Chapter VI: 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[46], 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[47]; 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[48]. 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[49], 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[50], 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[51]; 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.