Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:42:59.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chaucer's “Troilus and Criseyde” as Romance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Karl Young
Karl Young*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the critical writing of the last few decades Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde has been described prevailingly as a psychological novel. Our most influentual interpreters, that is to say, draw our attention primarily to the subtle exhibition of psychology in the personages of the poem, and to the resemblance of the descriptive background to what we ordinarily call real life. By emphasizing these aspects of the Troilus they bring it into association with our modern novel. Representative of this view are such expressions as the following:

“Our first great psychological novel”; “A great psychological novel”; “An elaborate psychological novel”; “The first novel, in the modern sense”; “Its spirit and temper is that of the modern novel”; “A page out of the book of modern everyday life”;6 “[Chaucer's] first and greatest adventure into the world of every day”; “[What Chaucer adds to the Filostralo] is what we roughly call reality…. one has a sense of ordinary life going on”; “Troy is mediaeval London”; “[The Troilus] is not a romance”; “[In the Troilus Chaucer] leaves all romantic convention behind.”

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 1938 , pp. 38 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was read at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association at Richmond on December 29, 1936. Thus are explained certain lingering evidences of oral delivery, and a documentation designed for illustration rather than forexhaustiveness.

References

1 E. de Selincourt, Oxford Lectures on Poetry (Oxford, 1934), p. 52.

2 G. L. Kittredge, The Date of Chaucer's “Troilus” and other Chaucer Matters, Chaucer Society, Second Series, no. 42 (London, 1909), p. 56.

3 G. L. Kittredge, Chaucer and His Poetry (Cambridge, 1915), p. 112.

4 Idem, p. 109.

5 R. K. Root, The Poetry of Chaucer (Boston, [1922]), p. 87.

6 de Selincourt, p. 50.

7 Ibid.

8 W. P. Ker, Form and Style in Poetry (London, 1929), pp. 78–79.

9 Root, p. 87.

10 W. P. Ker, Epic and Romance (London, 1926), p. 370.

11 Idem, p. 369. See also J. J. Jusserand, in Revue des Deux Mondes, cxvi (1893), 833.

12 de Selincourt, pp. 51, 52.

13 Kittredge, The Date, p. 56.

14 Ker, Form and Style, p. 78.

15 Ker, Epic and Romance, p. 369. See also E.-G. Sandras, Étude sur G. Chaucer (Paris, 1859), p. 50.

16 Ker, Epic and Romance, p. 367.

17 See also H. R. Patch, Chaucer and Mediaeval Romance, in Essays in Memory of Barrett Wendell (Cambridge, 1926), pp. 95–108, especially p. 100.

18 See, for example, Kittredge, Chaucer and Bis Poetry, p. 110. F. N. Robinson, ed., The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Boston, etc., [1933]), mentions parallels between the Troilus and the romances in details (see, for example, pp. 930, 931), but does not characterize the poem as a romance.

19 Sarah F. Barrow, The Medieval Society Romances (New York, 1924), pp. 123–124.

20 W. Raleigh, Romance: Two Lectures (Princeton, 1916), p. 44.

21 C. S. Lewis, “What Chaucer really did to Il Filostrato,” in Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association, xvii (Oxford, 1932), pp. 56–75. Mr. Lewis treats the matter somewhat less directly in his book, The Allegory of Love (Oxford, 1936), pp. 176–197.

22 The facts are sufficiently brought forward by H. Hauvette, Boccace (Paris, 1914), especially pp. 75–76, 80–82, 87–88.

23 See Hauvette, pp. 75, 81, 83.

24 See T. and C. i, 15–18; ii, 20–21—Concerning Chaucer's avowal of detachment see J. L. Lowes, in PMLA, xix (1904), 622–624.

25 See, for example, T. and C. ii, 12–49, 666–686; iii, 575–581, 967–973, 1324–37; iv, 1415–21; v, 1086–99.

26 See J. S. P. Tatlock, “The Epilog of Chaucer's ”Troilus,“ MP xviii (1920-21), 625–659; K. Young, ”Chaucer's Renunciation of Love in Troilus,“ MLN, xl (1925), 270–276;C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (Oxford, 1936), pp. 178–179.

27 See Hauvette, Boccace, pp. 75, 81, 83; F. de Sanctis, Storia della Letteratura italiana, i (Bari, 1912), 288–289; P. Savj-Lopez, in Romania, xxvii (1898), 478.

28 See Hauvette, Boccace, p. 75.

29 See S. Debenedetti, Troilo Cantore, in Giornale storico della Letturatura italiana, lxvi (1915), 414–425; Savj-Lopez, in Romania, xxvii (1898), 475–176; F. Marietta, Di alcuni Rapporti del “Filostrato” del Boccaccio con la Poesia popolare, in Studii critici offerti da antichi Discepoli a Carlo Pascal (Catania, 1913), pp. 201–219.

30 Although the more authentic spelling of the name of Boccaccio's heroine is “Criseida,” I use the form “Griseida” (found in numerous manuscripts) to avoid confusion with Chaucer's “Criseyde.” See Robinson, p. 925.

31 de Sanctis, i, 288.

32 Hauvette, Boccace, p. 83.

33 See G. L. Kittredge, in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, xxviii (1917), 50–54; J. S. P. Tatlock, in Modern Philology, xviii (1920-21), 640–647.

34 A. Kissner in his Chaucer in seinen Beziehungen zur italienischen Literatur (Marburg, 1867), p. 55, finds Chaucer pedantic in this matter. Human feeling was sacrificed to erudition when T. and C. v, 663–665 was substituted for Filostrato, v, 68, 7–8.

35 See above, p. 38.

36 Concerning this meagerness of medieval detail see Tatlock, in MP, xviii (1920-21), 641–642.

37 See Filostrato, ii, 66, 5.

38 Filostrato, ii, 81, 4–82, 6.—For the text of Il Filostrato I use Opere volgari di Giovanni Boccaccio, vol. xiii, (Moutier: Florence, 1831).

39 See Filostrato, ii, 84, 5–8; 86, 7–87, 3.

40 See T. and C., ii, 358–361, 1295.

41 In the Filostrato the formal “balcony period” is followed by a clearly defined “letter period,” during which the lovers exchange missives. In the Troilus the period which is vaguely parallel to the “balcony period” is merged with the “letter period.”

42 See T. and C., ii, 610–658. For the second horse-back scene see ii, 1247–74.

43 The parallel in the Roman d'Enéas, as observed by Professor Lowes, is reported by Robinson, p. 931.

44 See K. Young, Aspects of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde, in University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, no. 2 (Madison, 1918), pp. 379–388; Hauvette, Boccace, pp. 85–86.

45 See especially Filostrato, ii, 115, 7–8; 117, 7–8. For earlier hints of her sensuality see Filostrato, ii, 27; 45, 3–4—for which there is no parallel in the Troilus.

46 See Filostrato, ii, 127, 3–8; 129, 3–5.

47 See T. and C., ii, 1177–78, 1219–25.

48 See, for example, Amadas et Ydoine, ed. C. Hippeau (Paris, 1863). 11. 307 ff., 1058 ff; Chrétien de Troyes, Cligès, ed. W. Foerster (Halle, 1884), 11. 2725 ff., 3063 ff., 5166 ff.; Li Romans de Claris et Laris, ed. J. Alton (Tübingen, 1884), 11. 8109 ff.; L'Histoire du Châtelain de Coucy, ed. G. A. Crapelet (Paris, 1829), ll. 181 ff., 279 ff., 537 ff., 641 ff.

49 See Filostrato, ii, 140–143; iii, 21–151; and T. and C., iii, 547–1526.

49a Filoslrato, iii, 32, 8.

50 For its relation to Boccaccio's own experience see Hauvette, Boccace, pp. 85–88.

51 See T. and C., iii, 547–1526.

52 Filostrato, iii, 32, 8.

53 T. and C., iii, 1316.

54 An uncommonly adequate description of courtly love is provided by C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, chap. i. Especially noteworthy is W. G. Dodd, Courtly Love in Chaucer and Gower (Boston, etc., 1913). For further references to discussions of courtly love in its relation to the Troilus see K. Young, University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, no. 2 (Madison, 1918), pp. 367–368.

55 See especially N. E. Griffin and A. B. Myrick, The Filostrato of Giovanni Boccaccio (Philadelphia, 1929), pp. 70–95.

56 Filostrato, ii, 73–74.

57 Andreas Capellani Regii Francorum De Amore Libri Tres, ed. E. Trojel (Copenhagen, 1892), pp. 143, 280–281, 290—The classical utterance on the subject is that of the Countess of Champagne reported by Andreas as follows (p. 290): Comitissae Campaniae obviare sententiae non audemus, quae suo iudicio definivit, non posse inter coniugatos amorem suas extendere vires.

58 Compare Criseyde's reflections in T. and C., ii, 598–812 with Griseida's in Filostrato, ii, 68–78.

59 Filostrato, iv, 152, 3–153, 8.

60 Andreas, De Amore, p. 310 (Long Code, Rule xrv). See also pp. 139–140, 239–242.

61 The inclusive passages in the two poems are Filostrato, iv, 145–153, and T. and C., iv, 1506–96.

62 For the episode in Filostrato see vii, 83–102. For Troilo's defence see especially vii, 92, 7–8; 94, 1; 99, 6. For declarations of the principle of probitas see Andreas, De Amore, pp. 16–17, 23–24, 76–77, 113.

63 The passage of Filostrato, vii 83–102, which Chaucer omits is in some measure reflected in T. and C., ii, 1394-m, 217 (the dinner at the house of Deiphebus) and in T. and C., v, 1443–1533 (Troilus's appeal to Cassandra for an interpretation of his dream of the boar). See H. S. Cummings, The Indebtedness of Chaucer's Works to the Italian Works of Boccaccio (Cincinnati, 1916), pp. 59–61, 81.

64 See T. and C., iv, 1667–80.

65 Apart from the occasion on which he sees Griseida for the first time, Troilo is found in church only once, and all we know of this visit is that he is in un tempio pensando (Filostrato, iii, 4, 8).

66 See T. and C., iv, 946–1085. For another example of Troilus's association with church-going, not paralleled in Filostrato, see T. and C., iii, 533–546.

67 For discussions of the passage from other points of view see H. R. Patch, “Troilus on Predestination,” JEGP, xvii (1918), 399–422; W. C. Curry, “Destiny in Chaucer's Troilus,” PMLA, xlv (1930), 129–168—especially 150 ff.; H. R. Patch, “Troilus on Determinism,” Speculum, vi (1931), 225–243 passim.

68 Andreas, De Amore, p. 68. See also p. 247.

69 See T. and C., iv, 148–220; Filostrato, iv, 13–21.

70 Filostrato, iv, 16, 8.

71 See T. and C., iv, 169–75.

72 See Andreas, De Amore, pp. 310, 311: Omnis consuevit amans in coamantis aspectu pallescere.. . . Amorosus semper est timorosus. See also pp. 4, 20; Amadas et Ydoine, 11. 270 ff., 660 ff., 764 ff., 1036 ff.; Chrétien de Troyes, Lancelot, ed., W. Foerster (Halle, 1899), 11.3978 ff.; Jehan de Tuim, Li Hystore de Julius César, ed. F. Settegast (Halle, 1881), p. 186.

73 See Filostrato, iii, 32, 1–3; T. and C., iii, 705–735, 1065–92.

74 See T. and C., ii, 78–112.

75 See T. and C., ii, 1394–iii, 226.

76 See a delightful page by J. W. Mackail, The Springs of Helicon (London, 1909), p. 30. Social scenes of this sort are innumerable in the romances. See, for example, Hue de

Rotelande's “Yþomedon,” ed. E. Kölbing and E. Koschwitz (Breslau, 1889), ll. 741 ff.; L'Histoire du Châtelain de Coucy, ll. 227 ff., 1843 ff., 3789 ff.

77 See T. and C., ii, 1604–10.

78 See T. and C., iii, 211–217.

79 See idem, ii, 1424, 1427.

80 See idem, ii, 1452–54.

81 Idem, iv, 1390–93.

82 It is noteworthy, however, that Chaucer departs from Boccaccio in characterizing Calchas as “a lord of gret auctorite” (T. and C., i, 65).

83 See, for example, Filostrato, ii, 69; iv, 164–165; vii, 93–100.

84 See Filostrato, ii, 1, 4.

85 Early in Filostrato (i, 12–14) Ettore shields Griseida when she kneels at his feet begging for protection from the angry Trojan populace. He gives no sign of acquaintanceship with her, however, and seems to be moved solely by the suffering—and the beauty—of a woman in distress.

86 See Filostrato, iv, 69, 7–8.

87 Compare Filostrato, iv, 69 and T. and C., iv, 554–560.

88 Filostrato, vi, 30, 1–8.

89 T. and C., v, 981–987.

90 Mackail (p. 32) notes Chaucer's omission of the passage a te Elena bella si converria but offers no explanation. Chaucer's deliberation in omitting the Italian lines 2–5, and the nicety of his workmanship, are shown by the fact that in the first line of the succeeding English stanza (T. and C., v, 988–994) he reverts to the latter half of line 5 of Fil., vi, 30. It should be remembered, moreover, that since Chaucer greatly enlarges Boccaccio's treatment of Diomede's courtship, he might be expected to use all of Boccaccio's details which he found acceptable.

91 See above, p. 49.

92 See Andreas, pp. 66, 82, 88, 106 (Rule vii), 130, 241; Dodd, 8, 10–11, 133.

93 Filostrato, ii, 53, 1–3.

94 Filostrato, ii, 76, 1–4. Dodd (p. 150) cites this passage as an indication that Boccaccio meant to advance difference in rank as an obstacle to the marriage of the lovers. Marriage is, I think, not under consideration here.

95 See T. and C., ii, 598–812.

96 T. and C., ii, 708–712.

97 T. and C., iii, 169–175.

98 Filostrato, iii, 28, 5–8.

99 See Filostrato, iii. 32. 1–3.

100 See above, pp. 45, 51.

101 Filostrato, iv, 164–165.

102 T. and C., iv, 1667–80.

103 See, for example, Chretien's Lancelot, 11.5641 ff.; Amadas et Ydoine, ll. 506 ff., 1191 ff.; Roman de Troie, ed. L. Constans, 5 vols. (Paris, 1904–12), 11. 13617 ff.

104 See T. and C., v, 799–840.

105 As Root has shown, Chaucer draws numerous details from Joseph of Exeter. See Robinson, p. 947.

106 See Barrow, pp. 105–107; J. R. Reinhard, The Old French Romance of “Amadas et Ydoine,” (Durham, 1927), pp. 59 ff. Examples are all but innumerable. See, for instance, Cligès, ll. 2761 ff.; PartonopeusdeBlois, ed. G.-A. Crapelet, 2 vols. (Paris, 1834), 11. 541 ff.; Méraugis von Portlesguez, ed. M. Friedwagner (Halle, 1897), 11. 50 ff.; Claris et Laris, 11. 216 ff.; Amadas et Ydoine, 11. 125 ff.; Ypomedon, 11. 2201 ff. A special study of such portraiture is being made by Dr. L. A. Haselmayer, Jr., of the University of Minnesota.

107 See for example, Roman de Troie, ll. 33 ff.; Ipomedon, 11. 35 ff. See also A. B. Taylor, An Introduction to Medieval Romance (London, 1930), p. 6; C. H. Carter, in Eaverford Essays . . . F. B. Gummere (Haverford, Pa., 1909), p. 264.

108 See, for example, Ker, Epic and Romance, pp. 332–333.

109 See, for example, Chrétien's Erec et Enide, ed. W. Foerster (Halle, 1890), 11. 5571 ff.; Yvain, ed. W. Foerster (Halle, 1887), 11. 5389 ff.; Châtelain de Coucy, 11. 1843 ff.

110 See T. and C., ii, 78–105. Concerning passages in the romances, describing scenes in which narratives are read aloud to groups of listeners, see Robinson, p. 930; Ruth Crosby, “Oral Delivery in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, xi (1936), 88–110.

111 See T. and C., ii, 813–931.

112 See Ker, Epic and Romance, pp. 324–363.

113 See, for example, T. and C., iii, 575–581, 967–973; v, 1086–92.

114 See G. Cohen, Un grand Romancier d'Amour et d'Aventure au XII“ Siècle: Chrétien de Troyes et son Œuvre (Paris, 1931), p. 504.

115 See, for example, Ker, Epic and Romance, pp. 333–345; Barrow, pp. 92–97.

116 See Cligès, ll. 441-1046. Ker (op. cit., p. 333) speaks of Cligès as “a novel almost wholly made up of psychology and sentiment.”

117 See Enéas, ed. J. Salverda de Grave (Halle, 1891), 11. 8047 ff.

118 See Ipomedon, 11. 945 ff.; Amadas et Ydoine, 11.824 ff.; Méraugis, 11.402 ff.; Li Hystore de Julius César, pp. 166–180.

119 Erec et Enide, 11. 3283 ff.; Lancelot, 11. 3955 ff., 4178 ff.; Châtelain de Coucy, 11.175 ff.; Roman de Troie, 11. 13617 ff., 15001 ff.

120 Concerning the psychological aspect of the romances of Jean Renart see Rita Lejeune-Dehousse, L'Œuvre de Jean Renart (Liége, etc., 1935), pp. 345–349.

121 See Lewis, The Allegory of Love, pp. 179–182—and especially p. 136.

122 T. and C., ii, 462, 651; iii, 1210–11.

123 E. Legouis, Chaucer (Paris, 1910), pp. 121–125.

124 Concerning the strain of seriousness in Pandarus see Lewis, The Allegory of Love, pp. 192–194.

125 See Lewis, The Allegory of Love, p. 176.

126 See idem, pp. 146, 172–174, 192–194.

127 See idem, p. 173.

128 The question of over-subtlety is raised by Mr. Lewis himself (op. cit., p. 173).

129 See Yvain, ll. 590 ff., 1348 ff.; Méraugis, ll. 868 ff.

130 See Li Romans de Durmart le Galois, ed. E. Stengel (Tübingen, 1873), ll. 14880 ff.; Enéas, 11. 9233 ff.; Cligès, 11.1564 ff. Concerning what one might call the element of fabliau in the romances see Lejeune-Dehousse, pp. 332–345.

131 See, for example, Ch.-V. Langlois, La Société française au XIII e Siècle d'après dix Romans d'Aventure (Paris, 1904). See also Barrow, p. 116 (“This tempering of the idyllic with realism is typical of the society romances.”).

132 See Cohen (op. cit., p. 143) on this aspect of Chretien's romances; and Ker, Epic and Romance, pp. 352–353, 362–363.

133 See Lejeune-Dehousse, pp. 7, 325–332, 348–349.

134 Concerning the realistic aspect of the Flamenca see Langlois, op. cit., pp. 130–185; Ker, op. cit., pp. 359–362. Ker (p. 359) speaks of the Flamenca as “a work in which the form of the novel is completely disengaged from the unnecessary accidents of romance, and reaches a kind of positive and modern clearness very much at variance in some respects with popular ideas of what is medieval.”