THE COMPLETE WORKS

OF

GEOFFREY CHAUCER

EDITED, FROM NUMEROUS MANUSCRIPTS

BY THE

Rev. WALTER W. SKEAT, M.A.

Litt.D., LL.D., D.C.L., Ph.D.

ELRINGTON AND BOSWORTH PROFESSOR OF ANGLO-SAXON
AND FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

* *

BOETHIUS AND TROILUS

SECOND EDITION

Oxford

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

M DCCCC

Oxford

PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
BY HORACE HART, M.A.
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

§ 1. Date of the Work.

In my introductory remarks to the Legend of Good Women, I refer to the close connection that is easily seen to subsist between Chaucer's translation of Boethius and his Troilus and Criseyde. All critics seem now to agree in placing these two works in close conjunction, and in making the prose work somewhat the earlier of the two; though it is not at all unlikely that, for a short time, both works were in hand together. It is also clear that they were completed before the author commenced the House of Fame, the date of which is, almost certainly, about 1383-4. Dr. Koch, in his Essay on the Chronology of Chaucer's Writings, proposes to date 'Boethius' about 1377-8, and 'Troilus' about 1380-1. It is sufficient to be able to infer, as we can with tolerable certainty, that these two works belong to the period between 1377 and 1383. And we may also feel sure that the well-known lines to Adam, beginning—

were composed at the time when the fair copy of Troilus had just been finished, and may be dated, without fear of mistake, in 1381-3. It is not likely that we shall be able to determine these dates within closer limits; nor is it at all necessary that we should be able to do so. A few further remarks upon this subject are given below.

§ 2. Boethius.

Before proceeding to remark upon Chaucer's translation of Boethius, or (as he calls him) Boece, it is necessary to say a few words as to the original work, and its author.

Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius, the most {viii}learned philosopher of his time, was born at Rome about A. D. 480, and was put to death A. D. 524. In his youth, he had the advantage of a liberal training, and enjoyed the rare privilege of being able to read the Greek philosophers in their own tongue. In the particular treatise which here most concerns us, his Greek quotations are mostly taken from Plato, and there are a few references to Aristotle, Homer, and to the Andromache of Euripides. His extant works shew that he was well acquainted with geometry, mechanics, astronomy, and music, as well as with logic and theology; and it is an interesting fact that an illustration of the way in which waves of sound are propagated through the air, introduced by Chaucer into his House of Fame, ll. 788-822, is almost certainly derived from the treatise of Boethius De Musica, as pointed out in the note upon that passage. At any rate, there is an unequivocal reference to 'the felinge' of Boece 'in musik' in the Nonnes Preestes Tale, B 4484.

§ 3. The most important part of his political life was passed in the service of the celebrated Theodoric the Goth, who, after the defeat and death of Odoacer, A. D. 493, had made himself undisputed master of Italy, and had fixed the seat of his government in Ravenna. The usual account, that Boethius was twice married, is now discredited, there being no clear evidence with respect to Elpis, the name assigned to his supposed first wife; but it is certain that he married Rusticiana, the daughter of the patrician Symmachus, a man of great influence and probity, and much respected, who had been consul under Odoacer in 485. Boethius had the singular felicity of seeing his two sons, Boethius and Symmachus, raised to the consular dignity on the same day, in 522. After many years spent in indefatigable study and great public usefulness, he fell under the suspicion of Theodoric; and, notwithstanding an indignant denial of his supposed crimes, was hurried away to Pavia, where he was imprisoned in a tower, and denied the means of justifying his conduct. The rest must be told in the eloquent words of Gibbon^[1].

'While Boethius, oppressed with fetters, expected each moment the sentence or the stroke of death, he composed in the tower of Pavia the "Consolation of Philosophy"; a golden volume, not unworthy of the leisure of Plato or Tully, but which claims {ix}incomparable merit from the barbarism of the times and the situation of the author. The celestial guide^[2], whom he had so long invoked at Rome and at Athens, now condescended to illumine his dungeon, to revive his courage, and to pour into his wounds her salutary balm. She taught him to compare his long prosperity and his recent distress, and to conceive new hopes from the inconstancy of fortune^[3]. Reason had informed him of the precarious condition of her gifts; experience had satisfied him of their real value^[4]; he had enjoyed them without guilt; he might resign them without a sigh, and calmly disdain the impotent malice of his enemies, who had left him happiness, since they had left him virtue^[5]. From the earth, Boethius ascended to heaven in search of the SUPREME GOOD^[6], explored the metaphysical labyrinth of chance and destiny^[7], of prescience and freewill, of time and eternity, and generously attempted to reconcile the perfect attributes of the Deity with the apparent disorders of his moral and physical government^[8]. Such topics of consolation, so obvious, so vague, or so abstruse, are ineffectual to subdue the feelings of human nature. Yet the sense of misfortune may be diverted by the labour of thought; and the sage who could artfully combine, in the same work, the various riches of philosophy, poetry, and eloquence, must already have possessed the intrepid calmness which he affected to seek. Suspense, the worst of evils, was at length determined by the ministers of death, who executed, and perhaps exceeded, the inhuman mandate of Theodoric. A strong cord was fastened round the head of Boethius, and forcibly tightened till his eyes almost started from their sockets; and some mercy may be discovered in the milder torture of beating him with clubs till he expired. But his genius survived to diffuse a ray of knowledge over the darkest ages of the Latin world; the writings of the philosopher were translated by the most glorious of the English Kings, and the third emperor of the name of Otho removed to a more honourable tomb the bones of a catholic saint, who, from his Arian persecutors, had acquired the honours of martyrdom and the fame of miracles. In the last hours of Boethius, he derived some comfort from the {x}safety of his two sons, of his wife, and of his father-in-law, the venerable Symmachus. But the grief of Symmachus was indiscreet, and perhaps disrespectful; he had presumed to lament, he might dare to revenge, the death of an injured friend. He was dragged in chains from Rome to the palace of Ravenna; and the suspicions of Theodoric could only be appeased by the blood of an innocent and aged senator.'

This deed of injustice brought small profit to its perpetrator; for we read that Theodoric's own death took place shortly afterwards; and that, on his death-bed, 'he expressed in broken murmurs to his physician Elpidius, his deep repentance for the murders of Boethius and Symmachus.'

§ 4. For further details, I beg leave to refer the reader to the essay on 'Boethius' by H. F. Stewart, published by W. Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, in 1891. We are chiefly concerned here with the 'Consolation of Philosophy,' a work which enjoyed great popularity in the middle ages, and first influenced Chaucer indirectly, through the use of it made by Jean de Meun in the poem entitled Le Roman de la Rose, as well as directly, at a later period, through his own translation of it. Indeed, I have little doubt that Chaucer's attention was drawn to it when, somewhat early in life, he first perused with diligence that remarkable poem; and that it was from the following passage that he probably drew the inference that it might be well for him to translate the whole work:—

I.e. in modern English:—'This can be easily ascertained from the learned men who read Boece on the Consolation of Philosophy, and the opinions which are found therein; as to which, any one who would well translate it for them would confer much benefit on the unlearned folk':—a pretty strong hint^[9]!

§ 5. The chief events in the life of Boethius which are referred to in the present treatise are duly pointed out in the notes; and it may be well to bear in mind that, as to some of these, nothing further is known beyond what the author himself tells us. Most of the personal references occur in Book i. Prose 4, Book ii. Prose 3, and in Book iii. Prose 4. In the first of these passages, Boethius recalls the manner in which he withstood one Conigastus, because he oppressed the poor (l. 40); and how he defeated the iniquities of Triguilla, 'provost' (præpositus) of the royal household (l. 43). He takes credit for defending the people of Campania against a particularly obnoxious fiscal measure instituted by Theodoric, which was called 'coemption' (coemptio); (l. 59.) This Mr. Stewart describes as 'a fiscal measure which allowed the state to buy provisions for the army at something under market-price—which threatened to ruin the province.' He tells us that he rescued Decius Paulinus, who had been consul in 498, from the rapacity of the officers of the royal palace (l. 68); and that, in order to save Decius Albinus, who had been consul in 493, from wrongful punishment, he ran the risk of incurring the hate of the informer Cyprian (l. 75). In these ways, he had rendered himself odious to the court-party, whom he had declined to bribe (l. 79). His accusers were Basilius, who had been expelled from the king's service, and was impelled to accuse him by pressure of debt (l. 81); and Opilio and Gaudentius, who had been sentenced to exile by royal decree for their numberless frauds and crimes, but had escaped the sentence by taking sanctuary. 'And when,' as he tells us, 'the king discovered this evasion, he gave orders that, unless they quitted Ravenna by a given day, they should be branded on the forehead with a hot iron and driven out of the city. Nevertheless on that very day the information laid against me by these men was admitted' (ll. 89-94). He next alludes to some forged letters (l. 123), by means of which he had been accused of 'hoping for the freedom of Rome,' (which was of course interpreted to mean that he wished to deliver Rome from the tyranny of Theodoric). He then boldly declares that if he had had the opportunity of confronting his accusers, he would have answered in the words of Canius, when accused by Caligula of having been privy to a conspiracy against him—'If I had known it, thou shouldst never have known it' (ll. 126-135). This, by the way, was rather an {xii}imprudent expression, and probably told against him when his case was considered by Theodoric.

He further refers to an incident that took place at Verona (l. 153), when the king, eager for a general slaughter of his enemies, endeavoured to extend to the whole body of the senate the charge of treason, of which Albinus had been accused; on which occasion, at great personal risk, Boethius had defended the senate against so sweeping an accusation.

In Book ii. Prose 3, he refers to his former state of happiness and good fortune (l. 26), when he was blessed with rich and influential parents-in-law, with a beloved wife, and with two noble sons; in particular (l. 35), he speaks with justifiable pride of the day when his sons were both elected consuls together, and when, sitting in the Circus between them, he won general praise for his wit and eloquence.

In Book iii. Prose 4, he declaims against Decoratus, with whom he refused to be associated in office, on account of his infamous character.

§ 6. The chief source of further information about these circumstances is a collection of letters (Variæ Epistolæ) by Cassiodorus, a statesman who enjoyed the full confidence of Theodoric, and collected various state-papers under his direction. These tell us, in some measure, what can be said on the other side. Here Cyprian and his brother Opilio are spoken of with respect and honour; and the only Decoratus whose name appears is spoken of as a young man of great promise, who had won the king's sincere esteem. But when all has been said, the reader will most likely be inclined to think that, in cases of conflicting evidence, he would rather take the word of the noble Boethius than that of any of his opponents.

§ 7. The treatise 'De Consolatione Philosophiæ' is written in the form of a discourse between himself and the personification of Philosophy, who appears to him in his prison, and endeavours to soothe and console him in his time of trial. It is divided (as in this volume) into five Books; and each Book is subdivided into chapters, entitled Metres and Proses, because, in the original, the alternate chapters are written in a metrical form, the metres employed being of various kinds. Thus Metre 1 of Book I is written in alternate hexameters and pentameters; while Metre 7 consists of very short lines, each consisting of a single dactyl and {xiii}spondee. The Proses contain the main arguments; the Metres serve for embellishment and recreation.

In some MSS. of Chaucer's translation, a few words of the original are quoted at the beginning of each Prose and Metre, and are duly printed in this edition, in a corrected form.

§ 8. A very brief sketch of the general contents of the volume may be of some service.

§ 9. It is unnecessary to enlarge here upon the importance of this treatise, and its influence upon medieval literature. Mr. Stewart, in the work already referred to, has an excellent chapter 'On Some Ancient Translations' of it. The number of translations that still exist, in various languages, sufficiently testify to its extraordinary popularity in the middle ages. Copies of it are found, for example, in Old High German by Notker, and in later German by Peter of Kastl; in Anglo-French by Simun de Fraisne; in continental French by Jean de Meun^[10], Pierre de Paris, Jehan de Cis, Frere Renaut de Louhans, and by two anonymous authors; in Italian, by Alberto della Piagentina and several others; in Greek, by Maximus Planudes; and in Spanish, by Fra Antonio Ginebreda; besides various versions in later times. But the most interesting, to us, are those in English, which are somewhat numerous, and are worthy of some special notice. I shall here dismiss, as improbable and unnecessary, a suggestion sometimes made, that Chaucer may have consulted some French version in the hope of obtaining assistance from it; there is no sure trace of anything of the kind, and the internal evidence is, in my opinion, decisively against it.

§ 10. The earliest English translation is that by king Ælfred, which is particularly interesting from the fact that the royal author {xv}frequently deviates from his original, and introduces various notes, explanations, and allusions of his own. The opening chapter, for example, is really a preface, giving a brief account of Theodoric and of the circumstances which led to the imprisonment of Boethius. This work exists only in two MSS., neither being of early date, viz. MS. Cotton, Otho A VI, and MS. Bodley NE. C. 3. 11. It has been thrice edited; by Rawlinson, in 1698; by J. S. Cardale, in 1829; and by S. Fox, in 1864. The last of these includes a modern English translation, and forms one of the volumes of Bohn's Antiquarian Library; so that it is a cheap and accessible work. Moreover, it contains an alliterative verse translation of most of the Metres contained in Boethius (excluding the Proses), which is also attributed to Ælfred in a brief metrical preface; but whether this ascription is to be relied upon, or not, is a difficult question, which has hardly as yet been decided. A summary of the arguments, for and against Ælfred's authorship, will be found in Wülker's Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsächsischen Litteratur, pp. 421-435.

§ 11. I may here mention that there is a manuscript copy of this work by Boethius, in the original Latin, in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, No. 214, which contains a considerable number of Anglo-Saxon glosses. A description of this MS., by Prof. J. W. Bright and myself, is printed in the American Journal of Philology, vol. v, no. 4.

§ 12. The next English translation, in point of date, is Chaucer's; concerning which I have more to say below.

§ 13. In the year 1410, we meet with a verse translation of the whole treatise, ascribed by Warton (Hist. E. Poetry, § 20, ed. 1871, iii. 39) to John Walton, Capellanus, or John the Chaplain, a canon of Oseney. 'In the British Museum,' says Warton, 'there is a correct MS. on parchment^[11] of Walton's translation of Boethius; and the margin is filled throughout with the Latin text, written by Chaundler above mentioned [i. e. Thomas Chaundler, among other preferments dean of the king's chapel and of Hereford Cathedral, chancellor of Wells, and successively warden of Wykeham's two colleges at Winchester and Oxford.] There is another less elegant MS. in the same collection^[12]. But at the end is this {xvi}note:—'Explicit liber Boecij de Consolatione Philosophie de Latino in Anglicum translatus A.D. 1410, per Capellanum Ioannem. This is the beginning of the prologue:—"In suffisaunce of cunnyng and witte^[13]." And of the translation:—"Alas, I wrecch, that whilom was in welth." I have seen a third copy in the library of Lincoln cathedral^[14], and a fourth in Baliol college^[15]. This is the translation of Boethius printed in the monastery of Tavistock in 1525^[16], and in octave stanzas. This translation was made at the request of Elizabeth Berkeley.'

Todd, in his Illustrations of Gower and Chaucer, p. xxxi, mentions another MS. 'in the possession of Mr. G. Nicol, his Majesty's bookseller,' in which the above translation is differently attributed in the colophon, which ends thus: 'translatus anno domini millesimo ccccx^o. per Capellanum Iohannem Tebaud, alius Watyrbeche.' This can hardly be correct^[17].

I may here note that this verse translation has two separate Prologues. One Prologue gives a short account of Boethius and his times, and is extant in MS. Gg. iv. 18 in the Cambridge University Library. An extract from the other is quoted below. MS. E Museo 53, in the Bodleian Library, contains both of them.

§ 14. As to the work itself, Metre 1 of Book i. and Metre 5 of the same are printed entire in Wülker's Altenglisches Lesebuch, ii. 56-9. In one of the metrical prologues to the whole work the following passage occurs, which I copy from MS. Royal 18 A xiii:—

This is an early tribute to the excellence of Chaucer and Gower as poets.

§ 15. When we examine Walton's translation a little more closely, it soon becomes apparent that he has largely availed himself of Chaucer's prose translation, which he evidently kept before him as a model of language. For example, in Bk. ii. met. 5, l. 16, Chaucer has the expression:—'tho weren the cruel clariouns ful hust and ful stille.' This reappears in one of Walton's lines in the form:—'Tho was ful huscht the cruel clarioun.' This is poetry made easy, no doubt.

In order to exhibit this a little more fully, I here transcribe the whole of Walton's translation of this metre, which may be compared with Chaucer's rendering at pp. 40, 41 below. I print in italics all the words which are common to the two versions, so as to shew this curious result, viz. that Walton was here more indebted to Chaucer, than Chaucer, when writing his poem of 'The Former Age,' was to himself. The MS. followed is the Royal MS. mentioned above (p. xvi).

§ 16. MS. Auct. F. 3. 5, in the Bodleian Library, contains a prose translation, different from Chaucer's. After this, the next translation seems to be one by George Colvile; the title is thus given by Lowndes: 'Boetius de Consolatione Philosophiæ, translated by George Coluile, alias Coldewel. London: by John Cawoode; 1556. 4to.' This work was dedicated to Queen Mary, and reprinted in 1561; and again, without date.

There is an unprinted translation, in hexameters and other metres, in the British Museum (MS. Addit. 11401), by Bracegirdle, temp. Elizabeth. See Warton, ed. Hazlitt, iii. 39, note 6.

Lowndes next mentions a translation by J. T., printed at London in 1609, 12mo.

A translation 'Anglo-Latine expressus per S. E. M.' was printed at London in quarto, in 1654, according to Hazlitt's Hand-book to Popular Literature.

Next, a translation into English verse by H. Conningesbye, in 1664, 12mo.

The next is thus described: 'Of the Consolation of Philosophy, made English and illustrated with Notes by the Right Hon. Richard (Graham) Lord Viscount Preston. London; 1695, 8vo. Second edition, corrected; London; 1712, 8vo.'

A translation by W. Causton was printed in London in 1730; 8vo.

A translation by the Rev. Philip Ridpath, printed in London in 1785, 8vo., is described by Lowndes as 'an excellent translation with very useful notes, and a life of Boethius, drawn up with great accuracy and fidelity.'

A translation by R. Duncan was printed at Edinburgh in 1789, 8vo.; and an anonymous translation, described by Lowndes as 'a pitiful performance,' was printed in London in 1792, 8vo.

In a list of works which the Early English Text Society proposes shortly to print, we are told that 'Miss Pemberton has sent to press her edition of the fragments of Queen Elizabeth's Englishings (in the Record Office) from Boethius, Plutarch, &c.'

§ 17. I now return to the consideration of Chaucer's translation, as printed in the present volume.

I do not think the question as to the probable date of its composition need detain us long. It is so obviously connected with 'Troilus' and the 'House of Fame,' which it probably did not long precede, that we can hardly be wrong in dating it, as said above, about 1377-1380; or, in round numbers, about 1380 or a little earlier. I quite agree with Mr. Stewart (Essay, p. 226), that, 'it is surely most reasonable to connect its composition with those poems which contain the greatest number of recollections and imitations of his original;' and I see no reason for ascribing it, with Professor Morley (English Writers, v. 144), to Chaucer's {xx}youth. Even Mr. Stewart is so incautious as to suggest that Chaucer's 'acquaintance with the works of the Roman philosopher ... would seem to date from about the year 1369, when he wrote the Deth of Blaunche.' When we ask for some tangible evidence of this statement, we are simply referred to the following passages in that poem, viz. the mention of 'Tityus (588); of Fortune the debonaire (623); Fortune the monster (627); Fortune's capriciousness and her rolling wheel (634, 642); Tantalus (708); the mind compared to a clean parchment (778); and Alcibiades (1055-6);' see Essay, p. 267. In every one of these instances, I believe the inference to be fallacious, and that Chaucer got all these illustrations, at second hand, from Le Roman de la Rose. As a matter of fact, they are all to be found there; and I find, on reference, that I have, in most instances, already given the parallel passages in my notes. However, to make the matter clearer, I repeat them here.

Book Duch. 588. Cf. Comment li juisier Ticius
Book Duch. 588. Cf. S'efforcent ostoir de mangier;
Book Duch. 588. Cf. Rom. Rom. Rose, 19506.
Book Duch. 588. Cf. Si cum tu fez, las Sisifus, &c.;
Book Duch. 588. Cf. Rom. R. R. 19499.

Book Duch. 623. The dispitouse debonaire,
Book Duch. 623. That scorneth many a creature.

I cannot give the exact reference, because Jean de Meun's description of the various moods of Fortune extends to a portentous length. Chaucer reproduces the general impression which a perusal of the poem leaves on the mind. However, take ll. 4860-62 of Le Roman:—

Surely 'debonaire' in Chaucer is rather French than Latin. And see debonaire in the E. version of the Romaunt, l. 5412.

Book Duch. 627. She is the monstres heed y-wryen,
Book Duch. 627. As filth over y-strawed with floures.

Book Duch. 627. Si di, par ma parole ovrir,
Book Duch. 627. Qui vodroit un femier covrir
Book Duch. 627. De dras de soie ou de floretes; R. R. 8995.

As the second of the above lines from the Book of the Duchesse is obviously taken from Le Roman, it is probable that the first is {xxi}also; but it is a hard task to discover the particular word monstre in this vast poem. However, I find it, in l. 4917, with reference to Fortune; and her wheel is not far off, six lines above.

B. D. 634, 642. Fortune's capriciousness is treated of by Jean de Meun at intolerable length, ll. 4863-8492; and elsewhere. As to her wheel, it is continually rolling through his verses; see ll. 4911, 5366, 5870, 5925, 6172, 6434, 6648, 6880, &c.

B. D. 708. Cf. Et de fain avec Tentalus; R. R. 19482.

B. D. 778. Not from Le Roman, nor from Boethius, but from Machault's Remède de Fortune, as pointed out by M. Sandras long ago; see my note.

B. D. 1055-6. Cf. Car le cors Alcipiades
B. D. 1055-6. Cf. Qui de biauté avoit adés ...
B. D. 1055-6. Cf. Ainsinc le raconte Boece; R. R. 8981.

See my note on the line; and note the spelling of Alcipiades with a p, as in the English MSS.

We thus see that all these passages (except l. 778) are really taken from Le Roman, not to mention many more, already pointed out by Dr. Köppel (Anglia, xiv. 238). And, this being so, we may safely conclude that they were not taken from Boethius directly. Hence we may further infer that, in all probability, Chaucer, in 1369, was not very familiar with Boethius in the Latin original. And this accounts at once for the fact that he seldom quotes Boethius at first hand, perhaps not at all, in any of his earlier poems, such as the Complaint unto Pite, the Complaint of Mars, or Anelida and Arcite, or the Lyf of St. Cecilie. I see no reason for supposing that he had closely studied Boethius before (let us say) 1375; though it is extremely probable, as was said above, that Jean de Meun inspired him with the idea of reading it, to see whether it was really worth translating, as the French poet said it was.

§ 18. When we come to consider the style and manner in which Chaucer has executed his self-imposed task, we must first of all make some allowance for the difference between the scholarship of his age and of our own. One great difference is obvious, though constantly lost sight of, viz. that the teaching in those days was almost entirely oral, and that the student had to depend upon his {xxii}memory to an extent which would now be regarded by many as extremely inconvenient. Suppose that, in reading Boethius, Chaucer comes across the phrase 'ueluti quidam clauus atque gubernaculum' (Bk. iii. pr. 12, note to l. 55), and does not remember the sense of clauus; what is to be done? It is quite certain, though this again is frequently lost sight of, that he had no access to a convenient and well-arranged Latin Dictionary, but only to such imperfect glossaries as were then in use. Almost the only resource, unless he had at hand a friend more learned than himself, was to guess. He guesses accordingly; and, taking clauus to mean much the same thing as clauis, puts down in his translation: 'and he is as a keye and a stere.' Some mistakes of this character were almost inevitable; and it must not greatly surprise us to be told, that the 'inaccuracy and infelicity' of Chaucer's translation 'is not that of an inexperienced Latin scholar, but rather of one who was no Latin scholar at all,' as Mr. Stewart says in his Essay, p. 226. It is useful to bear this in mind, because a similar lack of accuracy is characteristic of Chaucer's other works also; and we must not always infer that emendation is necessary, when we find in his text some curious error.

§ 19. The next passage in Mr. Stewart's Essay so well expresses the state of the case, that I do not hesitate to quote it at length. 'Given (he says) a man who is sufficiently conversant with a language to read it fluently without paying too much heed to the precise value of participle and preposition, who has the wit and the sagacity to grasp the meaning of his author, but not the intimate knowledge of his style and manner necessary to a right appreciation of either, and—especially if he set himself to write in an uncongenial and unfamiliar form—he will assuredly produce just such a result as Chaucer has done.

'We must now glance (he adds) at the literary style of the translation. As Ten Brink has observed, we can here see as clearly as in any work of the middle ages what a high cultivation is requisite for the production of a good prose. Verse, and not prose, is the natural vehicle for the expression of every language in its infancy, and it is certainly not in prose that Chaucer's genius shews to best advantage. The restrictions of metre were indeed to him as silken fetters, while the freedom of prose only served to embarrass him; just as a bird that has been born and bred in captivity, whose traditions are all domestic, finds itself at a sad loss when it escapes {xxiii}from its cage and has to fall back on its own resources for sustenance. In reading "Boece," we have often as it were to pause and look on while Chaucer has a desperate wrestle with a tough sentence; but though now he may appear to be down, with a victorious knee upon him, next moment he is on his feet again, disclaiming defeat in a gloss which makes us doubt whether his adversary had so much the best of it after all. But such strenuous endeavour, even when it is crowned with success, is strange in a writer one of whose chief charms is the delightful ease, the complete absence of effort, with which he says his best things. It is only necessary to compare the passages in Boethius in the prose version with the same when they reappear in the poems, to realise how much better they look in their verse dress. Let the reader take Troilus' soliloquy on Freewill and Predestination (Bk. iv. ll. 958-1078), and read it side by side with the corresponding passage in "Boece" (Bk. v. proses 2 and 3), and he cannot fail to feel the superiority of the former to the latter. With what clearness and precision does the argument unfold itself, how close is the reasoning, how vigorous and yet graceful is the language! It is to be regretted that Chaucer did not do for all the Metra of the "Consolation" what he did for the fifth of the second book. A solitary gem like "The Former Age" makes us long for a whole set^[32]. Sometimes, whether unconsciously or of set purpose, it is difficult to decide, his prose slips into verse:—

The reader should also consult Ten Brink's History of English Literature, Book iv. sect. 7. I here give a useful extract.

'This version is complete, and faithful in all essential points. Chaucer had no other purpose than to disclose, if possible wholly, the meaning of this famous work to his contemporaries; and notwithstanding many errors in single points, he has fairly well succeeded in reproducing the sense of the original. He often employs for this purpose periphrastic turns, and for the explanation of difficult passages, poetical figures, mythological and historical allusions; and he even incorporates a number of notes in his text. His version thus becomes somewhat diffuse, and, in the undeveloped state of prose composition so characteristic of that age, often quite unwieldy. But there is no lack of warmth, and even of a certain colouring....

'The language of the translation shews many a peculiarity; viz. numerous Latinisms, and even Roman idioms in synthesis, inflexion, or syntax, which are either wholly absent or at least found very rarely in Chaucer's poems. The labour of this translation proved a school for the poet, from which his powers of speech came forth not only more elevated but more self-reliant; and above all, with a greater aptitude to express thoughts of a deeper nature.'

§ 20. Most of the instances in which Chaucer's rendering is inaccurate, unhappy, or insufficient are pointed out in the notes. I here collect some examples, many of which have already been remarked upon by Dr. Morris and Mr. Stewart.

i. met. 1. 3. rendinge Muses: 'lacerae Camenae.'

i. "et. 1. 20. unagreable dwellinges^[34]: 'ingratas moras.'

i. pr. 1. 49. til it be at the laste: 'usque in exitium;' (but see the note).

i. pr. 3. 2. I took hevene: 'hausi caelum.'

i. met. 4. 5. hete: 'aestum;' (see the note). So again, in met. 7. 3.

i. pr. 4. 83. for nede of foreine moneye: 'alienae aeris necessitate.'

i. pr. 4. 93. lykned: 'astrui;' (see the note).

i. met. 5. 9. cometh eft ayein hir used cours: 'Solitas iterum mutet habenas;' (see the note).

ii. pr. 1. 22. entree: 'adyto;' (see the note).

ii. pr. 1. 45. use hir maneres: 'utere moribus.'

ii. pr. 5. 10. to hem that despenden it: 'effundendo.'

ii. "r. 5. 11. to thilke folk that mokeren it: 'coaceruando.'

ii. "r. 5. 90. subgit: 'sepositis;' (see the note).

ii. met. 6. 21. the gloss is wrong; (see the note).

ii. met. 7. 20. cruel day: 'sera dies;' (see the note).

iii. pr. 2. 57. birefte awey: 'adferre.' Here MS. C. has afferre, and Chaucer seems to have resolved this into ab-ferre.

iii. pr. 3. 48. foreyne: 'forenses.'

iii. pr. 4. 42. many maner dignitees of consules: 'multiplici consulatu.'

iii. pr. 4. 64. of usaunces: 'utentium.'

iii. pr. 8. 11. anoyously: 'obnoxius;' (see the note).

iii. "r. 8. 29. of a beest that highte lynx: 'Lynceis;' (see the note).

iii. pr. 9. 16. Wenest thou that he, that hath nede of power, that him ne lakketh no-thing? 'An tu arbitraris quod nihilo indigeat egere potentia?' On this Mr. Stewart remarks that 'it is easy to see that indigeat and egere have changed places.' To me, it is not quite easy; for the senses of the M.E. nede and lakken are very slippery. Suppose we make them change places, and read:—'Wenest thou that he, that hath lak of power, that him ne nedeth no-thing?' This may be better, but it is not wholly satisfactory.

iii. pr.9. 39-41. that he ... yif him nedeth = whether he needeth. A very clumsy passage; see the Latin quoted in the note.

iii. pr. 10. 165. the soverein fyn and the cause: 'summa, cardo, atque caussa.'

iii. pr. 12. 55, 67. a keye: 'clauus;' and again, 'clauo.'

iii. p". 12. 55, 74. a yok of misdrawinges: 'detrectantium iugum.'

iii. p". 12. 55, 75. the savinge of obedient thinges: 'obtemperantium salus.'

iii. pr. 12. 136. the whiche proeves drawen to hem-self hir feith and hir acord, everich of hem of other: 'altero ex altero fidem trahente ... probationibus.' (Not well expressed.)

iii. met. 12. 5. the wodes, moveable, to rennen; and had maked the riveres, &c.: 'Siluas currere, mobiles Amnes,' &c.

iii. met. 17-19. Obscure and involved.

iv. pr. 1. 22. of wikkede felounes: 'facinorum.'

iv. pr. 2. 97. Iugement: 'indicium' (misread as iudicium).

iv. met. 7. 15. empty: 'immani;' (misread as inani).

v. pr. 1. 3. ful digne by auctoritee: 'auctoritate dignissima.'

v. p". 1. 34. prince: 'principio.'

v. p". 1. 57. the abregginge of fortuit hap: 'fortuiti caussae compendii.'

v. pr. 4. 30. by grace of position (or possessioun): 'positionis gratia.'

v. pr. 4. 56. right as we trowen: 'quasi uero credamus.'

v. met. 5. 6. by moist fleeinge: 'liquido uolatu.'

§ 21. In the case of a few supposed errors, as pointed out by Mr. Stewart, there remains something to be said on the other side. I note the following instances.

i. pr. 6. 28. Lat. 'uelut hiante ualli robore.' Here Mr. Stewart quotes the reading of MS. A., viz. 'so as the strengthe of the paleys schynyng is open.' But the English text in that MS. is corrupt. The correct reading is 'palis chyning;' where palis means palisade, and translates ualli; and chyning is open means is gaping open, and translates hiante.

ii. pr. 5. 16. Lat. 'largiendi usu.' The translation has: 'by usage of large yevinge of him that hath yeven it.' I fail to see much amiss; for the usual sense of large in M. E. is liberal, bounteous, lavish. Of course we must not substitute the modern sense without justification.

ii. pr. 5. 35. 'of the laste beautee' translates Lat. 'postremae pulcritudinis.' For this, see my note on p. 431.

ii. pr. 7. 38. Lat. 'tum commercii insolentia.' Chaucer has: 'what for defaute of unusage and entrecomuninge of marchaundise.' There is not much amiss; but MS. A. omits the word and after unusage, which of course makes nonsense of the passage.

ii. met. 8. 6. Lat. 'Ut fluctus auidum mare Certo fine coerceat.' Chaucer has: 'that the see, greedy to flowen, constreyned with a certein ende hise floodes.' Mr. Stewart understands 'greedy to flowen' to refer to 'fluctus auidum.' It seems to me that this was merely Chaucer's first idea of the passage, and that he afterwards meant 'hise floodes' to translate 'fluctus,' but forgot to strike out 'to flowen.' I do not defend the translation.

iii. pr. 11. 86. Lat. 'sede;' Eng. 'sete.' This is quite right. Mr. Stewart quotes the Eng. version as having 'feete,' but this is only a corrupt reading, though found in the best MS. Any one {xxvii}who is acquainted with M. E. MSS. will easily guess that 'feete' is merely mis-copied from 'ſeete,' with a long s; and, indeed, sete is the reading of the black-letter editions. There is a blunder here, certainly; only it is not the author's, but due to the scribes.

iv. pr. 6. 176. Lat. 'quidam me quoque excellentior:' Eng. 'a philosophre, the more excellent by me.' The M. E. use of by is ambiguous; it frequently means 'in comparison with.'

v. met. 5. 14. Lat. 'male dissipis:' Eng. 'wexest yvel out of thy wit.' In this case, wexest out of thy wit translates dissipis; and yvel, which is here an adverb, translates male.

Of course we must also make allowances for the variations in Chaucer's Latin MS. from the usually received text. Here we are much assisted by MS. C., which, as explained below, appears to contain a copy of the very text which he consulted, and helps to settle several doubtful points. To take two examples. In Book ii. met. 5. 17, Chaucer has 'ne hadde nat deyed yit armures,' where the usual Lat. text has 'tinxerat arua.' But many MSS. have arma; and, of these, MS. C. is one.

Once more, in Book ii. met. 2. 11, Chaucer has 'sheweth other gapinges,' where the usual Lat. text has 'Altos pandit hiatus.' But some MSS. have Alios; and, of these, MS. C. is one.

§ 22. After all, the chief point of interest about Chaucer's translation of Boethius is the influence that this labour exercised upon his later work, owing to the close familiarity with the text which he thus acquired. I have shewn that we must not expect to find such influence upon his earliest writings; and that, in the case of the Book of the Duchesse, it affected him at second hand, through Jean de Meun. But in other poems, viz. Troilus, the House of Fame, The Legend of Good Women, some of the Balades, and in the Canterbury Tales, the influence of Boethius is frequently observable; and we may usually suppose such influence to have been direct and immediate; nevertheless, we should always keep an eye on Le Roman de la Rose, for Jean de Meun was, in like manner, influenced in no slight degree by the same work. I have often taken an opportunity of pointing out, in my Notes to Chaucer, passages of this character; and I find that Mr. Stewart, with praiseworthy diligence, has endeavoured to give (in Appendix B, following his Essay, at p. 260) 'An Index of Passages in Chaucer which seem to have been {xxviii}suggested by the De Consolatione Philosophiae.' Very useful, in connection with this subject, is the list of passages in which Chaucer seems to have been indebted to Le Roman de la Rose, as given by Dr. E. Köppel in Anglia, vol. xiv. 238-265. Another most useful help is the comparison between Troilus and Boccaccio's Filostrato, by Mr. W. M. Rossetti; which sometimes proves, beyond all doubt, that a passage which may seem to be due to Boethius, is really taken from the Italian poet. As this seems to be the right place for exhibiting the results thus obtained, I proceed to give them, and gladly express my thanks to the above-named authors for the opportunity thus afforded.

§ 23. Comparison with 'Boece' of other works by Chaucer.

Troilus and Criseyde: Book I.

365.^[35] a mirour.—Cf. B. v. met. 4. 8.

638. sweetnesse, &c.—B. iii. met. 1. 4.

730. What? slombrestow as in a lytargye?—See B. i. pr. 2. 14.

731. an asse to the harpe.—B. i. pr. 4. 2.

786. Ticius.—B. iii. met. 12. 29.

837. Fortune is my fo.—B. i. pr. 4. 8.

838-9. May of hir cruel wheel the harm withstonde.—B. ii. pr. 1. 80-82.

840. she pleyeth.—B. ii. met. 1. 10; pr. 2. 36.

841. than blamestow Fortune.—B. ii. pr. 2. 14.

846-7. That, as hir Ioyes moten overgoon,
846-7. So mote hir sorwes passen everichoon.—B. ii. pr. 3. 52-4.

848-9. For if hir wheel stinte any-thing to torne,
848-9. Than cessed she Fortune anoon to be.
 B. ii. pr. 1. 82-4.

850. Now, sith hir wheel by no wey may soiorne, &c.—B. ii. pr. 2. 59.

857. For who-so list have helping of his leche.—B. i. pr. 4. 3.

1065-71. For every wight that hath an hous to founde.—B. iv. pr. 6. 57-60.

Troilus: Book II.

*42.^[36] Forthy men seyn, ech contree hath his lawes.—B. ii. pr. 7. 49-51. (This case is doubtful. Chaucer's phrase—men seyn—shews that he is quoting a common proverb. 'Ase fele thedes, as fele thewes, quoth Hendyng.' 'Tant de gens, tant de guises.'—Ray. So many countries, so many customs.—Hazlitt).

526. O god, that at thy disposicioun
526. Ledest the fyn, by Iuste purveyaunce,
526. Of every wight. B. iv. pr. 6. 149-151.

766-7. And that a cloud is put with wind to flighte
766-7. Which over-sprat the sonne as for a space.
 B. i. met. 3. 8-10.

Troilus: Book III.

617.^[37] But O, Fortune, executrice of wierdes,
617. O influences of thise hevenes hye!
617. Soth is, that, under god, ye ben our hierdes.
 B. iv. pr. 6. 60-71.

624. The bente mone with hir hornes pale.—B. i. met. 5. 6.

813. O god—quod she—so worldly selinesse ...
813. Y-medled is with many a bitternesse.—B. ii. pr. 4. 86, 87.

816. Ful anguisshous than is, god woot—quod she—
816. Condicioun of veyn prosperitee.
 B. ii. pr. 4. 56.

820-833.—B. ii. pr. 4. 109-117.

*836. Ther is no verray wele in this world here.
 B. ii. pr. 4. 130.

1219. And now swetnesse semeth more swete.—B. iii. met. 1. 4.

1261. Benigne Love, thou holy bond of thinges.—B. ii. met. 8. 9-11.

1625-8. For of Fortunes sharp adversitee, &c.—B. ii. pr. 4. 4-7.

1691-2. Feicitee.—B. iii. pr. 2. 55.

1744-68. Love, that of erthe and see hath governaunce, &c.
 B. ii. met. 8. 9-11; 15, 16; 3-8; 11-14; 17, 18.

Troilus: Book IV.

*1-7. (Fortune's changes, her wheel, and her scorn).—B. ii. pr. 1. 12; met. 1. 1, 5-10; pr. ii. 37. (But note, that ll. 1-3 are really due to the Filostrato, Bk. iii. st. 94; and ll. 6, 7 are copied from Le Roman de la Rose, 8076-9).

200. cloud of errour.—B. iii. met. 11. 7.

391. Ne trust no wight to finden in Fortune
391. Ay propretee; hir yeftes ben comune.
 B. ii. pr. 2. 7-9; 61-2.

*481-2. (Repeated from Book III. 1625-8. But, this time, it is copied from the Filostrato, Bk. iv. st. 56).

503. For sely is that deeth, soth for to seyne,
503. That, oft y-cleped, comth and endeth peyne.
 B. i. met. 1. 12-14.

*835. And alle worldly blisse, as thinketh me,
*835. The ende of blisse ay sorwe it occupyeth.
 B. ii. pr. 4. 90.

(A very doubtful instance; for l. 836 is precisely the same as Prov. xiv. 13. The word occupyeth is decisive; see my note to Cant. Ta. B 421).

958; 963-6. (Predestination).—B. v. pr. 2. 30-34.

974-1078. (Necessity and Free Will).—B. v. pr. 3. 7-19; 21-71.

*1587.  ... thenk that lord is he
*1587. Of Fortune ay, that nought wol of hir recche;
*1587. And she ne daunteth no wight but a wrecche.
 B. ii. pr. 4. 98-101.

(But note that l. 1589 really translates two lines in the Filostrato, Bk. iv. st. 154).

Troilus: Book V.

278. And Phebus with his rosy carte.—B. ii. met. 3. 1, 2.

763. Felicitee clepe I my suffisaunce.—B. iii. pr. 2. 6-8.

*1541-4. Fortune, whiche that permutacioun
*1541-4. Of thinges hath, as it is hir committed
*1541-4. Through purveyaunce and disposicioun
*1541-4. Of heighe Iove. B. iv. pr. 6. 75-77.

*1809. (The allusion here to the 'seventh spere' has but a remote reference to Boethius (iv. met. 1. 16-19); for this stanza 259 is translated from Boccaccio's Teseide, Bk. xi. st. 1).

It thus appears that, for this poem, Chaucer made use of B. i. met. 1, pr. 2, met. 3, pr. 4, met. 5; ii. pr. 1, met. 1, pr. 2, pr. 3, met. 3, pr. 4, pr. 7, met. 8; iii. met. 1, pr. 2, met. 2, pr. 3, met. 11, 12; iv. pr. 6; v. pr. 2, pr. 3.

The House of Fame.

*535 (Book ii. 27). Foudre. (This allusion to the thunderbolt is copied from Machault, as shewn in my note; but Machault probably took it from Boeth. i. met. 4. 8; and it is curious that Chaucer has tour, not toun).

730-746 (Book ii. 222-238).—Compare B. iii. pr. 11; esp. 98-111. (Also Le Roman de la Rose, 16957-69; Dante, Purg. xviii. 28).

972-8 (Book ii. 464-70).—B. iv. met. 1. 1-5.

1368-1375 (Book iii. 278-285).—Compare B. i. pr. 1. 8-12.

*1545-8 (Book iii. 455-8).—Compare B. i. pr. 5. 43, 44. (The likeness is very slight).

1920 (Book iii. 830). An hous, that domus Dedali, That Laborintus cleped is.—B. iii. pr. 12. 118.

Legend of Good Women.

195 (p. 78). tonne.—B. ii. pr. 2. 53-5.

*2228-30. (Philomela, 1-3).—B. iii. met. 9. 8-10. (Doubtful; for the same is in Le Roman de la Rose, 16931-6, which is taken from Boethius. And Köppel remarks that the word Eternally answers to nothing in the Latin text, whilst it corresponds to the French Tous jors en pardurableté).

MINOR POEMS.

III. Book of the Duchesse.

The quotations from Boethius are all taken at second-hand. See above, pp. xx, xxi.

V. Parlement of Foules.

*380. That hoot, cold, hevy, light, [and] moist and dreye, &c.—B. iii. pr. 11. 98-103.

(Practically, a chance resemblance; these lines are really from Alanus, De Planctu Naturæ; see the note).

599. ... as oules doon by light;
599. The day hem blent, ful wel they see by night.
 B. iv. pr. 4. 132-3.

IX. The Former Age.

Partly from B. ii. met. 5; see the notes.

X. Fortune.

1-4. Compare B. ii. met. 1. 5-7.

10-12. Compare B. ii. pr. 8. 22-25.

13. Compare B. ii. pr. 4. 98-101.

*17. Socrates.—B. i. pr. 3. 20. (But really from Le Roman de la Rose, 5871-4).

25. No man is wrecched, but himself it wene.—B. ii. pr. 4. 79, 80; cf. pr. 2. 1-10.

29-30. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 17, 18.

31. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 59, 60.

33, 34. Cf. B. ii. pr. 8. 25-28.

38. Yit halt thyn ancre.—B. ii. pr. 4. 40.

43, 44. Cf. B. ii. pr. 1. 69-72, and 78-80.

45, 46. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 60-62; and 37.

50-52. Cf. B. ii. pr. 8. 25-28.

57-64. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 11-18.

65-68. Cf. B. iv. pr. 6. 42-46.

68. Ye blinde bestes.—B. iii. pr. 3. 1.

71. Thy laste day.—B. ii. pr. 3. 60, 61.

XIII. Truth.

2. Cf. B. ii. pr. 5. 56, 57.

3. For hord hath hate.—B. ii. pr. 5. 11.

3. and climbing tikelnesse.—B. iii. pr. 8. 10, 11.

7. And trouthe shal delivere. Cf. B. iii. met. 11. 7-9; 15-20.

8. Tempest thee noght.—B. ii. pr. 4. 50.

9. hir that turneth as a bal.—B. ii. pr. 2. 37.

15. That thee is sent, receyve in buxumnesse.—B. ii. pr. 1. 66-68.

17, 19. Her nis non hoom. Cf. B. i. pr. 5. 11-15.

18. Forth, beste.—B. iii. pr. 3. 1.

19. Know thy contree, lok up.—B. v. met. 5. 14, 15.

XIV. Gentilesse.

For the general idea, see B. iii. pr. 6. 24-38; met. 6. 2, and 6-10. With l. 5 compare B. iii. pr. 4. 25.

XV. Lak of Stedfastnesse.

For the general idea, cf. B. ii. met. 8.

Canterbury Tales: Group A.

Prologue. 337-8. Pleyn delyt, &c.—B. iii. pr. 2. 55.

741-2. The wordes mote be cosin to the dede.—B. iii. pr. 12. 152.

Knightes Tale. 925. Thanked be Fortune, and hir false wheel.—B. ii. pr. 2. 37-39.

1164. Who shal yeve a lover any lawe?—B. iii, met. 12. 37.

*1251-4. Cf. B. iv. pr. 6. 147-151.

1255, 1256. Cf. B. iii. pr. 2. 19; ii. pr. 5. 122.

1262. A dronke man, &c.—B. iii. pr. 2. 61.

1266. We seke faste after felicitee,
1266. But we goon wrong ful often, trewely.
 B. iii. pr. 2. 59, 60; met. 8. 1.

1303-12. O cruel goddes, that governe, &c.—B. i. met. 5. 22-26; iv. pr. 1. 19-26.

*1946. The riche Cresus. Cf. B. ii. pr. 2. 44. (But cf. Monkes Ta. B. 3917, and notes.)

2987-2993^[38]. The firste moevere, &c.—B. ii. met. 8. 6-11. (But see also the Teseide, Bk. ix. st. 51.)

2994-9, 3003-4.—B. iv. pr. 6. 29-35.

3005-3010.—B. iii. pr. 10. 18-22.

3011-5.—B. iv. pr. 6.

Group B.

Man of Lawes Tale. 295-299. O firste moeving cruel firmament. Cf. B. i. met. 5. 1-3; iii. pr. 8. 22; pr. 12. 145-147; iv. met. 1. 6.

481-3. Doth thing for certein ende that ful derk is.—B. iv. pr. 6. 114-117, and 152-154.

813-6. O mighty god, if that it be thy wille.—B. i. met. 5. 22-30; iv. pr. 1. 19-26.

N.B. The stanzas 421-7, and 925-931, are not from Boethius, but from Pope Innocent; see notes.

The Tale of Melibeus. The suggested parallels between this {xxxiv}Tale and Boece are only three; the first is marked by Mr. Stewart as doubtful, the third follows Albertano of Brescia word for word; and the second is too general a statement. It is best to say that no certain instance can be given^[39].

The Monk's Prologue. 3163. Tragedie.—B. ii. pr. 2. 51.

The Monkes Tale: Hercules. 3285-3300.—B. iv. met. 7. 20-42. (But see Sources of the Tales, § 48; vol. iii. p. 430.)

*3329. Ful wys is he that can him-selven knowe. Cf. B. ii. pr. 4. 98-101.

3434. For what man that hath freendes thurgh fortune,
3434. Mishap wol make hem enemys, I gesse.
 B. iii. pr. 5. 48-50.

3537. But ay fortune hath in hir hony galle.—B. ii. pr. 4. 86-7.

3587. Thus can fortune hir wheel governe and gye.—B. ii. pr. 2. 37-39.

*3636. Thy false wheel my wo al may I wyte.—B. ii. pr. 1. 7-10.

3653. Nero. See B. ii. met. 6; esp. 5-16.

3914. Julius Cesar. No man ne truste upon hir favour longe. B. ii. pr. 1. 48-53.

3921. Cresus.—B. ii. pr. 2. 44-46.

3951. Tragedie.—B. ii. pr. 2. 51-2. (See 3163 above.)

3956. And covere hir brighte face with a cloude.—B. ii. pr. 1. 42.

Nonne Preestes Tale. 4190. That us governeth alle as in comune.—B. ii. pr. 2. 61.

4424. But what that god forwoot mot nedes be.—B. v. pr. 3. 7-10.

4433. Whether that godes worthy forwiting, &c.—B. v. pr. 3. 5-15; 27-39; pr. 4. 25-34; &c.

Group D.

*100. Wyf of Bath. He hath not every vessel al of gold.—B. iv. pr. 1. 30-33. (But cf. 2 Tim. ii. 20.)

170. Another tonne.—B. ii. pr. 2. 53.

1109-1116. 'Gentilesse.'—B. iii. pr. 6. 24-38; met. 6. 6, 7.

1140. Caucasus.—B. ii. pr. 7. 43.

1142. Yit wol the fyr as faire lye and brenne.—B. iii. pr. 4. 47.

1170. That he is gentil that doth gentil dedis.—B. iii. met. 6. 7-10.

1187. He that coveyteth is a povre wight.—B. iii. pr. 5. 20-32.

1203. Povert a spectacle is, as thinketh me.—B. ii. pr. 8. 23-25, 31-33.

The Freres Tale. 1483. For som-tyme we ben goddes instruments.—B. iv. pr. 6. 62-71.

The Somnours Tale. 1968. Lo, ech thing that is oned in him-selve, &c.—B. iii. pr. 11. 37-40.

Group E.

The Clerkes Tale. Mr. Stewart refers ll. 810-2 to Boethius, but these lines translate Petrarch's sentence—'Nulla homini perpetua sors est.' Also ll. 1155-1158, 1161; but these lines translate Petrarch's sentence—'Probat tamen et sæpe nos, multis ac grauibus flagellis exerceri sinit, non ut animum nostrum sciat, quem sciuit antequam crearemur ... abundè ergo constantibus uiris ascripserim, quisquis is fuerit, qui pro Deo suo sine murmure patiatur.' I find no hint that Chaucer was directly influenced by Boethius, while writing this Tale.

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.

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 {xxxvii}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^[40]. 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:—

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—

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:

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 {xl}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^[42], 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^[43].

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 {xlii}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. lēget, līget) 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; {xliv}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 ȝeelde (= zeelde). The word is missing in MS. A., but Morris supplied it from C. to complete the text. Hence the foot-note has: '[ȝeelde]—from C.'; meaning that A. omits ȝeelde, which is supplied from C. This Kellner took to mean that A. has ȝeelde, 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^[44].

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 ȝelde, 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 {xlvii}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)^[45] 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 {xlviii}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.

§ 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.

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 {l}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 {li}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 {lii}(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, {liii}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)—

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 {liv}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

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—

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:—

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:—

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.

Book I. 145-7:—

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^[52], he professes to put great faith in Dares and Dytes, whose names he frequently cites as being those of his best authorities^[53].

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 {lvii}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^[54].' 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.'

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^[55] 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 {lviii}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^[56]. The description of Diomede in Boccaccio (Fil. VI. 33) is merely as follows:—

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 {lix}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^[57], 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^[58] 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 {lx}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:—

So Lydgate, Siege of Troye, fol. U 3, back:—

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 {lxi}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:—

In his Hist. of Eng. Literature (E. version, ii. 113), Ten Brink remarks that, whilst Chaucer prefers to follow Guido rather than {lxii}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:—

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:—

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 {lxiii}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, {lxiv}after which a 'jousting' takes place between Diomede and Troilus, in which the former is badly wounded.

For further remarks, we are referred, in particular, to H. Dunger's Dictys-Septimius: über die ursprüngliche Abfassung und die Quellen der Ephemeris belli Troiani; Dresden, 1878 (Programm des Vitzthumschen Gymnasiums); to another essay by the same author on Die Sage vom trojanischen Kriege, Leipzig, 1869; to Koerting's Dictys und Dares, &c., Halle, 1874; to A. Joly's Benoît de Sainte-More et le Roman de Troie, Paris, 1871; and to an article by C. Wagener on Dares Phrygius, in Philologus, vol. xxxviii. The student may also consult E. Meybrinck, Die Auffassung der Antike bei Jacques Millet, Guido de Columna, und Benoît de Ste-More, printed in Ausgaben und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete für Romanischen Philologie, Marburg, 1886; where the author concludes that Millet was the originator of the story in France. Also W. Greif, Die mittelalterlichen Bearbeitungen der Trojanersage; Marburg, 1886.

§ 20. A few words may be said as to the names of the characters. Troilus is only once mentioned in Homer, where he is said to be one of the sons of Priam, who were slain in battle, Iliad, xxiv. 257; so that his story is of medieval invention, except as to the circumstance of his slayer being Achilles, as stated by Vergil, Æn. i. 474, 475; cf. Horace, Carm. ii. 9. 16. Pandarus occurs as the name of two distinct personages; (1) a Lycian archer, who wounded Menelaus; see Homer, Il. iv. 88, Vergil, Æn. 5. 496; and (2) a companion of Æneas, slain by Turnus; see Vergil, Æn. ix. 672, xi. 396. Diomede is a well-known hero in the Iliad, but his love-story is of late invention. The heroine of Benoît's poem is Briseida, of whom Dares (c. 13) has merely the following brief account: 'Briseidam formosam, alta statura, candidam, capillo flauo et molli, superciliis junctis^[59], oculis venustis, corpore aequali, blandam, affabilem, uerecundam, animo simplici, piam'; but he records nothing more about her. The name is simply copied from Homer's Βρισηΐδα, Il. i. 184, the accusative being taken (as often) as a new nominative case; this Briseis was the captive assigned to Achilles. But Boccaccio substitutes for this the form Griseida, taken from the accusative of Homer's Chryseis, mentioned just two lines above, Il. i. 182. For this {lxv}Italian form Chaucer substituted Criseyde, a trisyllabic form, with the ey pronounced as the ey in prey. He probably was led to this correction by observing the form Chryseida in his favourite author, Ovid; see Remed. Amoris, 469. Calchas, in Homer, Il. i. 69, is a Grecian priest; but in the later story he becomes a Trojan soothsayer, who, foreseeing the destruction of Troy, secedes to the Greek side, and is looked upon as a traitor. Cf. Vergil, Æn. ii. 176; Ovid, Art. Amat. ii. 737.

§ 21. In Anglia, xiv. 241, there is a useful comparison, by Dr. E. Köppel, of the parallel passages in Troilus and the French Roman de la Rose, ed. Méon, Paris, 1814, which I shall denote by 'R.' These are mostly pointed out in the Notes. Köppel's list is as follows:—

Troilus. I. 635 (cf. III. 328).—Rom. Rose, 8041. 637.—R. 21819. 747.—R. 7595. 810.—R. 21145. 969—R. 12964.

II. 167.—R. 5684. 193.—R. 8757. 716.—R. 5765. 754.—R. 6676. 784 (cf. III. 1035).—R. 12844. 1564.—R. 18498.

III. 294.—R. 7085. 328; see I. 635. 1035; see II. 784. 1634.—R. 8301.

IV. 7.—R. 8076. 519.—R. 6406. 1398.—R. 6941.

V. 365.—R. 18709.

Some of the resemblances are but slight; but others are obvious. The numbers refer to the beginning of a passage; sometimes the really coincident lines are found a little further on.

The parallel passages common to Troilus and Boethius are noted above, pp. xxviii-xxx.

An excellent and exhaustive treatise on the Language of Chaucer's Troilus, by Prof. Kitteredge, is now (1893) being printed for the Chaucer Society. A Ryme-Index to the same, compiled by myself, has been published for the same society, dated 1891.

§ 22. I have frequently alluded above to the alliterative 'Troy-book,' or 'Gest Historiale,' edited for the Early English Text Society, in 1869-74, by Panton and Donaldson. This is useful for reference, as being a tolerably close translation of Guido, although a little imperfect, owing to the loss of some leaves and some slight omissions (probably) on the part of the scribe. It is divided into 36 Books, which agree, very nearly, with the Books into which the original text is divided. The most important passages for comparison with Troilus are lines 3922-34 {lxvi}(description of Troilus); 3794-3803 (Diomede); 7268-89 (fight between Troilus and Diomede); 7886-7905 (Briseida and her dismissal from Troy); 8026-8181 (sorrow of Troilus and Briseida, her departure, and the interviews between Briseida and Diomede, and between her and Calchas her father); 8296-8317 (Diomede captures Troilus' horse, and presents it to Briseida); 8643-60 (death of Hector); 9671-7, 9864-82, 9926-9 (deeds of Troilus); 9942-59 (Briseida visits the wounded Diomede); 10055-85, 10252-10311 (deeds of Troilus, and his death); 10312-62 (reproof of Homer for his false statements).

At l. 8053, we have this remarkable allusion; speaking of Briseida and Troilus, the translator says:—

I.e. whoever wishes to know more about their wo, let him turn to Troilus, and there find enough. This is a clear allusion to Chaucer's work by its name, and helps to date the translation as being later than 1380 or 1382. And, as the translator makes no allusion to Lydgate's translation of Guido, the date of which is 1412-20, we see that he probably wrote between 1382 and 1420^[61]; so that the date 'about 1400,' adopted in the New Eng. Dictionary (s. v. Bercelet, &c.) cannot be far wrong^[62].

§ 23. Another useful book, frequently mentioned above, is Lydgate's Siege of Troye^[61], of which I possess a copy printed in 1555. This contains several allusions to Chaucer's Troilus, and more than one passage in praise of Chaucer's poetical powers, two of which are quoted in Mr. Rossetti's remarks on MS. Harl. 3943 (Chaucer Soc. 1875), pp. x, xi. These passages are not very helpful, though it is curious to observe that he speaks of Chaucer not only as 'my maister Chaucer,' but as 'noble Galfride, chefe Poete of Brytaine,' and 'my maister Galfride.' The most notable passages occur in cap. xv, fol. K 2; cap. xxv, fol. R 2, back; and near the end, fol. Ee 2. Lydgate's translation is much more free {lxvii}than the preceding one, and he frequently interpolates long passages, besides borrowing a large number of poetical expressions from his 'maister.'

§ 24. Finally, I must not omit to mention the remarkable poem by Robert Henrysoun, called the Testament and Complaint of Criseyde, which forms a sequel to Chaucer's story. Thynne actually printed this, in his edition of 1532, as one of Chaucer's poems, immediately after Troilus; and all the black-letter editions follow suit. Yet the 9th and 10th stanzas contain these words, according to the edition of 1532:—

§ 25. The Manuscripts.

1. MS. Cl.—The Campsall MS., on vellum, written before 1413; prepared for Henry, Prince of Wales, afterwards Henry V, as shewn by his arms on leaf 2. The poem occupies leaves 2-120; each page usually contains five stanzas. Two pages have been reproduced by the autotype process for the Chaucer Society; viz. leaf 1, recto, containing stanzas 1-5, and leaf 42, verso, containing stanzas 249-251 of Book II, and stanza 1 of Book III. This is a beautifully written MS., and one of the best; but it is disappointing to find that it might easily have been much better. The scribe had a still better copy before him, which he has frequently treated with supreme carelessness; but it is some consolation to find that his mistakes are so obvious that they can easily be corrected. Thus, in Book I, l. 27, he writes dorst for dorste, though it ruins the grammar and the metre; in l. 31, he actually has hym for hem, to the destruction of the sense; in l. 69, he has {lxviii}high (!) for highte; and so on. It therefore requires careful control. In particular, the scribe gives many examples of the fault of 'anticipation,' i.e. the fault whereby the mind, swifter than the pen, has induced him to write down letters that belong to a later syllable or word, or to omit one or more letters. Thus in Book I. l. 80, he omits u in pryuely, writing pryely; in l. 126, he omits and before hoom; in l. 198, he omits lewede; in l. 275, he omits gan; &c. But the faults of 'anticipation' appear most clearly in such startling forms as addermost for aldermost, I. 248, where the former d is due to the one that is coming; assent for absent, IV. 1642, for a like reason; estal for estat, because the next word is royal, I. 432; þyn for þyng, because the next word is myn, I. 683; nat for nas, because the next word is not, I. 738; seynt for seyn, because the next word is that, V. 369; shad for shal, because the next word is drede, V. 385; liten for litel, because weten follows, IV. 198; make for may, because the line ends with wake, III. 341; fleld for feld, II. 195. Sometimes, however, the scribe's mind reverts to something already written, so that we find Delphebus for Delphicus, because Phebus precedes, I. 70; bothen for bothe, because deden precedes, I. 82; falles for fallen, after unhappes, II. 456; daunder for daunger, III. 1321; tolle for tolde, III 802; &c. Downright blunders are not uncommon; as incocent for innocent (where again the former c is due to the latter), II. 1723; agarst for agast, III. 737; right for rit, V. 60. We even find startling variations in the reading, as in III. 1408:—

Certainly, shep (sheep) is irrelevant enough; however, Chaucer refers to sleep. And again, the line in II. 1554, which should run—

appears in the startling form—

As all the variations of 'Cl.' from the correct text are given in the foot-notes, it is not necessary to say more about these peculiarities. I must add, however, that, as in Boethius, I have silently corrected yn to in in such words as thing; besides altering ee and oo to e and o in open syllables, writing v for u, and the like. See above.

The Campsall MS., now in the possession of Mr. Bacon Frank, {lxix}has been printed in full, as written, for the Chaucer Society; and I have relied upon the accuracy of this well-edited print.

2. MS. Cp.—MS. No. 61 in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, described in Nasmith's Catalogue, p. 40, as 'a parchment book in folio neatly written, and ornamented with a frontispiece richly illuminated, containing Chaucer's Troilus, in four [error for five] books.' It is a fine folio MS., 12 inches by 8½. This MS., noticed by Warton, has not as yet been printed, though the Chaucer Society have undertaken to print it, upon my recommendation. It contains many pages that are left wholly or partially blank, obviously meant to be supplied with illuminations; which shews that it was written for some wealthy person. On the left margin, near the 83rd stanza of Book IV, is a note of ownership, in a hand of the fifteenth century—'neuer foryeteth: Anne neuyll.' This probably refers to Anne Neville, wife of Humphrey, duke of Buckingham (who was killed at Northampton in 1460), and daughter of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmoreland, and of Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt. That is, she was John of Gaunt's granddaughter; and it seems reasonable to infer that the MS. was actually written for one of John of Gaunt's family. This probability is a very interesting one, when we consider how much Chaucer owed to John of Gaunt's favour and protection.

The MS. is slightly deficient, owing to the omission of a few stanzas; but not much is missing. It is of a type closely resembling the preceding, and gives excellent readings. I have therefore taken the opportunity of founding the text upon a close collation of Cl. and Cp., taking Cl. as the foundation, but correcting it by Cp. throughout, without specifying more than the rejected reading of Cl. in passages where these MSS. differ. In this way the numerous absurdities of Cl. (as noted above) have been easily corrected, and the resulting text is a great improvement upon all that have hitherto appeared. In a few places, as shewn by the foot-notes, the readings of other MSS. have been preferred.

3. MS. H.—MS. Harl. 2280, in the British Museum. An excellent MS., very closely related to both the preceding. Printed in full for the Chaucer Society, and collated throughout in the present edition. It was taken as the basis of the text in Morris's Aldine edition, which in many passages closely resembles the present text. It is certainly the third best MS. One leaf is missing (Bk. V. 1345-1428; twelve stanzas).

4. MS. Cm.—MS. Gg. 4. 27, in the Cambridge University Library; the same MS. as that denoted by 'Cm.' in the foot-notes to the Canterbury Tales, and by 'C.' in the foot-notes to the Legend of Good Women. A remarkable MS., printed in full for the Chaucer Society. It exhibits a different type of text from that found in Cl., Cp., and H. The most noteworthy differences are as follows. In Bk. ii. 734, 5, this MS. has quite a different couplet, viz.:

Bk. ii. 792 runs thus:—

Bk. iv. 309-15 (stanza 45) runs thus:—

Bk. iv. 638 runs thus:—

After Bk. iv. 735, MS. Cm. introduces the following stanza, which, in the present text, appears a little later (ll. 750-6) in a slightly altered form.

Bk. iv. 806-33 (four stanzas) are omitted; so also are the 18 stanzas referring to Free-Will, viz. Bk. iv. 953-1078. Bk. v. 230-1 runs thus:—

We cannot believe that Bk. iv. 309-15, as here given, can be {lxxi}genuine^[65]; but it seems possible that some of the other readings may be so. The stanza, Bk. iv. 750-6, as here given, seems to represent the first draft of these lines, which were afterwards altered to the form in which they appear in the text, whilst at the same time the stanza was shifted down. However, this is mere speculation; and it must be confessed that, in many places, this MS. is strangely corrupted. Several stanzas have only six lines instead of seven, and readings occur which set all ideas of rime at defiance. Thus, in I. 1260, paste (riming with caste) appears as passede; in I. 1253, ryde (riming with aspyde) appears as rydende; in III. 351, hayes (riming with May is) appears as halis; &c.

Yet the MS. is worth collating, as it gives, occasionally, some excellent readings. For example, in Bk. i. 143, it preserves the word here, which other MSS. wrongly omit; and, in the very next line, rightly has to longe dwelle, not to longe to dwelle.

The MS. has been, at some time, shamefully maltreated by some one who has cut out several leaves, no doubt for the sake of their illuminated initials. Hence the following passages do not appear: I. 1-70; I. 1037—II. 84; III. 1-56; III. 1807—IV. 112; IV. 1667—V. 35; V. 1702—end (together with a piece at the beginning of the Canterbury Tales).

5. MS. H2.—Harleian MS. 3943, in the British Museum. Printed in full for the Chaucer Society in 1875, together with a most valuable line by line collation with Boccaccio's Filostrato, by Wm. Michael Rossetti. Referred to in Prof. Lounsbury's Studies in Chaucer, i. 398, as 'much the worst that has been printed,' where his object is to depreciate its authority. Yet it is well worth a careful study, and it must be particularly borne in mind that it consists of two parts, written at different dates, and of different value. In Bell's Chaucer, we read of it:—'Unfortunately it is imperfect. The first few leaves, and the whole of the latter part of the poem, appear to have been destroyed, and the deficiency supplied by a later copyist.' The late hand occurs in I. 1-70, 498-567, III. 1429-1638, IV. 197—end, and Book V.; and thus occupies a large portion of the MS. Moreover, two leaves are lost after leaf 59, comprising III. 1289-1428; these are supplied in Dr. Furnivall's edition from Harl. 1239, which {lxxii}accounts for the extraordinary disorder in which these stanzas are arranged. The MS. also omits III. 1744-1771, and some other stanzas occasionally.

This is one of those curious MSS. which, although presenting innumerable corrupt readings (the worst being Commodious for Commeveden in III. 17), nevertheless have some points of contact with an excellent source. All editors must have observed a few such cases. Thus, in II. 615, it happily restores the right reading latis, where the ordinary reading gates is ludicrously wrong. In III. 49, it supplies the missing word gladnes. In V. 8, it has 'The Auricomus tressed Phebus hie on lofte,' instead of 'The golden tressed'; and this reading, though false, lets us into the secret of the origin of this epithet, viz. that it translates the Latin auricomus; see note to the line. In the very next line, V. 9, it preserves the correct reading bemes shene^[66], riming with grene, quene, where other MSS. have bemes clere, a reminiscence of the opening line of Book III. Hence I have carefully collated this MS., and all readings of value are given in the Notes. See, e. g. III. 28, 49, 136, 551, 1268, 1703, &c.

6. MS. Harl. 1239 (B. M.). 'It is an oblong folio, written from the beginning in a small, clear character, which ceases at an earlier place [III. 231] than the change occurs in MS. 3943 [IV. 197], leaving the remainder comparatively useless as an authority.'—Bell. Dr. Furnivall has printed the passages in III. 1289-1428, and III. 1744-1771, from this MS. to supply the gaps in H 2 (see above); we thus see that it transposes several of the stanzas, and is but a poor authority.

7. MS. Harl. 2392 (B. M.). A late MS. on paper, not very correct; once the property of Sir H. Spelman. As an example of a strange reading, observe 'O mortal Gower,' in V. 1856. Still, it has the correct reading sheene in V. 9; and in III. 49, supplies the rare reading gladnesse, which is necessary to the sense.

This MS. has a large number of notes and glosses. Some are of small interest, but others are of value, and doubtless {lxxiii}proceeded from the author himself, as they furnish useful references and explanations. I here notice the best of them.

II. 8. 'Cleo: domina eloquencie.' This view of Clio explains the context.

II. 784. Side-note: 'nota mendacium.' A remarkable comment.

II. 1238-9. 'Leuis impressio, leuis recessio.' Clearly, a proverb.

III. 933. 'Dulcarnon: i. fuga miserorum.' This proves that Chaucer confused the 47th proposition of Euclid with the 5th; see note.

III. 1177. 'Beati misericordes'; from Matt. v. 7.

III. 1183. 'Petite et accipi[e]tis'; a remarkable comment.

III. 1415. 'Gallus vulgaris astrologus; Alanus, de Planctu Nature'; see note.

III. 1417. 'Lucifera: Stella matutina.'

III. 1466. 'Aurora: amica solis'; shewing the confusion of Tithonus with Titan.

IV. 22. 'Herine (sic), furie infernales; unde Lucanus, me pronuba duxit Herinis.' This proves that Chaucer really took the name from Lucan, Phars. viii. 90, q. v.

IV. 32. 'Sol in Leone'; i. e. the sun was in Leo; see note.

IV. 600. 'Audaces fortuna iuuat'; error for 'Audentes'; see note.

IV. 790. 'Vmbra subit terras,' &c.; Ovid, Met. xi. 61.

IV. 836. 'Extrema gaudii luctus'; see note.

IV. 1138. 'Flet tamen, et tepide,' &c.; Ovid, Met. x. 500.

IV. 1504. 'Non est bonum perdere substantiam propter accidens.'

IV. 1540. 'Styx, puteus infernalis.' Chaucer's mistake.

V. 8. 'The gold-tressed Phebus,' glossed 'Auricomus Sol'; which is from Valerius Flaccus; see note.

V. 319. Reference to Ovid's Metamorphoses; see note.

V. 655. 'Latona, i. luna'; shewing that 'Latona' is mis-written for 'Lucina.' Cf. IV. 1591.

V. 664. Reference to Ovid, Metam. ii. See note.

V. 1039. For 'she,' MS. has 'he,' correctly (see note); side-note, 'Nota, de donis c. d.', i. e. of Criseyde to Diomede.

V. 1107. 'Laurigerus'; see note.

V. 1110. 'Nisus,' glossed 'rex'; 'douhter,' glossed 'alauda'; see note.

V. 1548. 'Parodye: duracio'; see note.

V. 1550. 'Vnbodye: decorporare.'

There are many more such glosses, of lesser interest.

8. MS. Harl. 4912 (B. M.). On vellum; rather large pages, with wide margins; five stanzas on the page. Imperfect; ends at IV. 686. A poor copy. In III. 49, it retains the rare reading 'gladnes,' but miswritten as 'glanes.'

9. MS. Addit. 12044 (B. M.). On vellum; five stanzas to the page. Last leaf gone; ends at V. 1820. Not a good copy. In III. 17, it has 'Comeued hem,' an obvious error for 'Comeueden,' which is the true reading. In V. 8, it has 'golden dressed,' error for 'golden tressed.' Note this correct form 'golden'; for it is miswritten as 'gold' or 'golde' in nearly all other copies.

The next four are in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

10. Arch. Seld. B. 24 is the Scottish MS., dated 1472, described in the Introduction to the Minor Poems, where it is denoted by 'Ar.,' and fully collated throughout the Legend of Good Women, where it appears in the foot-notes as 'A.' It seems to be the best of the Oxford MSS., and has some good readings. In III. 17, it has 'Commeued tham' for Commeueden,' which is near enough for a MS. that so freely drops inflexions; and the line ends with 'and amoreux tham made.' In III. 49, it correctly preserves 'gladness.'

11. MS. Rawlinson, Poet. 163. Not a very good copy. It omits the Prologue to Book III. At the end is the colophon:—

I take 'Tregentyll' to be the scribe's name^[67]. Besides the 'Troilus,' the MS. contains, on a fly-leaf, the unique copy of the Balade to Rosemounde, beneath which is written (as in the former case) 'tregentil' to the left of the page, and 'chaucer' to the right; connected by a thin stroke. See my 'Twelve Facsimiles of Old English MSS.'; Plate XII.

12. MS. Arch. Seld. supra 56. Small quarto, 8 inches by 5½, on paper; vellum binding; writing clear. A poor copy. The grammar shews a Northern dialect.

13. MS. Digby 181. Incomplete; nearly half being lost. It ends at III. 532—'A certayn houre in which she come sholde.' A poor copy, closely allied to the preceding. Thus, in III. 17, both have moreux for amoreux; in III. 2, both have Adornes; in III. 6, both absurdly have Off (Of) for O; and so on.

14. MS. L. 1, in St. John's College, Cambridge. A fair MS., perhaps earlier than 1450. Subjoined to the Troilus is a sixteenth century copy of the Testament of Creseide. Quarto; on vellum; 10 inches by 6½; in 10 sheets of 12 leaves each. Leaf g 12 is cut out, and g 11 is blank, but nothing seems to be lost. It frequently agrees with Cp., as in I. 5, fro ye; 21, be this; 36, desespeyred; 45, fair ladys so; 70, Delphicus; 308, kan thus. In I. 272, it correctly has: percede; in 337, nouncerteyne. In II. 734, it agrees with H.; 735 runs—'And whan hem list no lenger, lat hem leue'; a good line. In II. 894, it has 'mosten axe,' the very reading which I give; and in II. 968, stalkes.

15. MS. Phillipps 8252; the same MS. as that described in my preface to the C. text of Piers the Plowman, p. xix, where it is numbered XXVIII.

16. A MS. in the Library of Durham Cathedral, marked V. ii. 13. A single stanza of Troilus, viz. I. 631-7, occurs in MS. R. 3. 20, in Trinity College Library, Cambridge; and three stanzas, viz. III. 302-322, in MS. Ff. 1. 6, leaf 150, in the Cambridge University Library; all printed in Odd Texts of Chaucer's Minor Poems, ed. F. J. Furnivall, Chaucer Society, 1880, pp. x-xii. In 1887, Dr. Stephens found two vellum strips in the cover of a book, containing fragments of a MS. of Troilus (Book V. 1443-1498); see Appendix to the Report of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, May 24, 1887; pp. 331-5.

The MSS. fall, as far as I can tell, into two main families. The larger family is that which resembles Cl., Cp., and H. Of the smaller, Cm. may be taken as the type. The description of Cm. shews some of the chief variations. Observe that many MSS. omit I. 890-6; in the John's MS., it is inserted in a much later hand. The stanza is obviously genuine.

§ 26. The Editions. 'Troilus' was first printed by Caxton, about 1484; but without printer's name, place, or date. See the description in Blades' Life of Caxton, p. 297. There is no title-page. Each page contains five stanzas. Two copies are in the British Museum; one at St. John's College, Oxford; and one (till {lxxvi}lately) was at Althorp. The second edition is by Wynkyn de Worde, in 1517. The third, by Pynson, in 1526. These three editions present Troilus as a separate work. After this, it was included in Thynne's edition of 1532, and in all the subsequent editions of Chaucer's Works.

Of these, the only editions accessible to me have been Thynne's (1532), of which there is a copy in the Cambridge University Library; also the editions of 1550 (or thereabouts) and 1561, of both of which I possess copies.

Thynne's edition was printed from so good a MS. as to render it an excellent authority. In a few places, I fear he has altered the text for the worse, and his errors have been carefully followed and preserved by succeeding editors. Thus he is responsible for altering io (= jo) into go, III. 33; for creating the remarkable 'ghost-word' gofysshe, III. 584; and a few similar curiosities. But I found it worth while to collate it throughout; and readings from it are marked 'Ed.' The later black-letter copies are mere reproductions of it.

§ 27. The Present Edition. The present edition has the great advantage of being founded upon Cl. and Cp., neither of which have been previously made use of, though they are the two best. Bell's text is founded upon the Harleian MSS. numbered 1239, 2280, and 3943, in separate fragments; hence the text is neither uniform nor very good. Morris's text is much better, being founded upon H. (closely related to Cl. and Cp.), with a few corrections from other unnamed sources.

Thanks to the prints provided by the Chaucer Society, I have been able to produce a text which, I trust, leaves but little to be desired. I point out some of the passages which now appear in a correct form for the first time, as may be seen by comparison with the editions by Morris and Bell, which I denote by M. and B.

I. 136; derre, dearer; M. B. dere (no rime). 285. meninge, i. e. intention; and so in l. 289; M. B. mevynge. 388. M. B. insert a semicolon after arten. 465. fownes (see note); M. B. fantasye (line too long). 470 felle, fell, pl. adj.; M. B. fille, i. e. fell (verb). 590. no comfort; M. comfort; B. eny comfort. 786. Ticius (see note); M. Syciphus; B. Siciphus. 896. Thee oughte; M. To oght (no sense); B. The oght (will not scan). 1026. See note; put as a question in M. B.; B. even inserts not before to done. 1050. me asterte; M. may sterte; B. me stert (better).

II. 41. seyde, i. e. if that they seyde; M. B. seyinge (will not scan). 138. were (would there be); M. B. is. 180. wight; M. B. knyght (but see l. 177). 808. looth; M. B. leve. 834. Ye; M. B. The. 1596. For for; M. B. For.

III. 17. Comeveden (see note); M. Comeneden; B. Commodious. him; M. B. hem. 33. io (= jo); M. B. go. 49. M. B. omit gladnes. 572. Yow thurfte; M. Thow thruste; B. Yow durst. 584. goosish; M. goofish; B. gofisshe. 674. M. Thei voide [present], dronke [past], and traveres drawe [present] anon; B. They voyded, and drunk, and travars drew anone. Really, dronke and drawe are both past participles; see note. 725. Cipris; M. Cyphes; B. Ciphis. 1231. Bitrent and wryth, i. e. winds about and wreathes itself; M. Bytrent and writhe is; B. Bitrent and writhen is. Wryth is short for writheth; not a pp. 1453. bore, i. e. hole; M. boure; B. bowre. 1764. to-hepe, i. e. together; M. B. to kepe.

IV. 538. kyth; M. B. right (no sense). 696. thing is; M. B. thynges is. 818. martyre; M. B. matere (neither sense nor rime).

V. 49. helpen; M. B. holpen. 469. howve; M. B. howen. 583. in my; M. B. omit my. 927. wight; M. B. with. 1208. trustinge; M. B. trusten (against grammar). 1266. bet; M. B. beste. 1335, 6. wyte The teres, i. e. blame the tears; M. B. wite With teres. 1386. Commeve; M. Com in to; B. Can meven. 1467. She; M. B. So. 1791. pace; M. B. space (see note).

It is curious to find that such remarkable words as commeveden, io, voidee, goosish, to-hepe, appear in no Chaucerian glossary; they are only found in the MSS., being ignored in the editions.

A large number of lines are now, for the first time, spelt with forms that comply with grammar and enable the lines to be scanned. For example, M. and B. actually give wente and wonte in V. 546, instead of went and wont; knotles for knotteles in V. 769, &c.

I have also, for the first time, numbered the lines and stanzas correctly. In M., Books III. and IV. are both misnumbered, causing much trouble in reference. Dr. Furnivall's print of the Campsall MS. omits I. 890-6; and his print of MS. Harl. 3943 counts in the Latin lines here printed at p. 404.

§ 28. It is worth notice that Troilus contains about fifty lines {lxxviii}in which the first foot consists of a single syllable. Examples in Book I are:—

So also II. 369, 677, 934, 1034, 1623 (and probably 1687); III. 412, 526, 662, 855 (perhaps 1552), 1570; IV. 176, 601, 716, 842, 1328, 1676; V. 67 (perhaps 311), 334, 402, 802, 823, 825, 831, 880, 887, 949, 950, 1083, 1094, 1151, 1379, 1446, 1454, 1468, 1524.

It thus appears that deficient lines of this character are by no means confined to the poems in 'heroic verse,' but occur in stanzas as well. Compare the Parlement of Foules, 445, 569.

§ 29. Proverbs. Troilus contains a considerable number of proverbs and proverbial phrases or similes. See, e. g., I. 257, 300, 631, 638, 694, 708, 731, 740, 946-952, 960, 964, 1002, 1024; II. 343, 398, 403, 585, 784, 804, 807, 861, 867, 1022, 1030, 1041, 1238, 1245, 1332, 1335, 1380, 1387, 1553, 1745; III. 35, 198, 294, 308, 329, 405, 526, 711, 764, 775, 859, 861, 931, 1625, 1633; IV. 184, 415, 421, 460, 588, 595, 622, 728, 836, 1098, 1105, 1374, 1456, 1584; V. 484, 505, 784, 899, 971, 1174, 1265, 1433.

§ 30. A translation of the first two books of Troilus into Latin verse, by Sir Francis Kinaston, was printed at Oxford in 1635. The volume also contains a few notes, but I do not find in them anything of value. The author tries to reproduce the English stanza, as thus:—

For myself, I prefer the English.

§ 31. Hazlitt's Handbook to Popular Literature records the following title:—'A Paraphrase vpon the 3 first bookes of Chaucer's Troilus and Cressida. Translated into modern English ... by J[onathan] S[idnam]. About 1630. Folio; 70 leaves; in 7-line stanzas.'

I. BOETHIUS.

P. 8, Book I, met. 4, l. 8. For thonder-light a better reading is thonder-leit; see p. xliii, and the note (p. 422).

P. 10; foot-notes, l. 10. Read: C. vnplitable; A. inplitable.

P. 26, Book II, met. 1, l. 11. For proeueth read proeveth.

P. 29, Book II, pr. 3, l. 3. Delete the comma after wherwith.

P. 48, Book II, pr. 7, l. 86. For thas read that.

P. 50, Book II, pr. 8, l. 17. For windinge read windy. See pp. xlii, 434.

P. 58, Book III, pr. 3, l. 68. For all read al.

P. 62, l. 4. Counted as l. 10; it is really l. 9.

P. 63, Book III, pr. 5, l. 41. For of read of (in italics).

P. 74, Book III, pr. 10, l. 6. For has read hast.

P. 111. The side-number 215 is one line too high.

P. 122, Book IV, met. 6, l. 24. Delete the square brackets; see pp. xlii, xliii.

P. 124, Book IV, pr. 7, l. 61. MS. C. has confirme; and MS. A. has conferme. But the right reading must be conforme; for the Latin text has conformandae.

II. TROILUS.

P. 159, Book I, 204. For cast read caste.

P. 160, Book I, 217. The alternative reading is better; see note, p. 463.

P. 160, Book I, 239. For yet read yit (for the rhyme).

P. 162, Book I, 284. For neuer read never.

P. 163, Book, I, 309. For Troylus read Troilus.

P. 163, Book I, 310. For thyng read thing.

P. 165, Book I, 401. Alter ! to ?

P. 166, Book I, 406. For thurst read thurste.

P. 166, Book I, 420. For deye read dye (for the rhyme).

P. 171, Book I, 570. For euery read every.

P. 172, Book I, 621. For Troylus read Troilus (as elsewhere).

P. 173, Book I, 626. Delete the comma after 'fare.'

P. 174, Book I, 656. For y read I.

P. 174, Book I, 657. Insert ' at the beginning.

P. 181, Book I, 879. For the read thee.

P. 192, Book II, 113. Delete ' at the end.

P. 194, Book II, 170. Insert ' at the beginning.

P. 205, Book II, 529. For penaunc read penaunce.

P. 208, Book II, 628. For swych read swich.

P. 229, Book II, 1294. Insert ' at the beginning.

P. 234, Book II, 1461. For streyt read streght, as in MS. H.

P. 260, Book III, 522. Delete the comma after laft.

P. 260, Book III, 535. For made read mad or maad.

P. 261, Book III, 558. For lengere read lenger.

P. 264, Book III, 662. For thondre read thonder.

P. 271, Book III, 885. For ringe read ring.

P. 282, Book III, 1219. For sweet read swete.

P. 312, Book IV, 318. For to the peyne read to my peyne.

P. 390, Book V, 1039. For she read he. Cf. note, p. 499; and p. lx, l. 3.

P. 431, note to Prose 5, 35; l. 3. Delete for which I find no authority. (In fact, postremo is the reading given by Peiper, from one MS. only; most MSS. have postremae, the reading given by Obbarius, who does not recognise the reading postremo).

P. 463. Note to I, 217. Add—So too in Barbour's Bruce, i. 582: 'Bot oft failyeis the fulis thocht.'

P. 479, last line; and p. 480, first line. For represents the Pers. and Arab. dū’lkarnayn, lit. two-horned; from Pers. dū, two, and karn, horn—read represents the Arab, zū’lkarnayn, lit. two-horned; from Arab. zū, lord of, hence, possessing, and the dual form of karn, horn.

Notes to I. 948, 951; II. 36, 1335; III. 1219. Dr. Köppel has shewn (in Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, xc. 150, that Chaucer here quotes from Alanus de Insulis, Liber Parabolarum (as printed in Migne, Cursus Patrologicus, vol. ccx). The passages are:—

P. 498, Note to V, 806. Add—L. 813 is due to Dares; see p. lxiv, note.

P. 499, Note to V, 1039, l. 6. For the rest is Chaucer's addition read the statement that she gave it to Diomede is due to Benoît; see p. lxii. Again, just below, read The incidents of the 'broche' and 'pensel' are also due to the same; see p. lxii.

Carmina qui quondam studio florente peregi.

C. = MS. Ii. 3. 21, Cambridge; A. = MS. Addit. 10340 (Brit. Mus.). The text follows C. mainly. Ed. = Printed edition (1532), quoted occasionally.

1, 2. Imperfect in C. 6. C. foleweden; A. folweden. 8. C. sorful; A. sorouful. // C. wierdes, glossed fata; A. werdes. 11. C. arn; A. ben. 12. C. of; A. upon. // C. emptyd; A. emty. 16. C. nayteth; A. Ed. naieth. 17. A. glosses lighte by sc. temporels. // C. sorwful; A. sorouful. 19. C. deceyuable; A. disceyuable. 20. C. vnpietous; A. vnpitouse. 22. C. stidefast; A. stedfast.

Hec dum mecum tacitus ipse reputarem.

Pr. I. 1. C. While that; A. In the mene while that. 2. C. sawh; A. sawe. 3. C. heyhte; A. heyȝt. // C. gret; A. greet. 5. C. myht; A. myȝt. 6. C. vygor; A. vigoure. // C. myhte; A. myȝt. // C. emted; A. emptid. 7. C. gret; A. greet (and so often). 9. C. dowtows; A. doutous (and so ow for ou often). 10. C. lyk; A. lyche. 11. C. heyhte; A. heyȝte (and so elsewhere). 12. C. hef; A. heued; Ed. houe. 14. C. riht (and so h for gh often). 16. C. knewh; A. knewe. 17. C. dirknesse; A. derkenes. 19. Both dyrken. // C. the smokede; A. bysmoked. 21. A. in swiche; C. om. swiche. C. glosses P by practik. // C. syngnifieth; A. signifieth. 22. C. glosses T by theorik. // C. singnifieth; A. signifieth. 23. C. by-twixen; A. by-twene. 24. C. nobely; A. nobly. 25. C. clymbyn (and so -yn for -en constantly). // C. Ed. nethereste; A. nethemast. 26. C. Ed. vppereste; A. ouermast 31. C. say; A. sauȝ. 33. C. amoued; A. ameued. // C. cruwel; A. cruel. 34. C. sike; A. seek. // C. the; A. thise (Lat. has). 37. C. noryssyn; A. norysche. // C. hym; A. hem. 39. C. fructefiynge; A. frutefiyng. 40. C. corn; A. cornes (Lat. segetem). 41. C. om. the. // C. om. ne. 42. C. maledye; A. maladye. 44. C. poeple; A. peple. 45. C. greuosly; A. greuously (and so often os for ous in C.). 48. C. schooles; A. scoles. 53. C. downward; A. adounward. // C. om. and. // C. rednesse; A. redenesse. 54. C. sorwfully. // C. thresshfold; A. threschefolde. 55. C. dyrked; A. derked. 57. C. wax; A. wex. // C. cast; A. caste. 58. C. down to; A. adoune in-to. 59. C. ner; A. nere. 61. C. compleyde; A. compleinede. 63. C. thowht; A. thouȝt.

Heu quam precipiti mersa profundo.

Me. II. 3. C. dyrk-; A. derk-. 4. C. wordely; A. worldly (Lat. terrenis). 5. C. Ed. whilom; A. sumtyme. 7. C. lythnesse; A. lyȝtnesse. 10. C. comprendyd; A. Ed. comprehendid. 11. C. seken; A. seche. 14. C. est; A. eest. 15. C. fyrst; A. fyrste. 17. A. that; C. the. // C. autompne; A. autumpne. 19. C. I-hydde; A. yhidde. // C. lith; A. lieth. 20. A. emptid; C. emted. 22. C. the fool; Ed. the fole; A. foule (Lat. stolidam).

Set medicine, inquit, tempus est.

Pr. II. 4. C. Ed. whilom; A. sumtyme. // C. noryssed; A. I-norschide. 5. C. escaped; A. ascaped. 8. C. Knowestow; A. Knowest thou. 9. C. artow; A. art thou. // C. it is; A. Ed. is it. // C. asthonynge (but astonynge below). 14. C. litarge; A. litargie. // C. sykenesse; A. sekenes. 15. C. desseyued; A. desceiued. 16. C. remenbren; A. remembren.

Tunc me discussa liquerunt nocte tenebre.

Me. III. 1. C. descussed; A. discussed. 2. C. dirk-; A. derk-. // C. om. ayein. 3. C. fyrst; A. firste. 5. C. heyhte; A. hyȝt. 6. C. dirked; A. derked. 8. C. hyhte; A. hyȝt.

Haud aliter tristicie nebulis dissolutis.

Pr. III. 3. C. fesissien; A. fyciscien; Ed. phisycien. // C. fastnede; A. festned. 4. Lat. respicio. 6. C. vertuus; A. vertues. 7. C. artow; A. art thou. 13. A. om. thing. 14. C. compaygnie; A. compaignie. 16. C. trowestow; A. trowest thou. 20. C. desseruede; A. deserued. 21. C. eritage; A. heritage. 25. C. rauysse; A. rauische. 26. C. deffence; A. defence. 30. C. arraced; A. arased. 31. C. om. I. 33. C. or; A. and. 34. A. familers. 36. A. om. that. 38. C. om. 1st of. 40. C. myhtestow; A. myȝtest thou. // C. Senecciens; A. Senectiens; Ed. Senecas. 43. C. enformyd; A. vnfourmed. 44. C. vnlyk; A. vnlyke. 48. C. oost, glossed i. acies. 50. C. rauyssed; A. rauysched. // C. folyly, i. sine consilio. 52. A. hys rycchesse. 53. C. sarpuleris; A. sarpulers. 55. C. tumolte; A. tumulte. // A. stored. 56. C. palis; A. palays (Lat. uallo). // C. om. that. // C. anoyenge; A. anoying. 57 C. atayne; A. attayne. // C. schorne; A. scorne.