The Troylus and Cryseyde drew down upon him from certain ladies of the court.1 The source of the story is involved in obscurity. Chaucer refers incidentally to Homer, Dares Phrygius, Dictys Cretensis, and Lollius. Except as general authorities on the subject of the Trojan war, he could have derived little assistance from the first three. The story of the loves of Troylus and Cryseyde is not to be found in any of them. The names, but in a different connexion, appear in the Iliad; which, however, there can be hardly any doubt was a sealed book to Chaucer. Here we have Chryses, the priest of Apollo, entreating that his daughter, Chryseis (in the accus. case, Chryseida), whom Agamemnon had obtained as his share of the booty of a Trojan village, should be given up to him; and she is accordingly restored by the advice of Calchas. This single incident is all that relates to Chryseis. Agamemnon is afterwards described taking by force from Achilles his mistress, Briseis, who is represented parting from her lover with poignant regret. These actions, distinct in the Iliad, and followed, with alteration or addition, by Dares Phrygius and Dictys Cretensis, may possibly have furnished the sugges tion of the story of Troylus and Cryseyde, in which the leading points of both are combined. However that may be, the story as it has come down to us, certainly existed before Chaucer's time, and in a shape which seems to have been known to him. The earliest source to which it can be traced is a prose chronicle, or history, of the thirteenth century, by Guido de Colonna;2 but as it can scarcely be imagined that the compiler of a work professing to relate actual occurrences would have 1 See Prologue of Legende of Gode Women. Sir Francis Kynaston, who translated this poem into Latin rhyme, observes, He (Chaucer) hath made an admirable Epick Poem, describing in Troilus a compleat Knight in Arms and Courtship, and a faithful constant Lover; and in Creseide a most beautiful and coy Lady, who, being once overcome, yields to the frailty of her sex.' 2 Guido de Colonna, or de Columpnis, was a native of Messina, and lived about the end of the thirteenth century. His book is a continuous History of the Argonautic expedition, the Siege of Thebes, and the Trojan war, in Latin prose. taken two separate narratives from the Iliad, and blended them into one, we must conclude that Guido drew his narrative from some metrical romance extant in his time.' That Chaucer was acquainted with Guido, either through his works or his reputation, may be inferred from the fact that he speaks of him in terms of panegyric in the House of Fame. But the writer to whom Chaucer more particularly refers as 'myn auctour,' and whose sentence' or meaning he professes to follow implicitly, is Lollius, a person of whom nothing whatever is known, and whose very existence has been doubted. Lollius is, indeed, mentioned in the House of Fame, where a place is assigned to him on the same pillar with Homer. Lydgate also states that Chaucer translated this poem from a book written by Lollius, called Trophe, a name denoting Troylus's change of fortune. Tyrwhitt attempts to solve the difficulty by supposing that Lollius meant Boccaccio, and Trophe the Filostrato; but he does not venture to explain why Chaucer resorted to so senseless a masquerade. Whatever theory, however, may be adopted with respect to Lollius, it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that Chaucer's poem is really a free version of the Filostrato of Boccaccio. The leading incidents of the two poems are the same. The identity of plot might be explained on the supposition that both poets derived the story from a common source; but there are minute coincidences of expression which cannot be accounted for on this hypothesis. Several of these are pointed out in the foot notes, and many more might be added. The following are examples. 1 This view of the origin of the story is, in a great degree, confirmed by the fact that there is a MS., in the Royal Library at Paris, entitled Le Roman de Troilus et de Briseida ou Criseida. The confusion in the names shows that the author had the passages from the Iliad above referred to in his mind. 2 Petrus Lambeccius enumerates Lollius Urbicus among the Historici Latini profani of the third century. Prodrom. p. 246, Hamb. 1657. See also Voss. Hist. Lat. ii. 2, p. 163, edit. Lugdun. Bat. Du Fresnoy, in the Index Auctorum used by him for his Latin Glossary, mentions Lollius Urbicus as of the third century. When Hector is comforting Cryseyde, he says:— This is an odd expression to put into Hector's mouth; but it is almost a literal translation from the Filostrato : Lascia, con la ria ventura Tuo padre andar. There is a similarity, and a difference, in the descriptions of Cryseyde by the two poets, which, taken together, conduce to the conclusion that Chaucer had the Filostrato before him. Boccaccio describes her manner as alquanto sdegnosetto Quasi dicesse, nɔn ɩi si puo stare? The passage is thus paraphrased and amplified by Chaucer: her chere Which sumdel deynous was; tor she lete falle And in this description, it will be observed, Chaucer omits the incident of her removing her mantilla from her face, as a trait not likely to be understood by the English reade E con braccio il mantil tolto davanti The circumstance that in Chaucer's poem the Greek name assume an Italian form, as Monesteo from Menestheus, Elicone from Helicon, Pernaso from Parnassus, shows clearly that he took the story from an Italian, and not a Latin or French original; and as the Filostrato is the only Italian poem on the subject which is known to exist, the evidence on this point seems to be conclusive. Chaucer's poem differs, however, from the Filostrato in so many and such important particulars, that it becomes in a great measure an original work. Those parts of the story upon which Boccaccio dwells at length, are passed over lightly by Chaucer, who, on the contrary, elaborates with great care those parts to which a less prominent place is assigned in the Filostrato. In both the action is a secondary object; but Chaucer keeps it still more in the background than Boccaccio, and exerts all his strength in painting the passions and emotions. The earlier portion of the poem is expanded by dialogues, soliloquies, and reflections, which bring the reader intimately acquainted with the several characters, and the progress of their feelings; while the latter portion, which contains the pith of the action, is dismissed with brevity. The conduct of the Filostrato is the very reverse of this. Troilo wins the lady without the least trouble, and the history of his success is short; while unimportant circumstances are tediously dwelt upon long after the final catastrophe becomes known to the reader, so that the interest of the story, which is skilfully sustained throughout by Chaucer, is prematurely dissipated in the Filostrato. Chaucer's conception of the several characters is also very different from that of Boccaccio. In the Filostrato Troilo is a young man of the ordinary worldly stamp, destitute of refined feeling, self-indulgent, and practised in the arts of intrigue; while Chaucer's Troylus loves with all the ardour and freshness of youth, his imagination investing the object of his passion with perfection, and his tenderness making him sacrifice everything to her wishes. The character of Cryseyde still more strongly marks the contrast between the treatment of the two poets. Boccaccio's Griseida is a comparatively common-place person. She reasons upon her own merits and position in a spirit of careful calculation. She is a widow, rich, young, beautiful, and gay; why should she reject the offers of a young man of distinction ? Other ladies amuse themselves with intrigues; why should she lead the life of a nun? The only obstacle is fear for her reputation; and when reassured upon this point, she hesitates no farther. She herself makes the assignation to meet her lover; and when he arrives, throws herself into his arms. That a lady of this disposition, when irretrievably separated from her first lover, should accept the addresses of a second, is a result we should naturally expect; and therefore the sequel neither touches our sympathies, nor excites our regret. Chaucer's Cryseyde is cast in a different mould. She possesses every quality which entitles a woman, not only to love, but to respect. Her delicacy is conspicuous; she is won with difficulty after a long courtship, carried on with consummate address under the direction of Pandarus; and is finally overcome by surprise. The moral beauty of her nature imparts a profound interest to her conduct, and we follow her through the gradual course of her infidelity with sorrow and compassion. But it is in Pandarus that Chaucer chiefly displays his superiority. The Troilo and Pandaro of Boccaccio are almost convertible portraits. Pandaro knows a little more of the world, and is somewhat more shrewd and less scrupulous; but there is nothing in his character which marks him as being peculiarly fitted for the odious part he plays. He helps his friend in an intrigue without suffering in his own estimation, or in that of his author, who apparently had no intention of making the pander a whit worse than the profligate lover. The Pandarus of Chaucer, on the other hand, is specially adapted for the circumstances in which he is placed, and he is drawn with singular power and discrimination. He is one of those men, always to be found in courts, whose shrewdness, wit, and good nature render them agreeable companions; and whose want of principle points them out as useful instruments in any business of doubtful morality, for which a man of rank might require their services. His continual application of low and depreciating proverbs to matters of serious import, his jokes, his loquacity, his willingness to turn himself into ridicule for the amusement of others, are all traits which indicate his contempt for mankind, his want of self-respect, and his disbelief in the existence of honour and virtue. But Chaucer does not commit the mistake of representing one who is admitted to the confidence of Troylus, and the society of a court, as utterly destitute of the feelings of a gentleman. Pandarus is ready to |