumbarde tong,' &c.
No book or author is now known by that name; and, as Chaucer was in this case much indebted to Boccaccio, critics have jumped to the conclusion that Trophee means either Boccaccio or the Filostrato; and this conclusion has been supported by arguments so hopeless as to need no repetition. But it is most likely that Lydgate, who does not seem to have known any Italian, spoke somewhat casually; and, as Chaucer was to some extent indebted to Guido, he may possibly have meant Guido.
So far, I have merely stated a supposition which is, in itself, possible; but I shall now adduce what I believe to be reasonable and solid proof of it.
We have yet another mention of Trophee, viz. in Chaucer himself! In the Monkes Tale, B 3307, he says of Hercules--
'At bothe the worldes endes, seith Trophee,
In stede of boundes, he a piler sette.'
Whence, we may ask, is this taken? My answer is, from Guido.
§ 11. If we examine the sources of the story of Hercules in the Monkes Tale, we see that all the supposed facts except the one mentioned in the two lines above quoted are taken from Boethius and Ovid (see the Notes). Now the next most obvious source of information was Guido's work, since the very first Book has a good deal about Hercules, and the Legend of Hypsipyle clearly shews us that Chaucer was aware of this. And, although neither Ovid (in Met. ix.) nor Boethius has any allusion to the Pillars of Hercules, they are expressly mentioned by Guido. In the English translation called the Gest Historiale of the Destruction of Troy, ed. Panton and Donaldson (which I call, for brevity, the alliterative Troy-book), l. 308, we read:--
'But the wonders that he wroght in this world here
In yche cuntré ben knowen under Criste evyn.
Tow pyllers he pight in a place lowe
Vppon Gades groundes, that he gotton had.'
And again, further on, the Latin text has:--'Locus ille, in quo predicte Herculis columpne sunt affixe, dicitur Saracenica lingua Saphy.' To which is added, that Alexander afterwards came to the same spot.
When Lydgate, in translating Guido, comes to this passage, he says:--
'And of the pyllers that at Gades he set,
Which Alexsaundre, of Macedone the kyng,
That was so worthy here in his lyuynge,
Rood in his conquest, as Guydo list to write,
With all his hoost proudely to visyte ...
And these boundes named be of all
Of Hercules, for he hymselfe theim set
As for his markes, all other for to lette
Ferther to passe, as Guydo maketh mynde'; &c.
Siege of Troye, ed. 1555, fol. B6.
We can now easily see that, when Lydgate speaks of the book 'which called is Trophe in Lumbarde tong,' he is simply copying the name of the book from Chaucer, though he seems also to have heard some rumour of its being so called in Italy.
§ 12. Why this particular book was so called, we have no means of knowing; but this does not invalidate the fact here pointed out. Of course the Latin side-note in some of the MSS. of the Monkes Tale, which explains 'Trophee' as referring to 'ille vates Chaldeorum Tropheus,' must be due to some mistake, even if it emanated (as is possible) from Chaucer himself. It is probable that, when the former part of the Monkes Tale was written, Chaucer did not know much about Guido's work; for the account of Hercules occurs in the very first chapter. Perhaps he confused the name of Tropheus with that of Trogus, i.e. Pompeius Trogus the historian, whose work is one of the authorities for the history of the Assyrian monarchy.
§ 13. It remains for me to point out some of the passages in Troilus which are clearly due to Guido, and are not found in Boccaccio at all.
Book I. 145-7:--
'But the Troyane gestes, as they felle,
In Omer, or in Dares, or in Dyte,
Who-so that can, may rede hem as they wryte.'
The reference here is simply to Guido's history, whence, and not at first hand, both Chaucer and his readers could easily get the required information. Guido constantly refers to these authors; and, although he speaks disrespectfully of Homer, he professes to put great faith in Dares and Dytes, whose names he frequently cites as being those of his best authorities.
With the description of Troilus in ll. 1072-1085, it is interesting to compare the words of Guido, in Book VIII. 'Troilus vero, licet multum fuit corpore magnus, magis fuit tamen corde magnanimus; animosus multum, set multam habuit in sua animositate temperiem; dilectus plurimum a puellis cum ipse aliqualem seruando modestiam delectaretur in illis. In viribus et strenuitate bellandi uel fuit alius Hector uel secundus ab ipso. In toto eciam regno Troie iuuenis nullus fuit tantis viribus nec tanta audacia gloriosus.' The latter part of this description should be compared with Book II. 157-161, where the very phrase 'Ector the secounde' is used; see also ll. 181-189.
§ 14. Book II. 618. 'The yate ... Of Dardanus.' The six gates of Troy are named in Guido, Book IV, 'Quarum vna Dardanides, secunda Tymbrea, tercia Helyas, quarta Chetas, quinta Troiana, vltima Anthenorides vocabantur.'
'The furst and the fairest fourmet was Dardan.'
Allit. Troy-book, l. 1557.
Lydgate keeps the form 'Dardanydes'; cap. xi. fol. F 5.
§ 15. Book IV. 204. 'For he was after traytour to the toun.' The treason of Antenor is told by Guido at great length; see 'Boke xxviii' of the allit. Troy-book, p. 364; Lydgate, Siege of Troye, Y 6, back. Cf. Dictys Cretensis, lib. iv. c. 22.
Book IV. 1397, &c. 'For al Apollo and his clerkish lawes,' &c. Guido gives rather a long account of the manner in which Criseyde upbraided her father Chalcas at their meeting. Chaucer says nothing about this matter in Book V. 193, but he here introduces an account of the same speech, telling us that Creseyde intended to make it! I quote from Book XIX. 'Sane deceperunt te Apollinis friuola responsa, a quo dicis te suscepisse mandatum vt tu paternas Lares desereres, et tuos in tanta acerbitate Penates sic tuis specialiter hostibus adhereres. Sane non fuit ille deus Apollo, set, puto, fuit comitiua infernalium Furiarum a quibus responsa talia recepisti.' Cf. allit. Troy-book, 8103-40; and observe that Lydgate, in his Siege of Troye, R 3, back, omits the speech of Criseyde to her father, on the ground that it is given in Chaucer. Yet such is not the case, unless we allow the present passage to stand for it. In Book V. 194, Chaucer (following Boccaccio) expressly says that she was mute!
Book IV. 1695-1701. This last stanza is not in Boccaccio; but the general sense of it is in Guido, Book XIX, where the interview ends thus:--'Set diei Aurora quasi superueniente uicina, Troilus a Brisaida in multis anxietatibus et doloribus discessit; et ea relicta ad sui palacii menia properauit.' Lydgate, at this point, refers us to Chaucer; Siege of Troye, fol. R 2, back. The allit. Troy-book actually does the same; l. 8054.
§ 16. Book V. 92-189. These fourteen stanzas are not in Boccaccio. The corresponding passage in Guido (Book XIX) is as follows:--
'Troilus et Troiani redeunt, Grecis eam recipientibus in suo commeatu. Inter quos dum esset Diomedes, et illam Diomedes inspexit, statim in ardore veneris exarsit et eam vehementi desiderio concupiuit, qui collateralis associando Brisaidam cum insimul equitarent, sui ardoris flammam continere non valens Brisaide reuelat sui estuantis cordis amorem; quam in multis affectuosis verbis et blandiciis necnon et promissionibus reuera magnificis allicere satis humiliter est rogatus. Set Brisaida in primis monitis, vt mulierum moris est, suum prestare recusauit assensum; nec tamen passa est quin post multa Diomedis verba, ipsum nolens a spe sua deicere verbis similibus dixit ei: "Amoris tui oblaciones ad presens nec repudio nec admitto, cum cor meum non sit ad presens ita dispositum quod tibi possim aliter respondere."'
Book V. 799-805. The description of Diomede in Boccaccio (Fil. VI. 33) is merely as follows:--
'Egli era grande e bel della persona,
Giovane fresco e piacevole assai,
E forte e fier siccome si ragiona,
E parlante quant'altro Greco mai,
E ad amor la natura aveva prona.'
The account in Guido (Book VIII) is as follows:--'Diomedes vero multa fuit proceritate, distensus amplo pectore, robustis scapulis, aspectu ferox; in promissis fallax; in armis strenuus; victorie cupidus; timendus a multis, cum multum esset iniuriosus; sermonibus sibi nimis impaciens, cum molestus seruientibus nimis esset; libidinosus quidem multum, et qui multas traxit angustias ob feruorem amoris.' Cf. allit. Troy-book, ll. 3794-3803; Lydgate, Siege of Troye, fol. K 1, back.
Book V. 810. To gon y-tressed, &c. Perhaps suggested by the remark in Guido (Book XIX) that Cressid's hair was unbound in her hour of deepest sorrow:--'aureos crines suos a lege ligaminis absolutos a lactea sui capitis cute diuellit.' Cf. IV. 736.
Book V. 827-840. Troilus is not described by Boccaccio. Guido's description of him has already been quoted above; see remarks on Book I. 1072; pp. lvi, lvii.
Book V. 1002-4. The parallel passage in Guido has already been quoted, viz.: 'Amoris tui oblaciones ad presens nec repudio nec admitto.' See remarks on l. 92; p. lviii.
Book V. 1013. Obviously from Guido; the passage follows soon after that last quoted. 'Associauit [Diomedes] eam vsquequo Brisaida recipere in sui patris tentoria se debebat. Et ea perueniente ibidem, ipse eam ab equo descendentem promptus adiuit, et vnam de cirothecis, quam Brisaida gerebat in manu, ab ea nullo percipiente furtiue subtraxit. Set cum ipsa sola presensit, placitum furtum dissimulauit amantis.'
For this incident of the glove, cf. allit. Troy-book, l. 8092.
Book V. 1023-1099. This passage is not in Boccaccio. Several hints for it seem to have been taken from Guido, Book XIX, whence I quote the following.
'Nondum dies illa ad horas declinauerat vespertinas, cum iam suas Brisaida recentes mutauerat voluntates,' &c.. 'Et iam nobilis Troili amor ceperat in sua mente tepescere, et sic repente subito facta volubilis se in omnibus variauit. Quid est ergo quod dicitur de constancia mulierum,' &c.
'Tunc ilico Diomedes superuenit . . qui repente in Troilum irruit, ipsum ab equo prosternit, ab eo auferens equum suum, quem per suum nuncium specialem ad Brisaidam in exennium destinauit, mandans nuncio suo predicto vt Brisaide nunciet equum ipsum eius fuisse dilecti . . . . Brisaida vero equum Troili recepit hilariter, et ipsi nuncio refert hec verba: "Dic secure domino tuo quod ilium odio habere non possum, qui me tanta puritate cordis affectat . . . . [Diomedes] Brisaidam accedit, et eam suplex hortatur vt sibi consenciat in multitudine lacrimarum. Set illa, que multum vigebat sagacitatis astucia, Diomedem sagacibus machinacionibus differre procurat, ut ipsum afflictum amoris incendio magis affligat, et eius amoris vehemenciam in maioris augmentum ardoris extollat. Vnde Diomedi suum amorem non negat, etiam nec promittit."'
In l. 1039, read he, i. e. Diomede; see my note on the line, at p. 499.
In l. 1037, the story means the Historia Troiana; and in l. 1044, in the stories elles-where means 'elsewhere in the same History.' The passage (in Book XXV) is as follows:--
'Troilus autem tunc amorem Brisaide Diomedi obprobriosis verbis improperat; set Greci Diomedem ... abstraxerunt' ...
'Interim Brisaida contra patris sui voluntatem videre Diomedem in lecto suo iacentem ex vulnere sibi facto frequenter accedit, et licet sciuisset illum a Troilo dudum dilecto suo sic vulneratum, multa tamen in mente sua reuoluit; et dum diligenter attendit de se iungenda cum Troilo nullam sibi superesse fiduciam, totum suum animum, tanquam varia et mutabilis, sicut est proprium mulierum, in Diomedis declinat amorem.'
Cf. Troy-book, ll. 9942-59; Lydgate, Siege of Troye, fol. U 4.
Book V. 1558-60. The treacherous slaughter of Hector by Achilles is in Guido, near the end of Book XXV. See my note to l. 1558, at p. 503.
Book V. 1771. 'Read Dares.' This merely means that Guido cites Dares as his authority for the mighty deeds of Troilus. In Book XXV, I find:--'Scripsit enim Dares, quod illo die mille milites interfecit [Troilus] ex Grecis'; cf. l. 1802 below. So in the allit. Troy-book, ll. 9877-9:--
'As Dares of his dedis duly me tellus,
A thowsaund thro knightes throng he to dethe,
That day with his dynttes, of the derffe Grekes.'
So Lydgate, Siege of Troye, fol. U 3, back:--
'And, as Dares wryteth specyally,
A thousand knightes this Troyan champyowne
That day hath slayne, rydyng vp and downe,
As myne auctour Guydo lyst endyte;
Saue after hym, I can no ferther wryte.'
I. e. he only knew of Dares through the medium of Guido. In fact, Dares (capp. 29, 31, 32) has 'multos,' not 'mille.'
Book V. 1849-1855. The introduction of this stanza is quite irrelevant, unless we remember that, in Guido, the story of Troy is completely mixed up with invectives against idolatry. In Book X, there is a detailed account of the heathen gods, the worship of which is attributed to the instigation of fiends. See the long account in the allit. Troy-book, ll. 4257-4531, concluding with the revelation by Apollo to Calchas of the coming fall of Troy. Cf. Lydgate, Siege of Troye, fol. K 6. Of course, this notion of the interference of the gods in the affairs of the Greeks and Trojans is ultimately due to Homer.
§ 17. With regard to the statement in Guido, that Achilles slew Hector treacherously, we must remember how much turns upon this assertion. His object was to glorify the Trojans, the supposed ancestors of the Roman race, and to depreciate the Greeks. The following passage from Guido, Book XXV, is too characteristic to be omitted. 'Set o Homere, qui in libris tuis Achillem tot laudibus, tot preconiis extulisti, que probabilis racio te induxit, vt Achillem tantis probitatis meritis vel titulis exultasses?' Such was the general opinion about Homer in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
§ 18. This is not the place for a full consideration of the further question, as to the sources of information whence Boccaccio and Guido respectively drew their stories. Nor is it profitable to search the supposed works of Dares and Dictys for the passages to which Chaucer appears to refer; since he merely knew those authors by name, owing to Guido's frequent appeals to them. Nevertheless, it is interesting to find that Guido was quite as innocent as were Chaucer and Lydgate of any knowledge of Dares and Dictys at first hand. He acquired his great reputation in the simplest possible way, by stealing the whole of his 'History' bodily, from a French romance by Benoît de Sainte-More, entitled Le Roman de Troie, which has been well edited and discussed by Mons. A. Joly. Mons. Joly has shewn that the Roman de Troie first appeared between the years 1175 and 1185; and that Guido's Historia Troiana is little more than an adaptation of it, which was completed in the year 1287, without any acknowledgment as to its true source.
Benoît frequently cites Dares (or Daires), and at the end of his poem, ll. 30095-6, says:--
'Ce que dist Daires et Dithis
I avons si retreit et mis.'
In his Hist. of Eng. Literature (E. version, ii. 113), Ten Brink remarks that, whilst Chaucer prefers to follow Guido rather than Benoît in his Legend of Good Women, he 'does the exact opposite to what he did in Troilus.' For this assertion I can find but little proof. It is hard to find anything in Benoît's lengthy Romance which he may not have taken, much more easily, from Guido. There are, however, just a few such points in Book V. 1037-1078. Thus, in l. 1038, Criseyde gives Diomede Troilus' horse; cf. Benoît, l. 15046--'lo cheval Vos presterai.' L. 1043 is from the same, ll. 15102-4:--
'La destre manche de son braz
Bone et fresche de ciclaton
Li done en leu de gonfanon.'
Ll. 1051-7 answer to the same, beginning at l. 20233; and l. 1074 is from the same, l. 20308:--'Dex donge bien à Troylus!' I doubt if there is much more.
For some further account of the works ascribed to Dares Phrygius and Dictys Cretensis, both duly edited among the 'Delphin Classics,' I must refer the reader to Smith's Classical Dictionary.
§ 19. The whole question of the various early romances that relate to Troy is well considered in a work entitled 'Testi Inediti di Storia Trojana, preceduti da uno studio sulla Leggenda Trojana in Italia, per Egidio Gorra; Torino, 1887'; where various authorities are cited, and specimens of several texts are given. At p. 136 are given the very lines of Benoît's Roman (ll. 795-6) where Guido found a reference to the columns of Hercules:--
'Et les bonnes ilec ficha
Ou Alixandre les trova.'
This hint he has somewhat elaborated, probably because he took a personal interest in 'columns,' on account of their reference to his own name--'delle Colonne.' I believe that the notion of Alexander finding Hercules' Pillars is due to a rather large blunder in geography. Hercules set up his pillars 'at the end of the world,' viz. at the straits of Gibraltar, whereas Alexander set up his at another 'end of the world,' viz. at the furthest point of India which he succeeded in reaching. So says his Romance; see Alexander and Dindimus, ed. Skeat, l. 1137; Wars of Alexander, l. 5063. The setting up of pillars as boundary-marks seems to have been common; cf. Vergil, Æn. xi. 262. Among the points noticed by Gorra, I may mention the following:--
1. Some account (p. 7) of the Ephemeris Belli Troiani by Dictys Cretensis, who, it was pretended, accompanied Idomeneus to the Trojan war. Achilles is depicted in dark colours; he is treacherous towards Agamemnon; falls in love with the Trojan princess, Polyxena; and slays Hector by a stratagem. It appears to have been a work of invention, resting upon no Greek original.
2. Some account (p. 17) of the Historia de Excidio Troiae of Dares Phrygius, a work which (as was pretended) was discovered by Cornelius Nepos. This also, in the opinion of most critics, was an original work. At p. 115, there is a comparison of the lists of Greek leaders and the number of their ships (cf. Homer, Il. ii.) as given by Dares, Benoît, and Guido.
3. At p. 123, there is an enumeration of points in which Guido varies from Benoît.
4. At p. 152, is an account of some Italian prose versions of the story of Troy. Such are: La Istorietta Trojana, with extracts from it at p. 371; a romance by Binduccio dello Scelto, with extracts relating to 'Troilo e Briseida' at p. 404; a version of Guido by Mazzeo Bellebuoni, with extracts relating to 'Paride ed Elena' at p. 443; an anonymous version, with extracts relating to 'Giasone e Medea' at p. 458; a version in the Venetian dialect, with extracts relating to 'Ettore ed Ercole' at p. 481; another anonymous version, with extracts at p. 493; and La 'Fiorita' of Armannino, Giudice da Bologna, with extracts at p. 532.
5. At p. 265, is an account of Italian poetical versions, viz. Enfances Hector, Poema d'Achille, Il Trojano di Domenico da Montechiello, Il Trojano a stampa (i.e. a printed edition of Il Trojano), and L'Intelligenza. At p. 336, Boccaccio's Filostrato is discussed; followed by a brief notice of an anonymous poem, also in ottava rima, called Il cantare di Insidoria. It appears that Boccaccio followed some recension of the French text of Benoît, but much of the work is his own invention. In particular, he created the character of Pandaro, who resembles a Neapolitan courtier of his own period.
The most interesting of the extracts given by Gorra are those from Binduccio dello Scelto; at p. 411, we have the incident of Diomede possessing himself of Briseida's glove, followed by the interview between Briseida and her father Calcas. At p. 413, Diomede overthrows Troilus, takes his horse from him and sends it to Briseida, who receives it graciously; and at p. 417, Briseida gives Diomede her sleeve as a love-token, after which a 'jousting' takes place between Diomede and Troilus, in which the former is badly wounded.
