V. 365.--R. 18709.
110 lines✦
ome of the resemblances are but slight; but others are obvious. Thenumbers refer to the beginning of a passage; sometimes the reallycoincident 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. ARyme-Index to the same, compiled by myself, has been published for the samesociety, 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 tolerablyclose translation of Guido, although a little imperfect, owing to the lossof some leaves and some slight omissions (probably) on the part of thescribe. It is divided into 36 Books, which agree, very nearly, with theBooks into which the original text is divided. The most important passagesfor comparison with Troilus are lines 3922-34 (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 andBriseida, her departure, and the interviews between Briseida and Diomede,and between her and Calchas her father); 8296-8317 (Diomede capturesTroilus' horse, and presents it to Briseida); 8643-60 (death of Hector);9671-7, 9864-82, 9926-9 (deeds of Troilus); 9942-59 (Briseida visits thewounded 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 andTroilus, the translator says:-- 'Who-so wilnes to wit of thaire wo fir [futher],Turne hym to TROILUS, and talke[60] there ynoughe!' 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 itsname, 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 1382and 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 Siegeof Troye[61], of which I possess a copy printed in 1555. This containsseveral allusions to Chaucer's Troilus, and more than one passage in praiseof Chaucer's poetical powers, two of which are quoted in Mr. Rossetti'sremarks on MS. Harl. 3943 (Chaucer Soc. 1875), pp. x, xi. These passagesare not very helpful, though it is curious to observe that he speaks ofChaucer not only as 'my maister Chaucer,' but as 'noble Galfride, chefePoete of Brytaine,' and 'my maister Galfride.' The most notable passagesoccur 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 than the preceding one,and he frequently interpolates long passages, besides borrowing a largenumber of poetical expressions from his 'maister.' § 24. Finally, I must not omit to mention the remarkable poem by RobertHenrysoun, called the Testament and Complaint of Criseyde, which forms asequel to Chaucer's story. Thynne actually printed this, in his edition of1532, as one of Chaucer's poems, immediately after Troilus; and all theblack-letter editions follow suit. Yet the 9th and 10th stanzas containthese words, according to the edition of 1532:-- 'Of his distresse me nedeth nat reherse;For worthy Chaucer, in that same boke,In goodly termes, and in ioly verse,Compyled hath his cares, who wyl loke.To breke my slepe, another queare I toke,In whiche I founde the fatal destenyOf fayre Creseyde, whiche ended wretchedly. Who wot if al that Chaucer wrate was trewe?Nor I wotte nat if this narrationBe authorysed, or forged of the neweOf some poete by his inuention,Made to reporte the lamentationAnd woful ende of this lusty Creseyde,And what distresse she was in or she deyde.' § 25. THE MANUSCRIPTS. 1. MS. CL.--The Campsall MS., on vellum, written before 1413; prepared forHenry, 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 ChaucerSociety; 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 abeautifully written MS., and one of the best; but it is disappointing tofind that it might easily have been much better. The scribe had a stillbetter copy before him, which he has frequently treated with supremecarelessness; but it is some consolation to find that his mistakes are soobvious that they can easily be corrected. Thus, in Book I, l. 27, hewrites _dorst_ for _dorste_, though it ruins the grammar and the metre; inl. 31, he actually has _hym_ for _hem_, to the destruction of the sense; inl. 69, he has _high_ (!) for _highte_; and so on. It therefore requirescareful control. In particular, the scribe gives many examples of the faultof '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 orword, 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_; inl. 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 iscoming; _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 nextword 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 thelatter), II. 1723; _agarst_ for _agast_, III. 737; _right_ for _rit_, V.60. We even find startling variations in the reading, as in III. 1408:-- 'Reson wil not that I speke of _shep_,For it accordeth nough[t] to my matere.' Certainly, _shep_ (sheep) is irrelevant enough; however, Chaucer refers to_sleep_. And again, the line in II. 1554, which should run--
✦