¹ The texts used in the present study are S. Battaglia (ed.), Giovanni Boccaccio: Teseida (“Autori classici e documenti di lingua pubblicati dalla R. Accademia della Crusca” [Florence, 1938]); and A. Roncaglia (ed.), Giovanni Boccaccio: Teseida delle nozze d'Emilia (“Scrittori d'Italia” [Bari, 1941]). I have also had occasion to use the autograph (Doni e Acquisti, 325, of the Laurentian Library at Florence; see Battaglia, pp. xi-xv), and the reproduction of this manuscript in the Library of Congress (Modern Language Association Deposit, No. 311). Battaglia offers a critical edition based on the autograph collated with twenty-eight other manuscripts. His main conclusions regarding the relationships of the manuscripts which he studied are summarized by R. A. Pratt in Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. W. F. Bryan and G. Dempster (Chicago [1941]), pp. 83-85, and are criticized by G. Dempster in a review article in Modern Philology, xxxviii (1940), 205-214. Battaglia has been reviewed also by G. Contini in Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, cxn (1938), 86-96, and C. S. Singleton in Speculum, xiv (1939), 373-376. Roncaglia bases his edition on Battaglia and a fresh collation of the autograph, and offers a more accurate text than Battaglia (as comparison reveals), and over a hundred additional glosses. None of these glosses is in itself important, and none affects my study of Chaucer's manuscript of the Teseida (see footnote 18, infra). Nor does Roncaglia's revision of Battaglia's text affect our understanding of what Chaucer did to the Teseida, except possibly at three points: (1) for Teseida, iii, 13: 2-3, Battaglia prints, “O Palemon, vieni a vedere Venere qui discesa veramente”; and Roncaglia, “O Palemon, vieni a vedere: Vener è qui discesa veramente!” cf. Knight's Tale, 1102, “Venus is it soothly.” (2) Teseida, vii, 31: 1: Battaglia, “e una selva”; Roncaglia, “è una selva”; K. T., 1975, “was peynted a forest.” (3) Teseida, vn, 114: 7: Battaglia, “dalla parte”; Roncaglia, “dalla porta”; K. T., 2581, “the gates” (did Chaucer's manuscript perhaps read “dalle porte”?). The passages quoted from the Teseida in the present study are printed identically by Battaglia and Roncaglia; in referring to the commentary, I aid the reader by giving page numbers for both editions. A summary of the Teseida, in English, is offered in Sources and Analogues, pp. 93-105.

² See Roncaglia, pp. 494-498; N. Sapegno, Il Trecento (“Storia letteraria d'Italia” [rev. ed.; Milan, 1938]), pp. 312-314. In my discussion of the Teseida I am indebted to Sapegno's entire section on the poem (pp. 312-319). Much remains to be done on the literary sources of the Teseida. The most recent and stimulating proposal is that of Henry and Renée Kahane, who suggest that the Byzantine epic Digenis Akritas was the source of numerous features of the poem, including the name of Arcita (Speculum, xx [1945], 415-425). For the earlier studies of Boccaccio's literary sources, see Kahane, p. 415; Sapegno, p. 396, n. 30; F. N. Robinson (ed.), The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Boston, etc. [1933]), p. 771.

³ In his book, Giovanni Boccaccio (London and New York, 1910), p. 79, Edward Hutton has pointed out that like the Aeneid, the Teseida consists of exactly 9896 lines. This is true of the text represented by the manuscripts of family α, which lack iii, 69; in the other manuscripts, which include this stanza, the total number of lines is generally 9904. See Battaglia (pp. xlix-1), who points out that the omission of iii, 69, destroys the logical continuity of the text. None of these calculations, it should be added, includes the various introductory and final sonnets. These sonnets, it may be noted, are imitations of the “Arguments” in hexameters found in several manuscripts of the Thebaid (see Sapegno, p. 313).

⁴ The commentary on the Thebaid known to Boccaccio was that attributed to Lactantius Placidus. See Sapegno, p. 313; O. Hecker, Boccaccio-Funde (Brunswick, 1901), pp. 33-34, where Boccaccio's manuscript of Statius is identified as Laur. Plut. 38, No. 6, of the Laurentian Library, Florence, of which Hecker reproduces folio 43^v (Plate No. viii) one of four inserted leaves in Boccaccio's hand. Boccaccio's commentary on the Teseida is printed by Battaglia immediately beneath the text of the poem, and by Roncaglia on pp. 369-465.

⁵ The Collectiones of Boccaccio's friend, Paolo da Perugia, in turn contained material from the compendium of poetic materials assembled by Theodontius of Campania. Both compendia seem to have contributed to Boccaccio's later treatise, De genealogia deorum gentilium (of which see Book xv, Chapter 6). Regarding Paolo da Perugia, see A. Hortis, Studi sulle opere latine del Boccaccio (Trieste, 1879), pp. 494-498, 525-536; F. Ghisalberti, “Paolo da Perugia, commentatore di Persio,” Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere: Rendiconti, Serie ii, lxii (1929), 535-598 (especially 535-540); Sapegno, p. 279, and p. 392, n. 3. For Theodontius, see C. Landi, Demogorgone (Palermo, 1930), pp. 22-26; M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis in Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica, n.s., x (1932), 49-50.

⁶ See Teseida, i, 40-41, and Boccaccio's commentary (Battaglia, p. 23; Roncaglia, p. 374): “Sì come manifestamente appare sopra la carta da navicare, volendo del mare di Grecia entrare nel mare della Tana, si passa per uno braccio di mare il quale oggi si chiama per alcuni lo stretto di Costantinopoli; il quale braccio è in alcuna parte sì stretto, che non ha più di largo che tre miglia. Sopra questo stretto sono due terre, l'una dall'una riva e l'altra dall'altra, e chiamasi l'una Abido, come che oggi li navicanti la chiamano Aveo; l'altra si chiama Sesto… .” Perhaps la carta da navicare and li navicanti were somehow connected with the Compagnia dei Bardi, which Boccaccio's father sometimes represented in Naples. On Boccaccio Chellini and the Bardi, see R. Davidsohn, Firenze ai tempi di Dante (Florence [1929]), p. 347, n. 2.

⁷ See Teseida, vii, 108-110. The absurdity of this passage is alluded to by S. J. Herben in Modern Language Notes, liii (1938), 595. That Boccaccio had the Colosseum in mind is suggested not only by the form of the amphitheater but also by his mention of the Coliseo di Roma in a note to an allusion to theaters in connection with Teseo's triumphal return from Scythia. See Teseida, ii, 20; Battaglia, p. 55; Roncaglia, p. 380. Boccaccio may have known even better the great amphitheater at Capua, about fifteen miles from Naples and nearly as large as the Colosseum.

⁸ In the garden, when Emilia hears Palemone sigh, la giovinetta bella si volse destra in su la poppa manca (Teseida, iii, 18: 1-2); later a long personal description includes the remark that she had ‘l petto poi un pochello eminente de’ pomi vaghi per mostranza tondi (Teseida, xii, 61: 5-6). Nor did Boccaccio forget the Amazonian origin of Ipolita, who is eager to join both Teseo's expedition against Creon and the battle in the theater (Teseida, ii, 41; viii, 93).

⁹ See Battaglia, pp. 5-7; Roncaglia, pp. 2-5. Boccaccio says in part (Battaglia, p. 5; Roncaglia, p. 3), “Sotto il nome dell'uno de' due amanti e della giovane amata si conta essere stato, ricordandovi bene, e io a voi di me e voi a me di voi, se non mentiste, potreste conoscere essere stato detto e fatto in parte: quale de' due si sia non discuopro, ché so the ve ne avvedrete. Se forse alcune cose soperchie vi fossero, il volere bene coprire ciò che non è onesto manifestare da noi due infuori e il volere la storia seguire ne son cagioni … . ” We may note further that in the margin of the Laurentian autograph, Boccaccio has designed a conventional hand directing attention to his comment on the innate feminine vanity of Emilia in iii, 30. The same sign appears in two other manuscripts of the poem. See Aut. Laur., fol. 33^v (p. 66 in the pagination stamped on the M.L.A. photostats); Battaglia, p. 86, n. 2. Again, Boccaccio's description of the anguish of the lovers, Palemone and Arcita, in iii, 35, is glossed (in Aut. Laur.) with the words che sono io (Battaglia, p. 87; Roncaglia, p. 386).

¹⁰ See Boccaccio's opening and closing rubrics for the text of the poem (Battaglia, pp. 11 and 371; Roncaglia, pp. 10 and 365); see also the concluding sonnet entitled Risposta delle Muse, 1. 12 (Battaglia, p. 375; Roncaglia, p. 367). Roncaglia (p. 488) makes a point of giving the complete form on his title page.

¹¹ See Book x, Chapter 49.

¹² See Teseida, iii, 19.

¹³ As pointed out already (note 9, supra), each of three manuscripts of the poem, including the autograph, has a conventionalized hand calling particular attention to this passage.

¹⁴ See Teseida, viii, 98.

¹⁵ See S. Battaglia, “Schemi lirici nell'arte del Boccaccio,” Archivum romanicum, xix (1935), 61-78.

¹⁶ See note 9, supra.

¹⁷ Another possible indication is the vivid scene in which Emilia on a balcony of the palace waves farewell to the exiled Arcita as he rides away, weeping, from Athens. (Teseida, iii, 83-85.) See, however, J. H. Whitfield, “Boccaccio and Fiammetta in the Teseide,” Modern Language Review, xxxiii (1938), 22-30, for an argument in favor of Palemone, noting that he is the servant of Venus, and suggesting that Teseida, iii, 49, may be a self-portrait.

¹⁸ Regarding the form in which Chaucer may have known Boccaccio's poem, see my study, “Conjectures regarding Chaucer's Manuscript of the Teseida,” Studies in Philology, xlii (1945), 745-763.

¹⁹ See Robinson's order of printing the minor poems, his chronological table on p. xxv, his introductory statements preceding the text of each poem, and his Explanatory Notes. Robinson puts “Palamon and Arcite” before Troilus and Criseyde, but does not press the issue. Cogent reasons for placing “Palamon and Arcite” between Troilus and Criseyde and the Legend of Good Women are offered by J. S. P. Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer's Works (“Chaucer Society Publications, Second Series,” No. 37 [London, 1907]), pp. 70-83. My study of Chaucer's use of the Teseida (see especially the end of section v, and note 75, infra) has strengthened my conviction that the Troilus preceded the “Palamon.”

²⁰ See the House of Fame, 518-522 (a portion of the Invocation for Book II), and Teseida, i, 1 and 3; xi, 63; Robinson, p. 891. For new evidence that the House of Fame preceded the Parliament of Fowls, see R. A. Pratt, “Chaucer Borrowing from Himself,” Modern Language Quarterly, vii (1946), 262-264.

²¹ On Anelida and Arcite, see Wolfgang Clemen, Der junge Chaucer (“Kölner Anglistische Arbeiten,” No. 33 [Bochum-Langendreer, 1938]), pp. 226-237. Although Chaucer introduces Boccaccio's heroine, Emelye (1. 38), the false Arcite is immediately so involved with the rivalry of two other ladies that it is difficult to imagine how he could ultimately be brought into a relationship with Emelye at all like that in the Teseida, especially since the title of the new poem mentions not her but Anelida. Therefore Anelida and Arcite can hardly have been planned as a redaction of the Teseida. On the other hand, Chaucer's use of part of Boccaccio's plot to introduce Theseus, Ipolita, and Emelye, together with his promise of a description of the temple of Mars, seems to indicate conclusively that Chaucer had not yet visualized what might be made of the Teseida and had no intention of using either the characters or the plot in the future.

²² See Anelida, 1-21 and Teseida, I, 3, 2, and 1; Anelida, 22-44 and Thebaid, xii, 519-535; Anelida, 36-42 and Teseida, ii, 22; Anelida, 50-70 and Teseida, ii, 10-12 and iii, 1; Robinson, pp. 898-899.

²³ See Robinson, pp. 898-899. Stanzas from the Teseida describing the temple of Mars may have been translated by Chaucer for the Anelida, but this seems unlikely. However, one stanza in Andida and Arcite (56-63) is extremely faithful to its source in the Teseida (ii, 11). In connection with this bit of close translation, I take the opportunity to point out that Chaucer's reading “Campaneus” (Anlida, 59) is not his error for “Capaneus” (suggested as a possibility by Robinson, p. 1019), but his translation of Boccaccio's “Campaneo” (Teseida, ii, 11: 5), the reading given by Battaglia and Roncaglia from the autograph (see fol. 20^r [p. 39 in the pagination stamped on the M.L.A. photostats]). Earlier editors had given Boccaccio's reading as “Capaneo.”

²⁴ See Parliament of Fowls, 176-182; Le Roman de la Rose, ed. E. Langlois, ii (Paris, 1920), 69-71, especially 11. 1353-1360; of Chaucer's thirteen trees, eight are mentioned here (and one more in Chaucer's slightly different translation [the “ew”; 1. 1385]), and ten (seven duplications and three additions) are mentioned by Boccaccio (Teseida, xi' 22-24). On the portions of the Parliament under discussion in this section, see Clemen, pp 179-182.

²⁵ See R. K. Root, “Chaucer's Dares,” in Modern Philology, xv (1917), 18-21; Joseph of Exeter includes the buxus (“boxtre”), mentioned in neither the Roman nor the Teseida. From Joseph of Exeter and Claudian together came two descriptive ideas, and from Claudian alone came one.

²⁶ See Parliament of Fowls, 183-203 (the quotation is from 188-189); Teseida, vii, 51-53; and, for example, Roman de la Rose, ii, 34-35, ll. 661-670; 71-73, ll. 1375-1410; Purgatorio, xxviii, 9-18.

²⁷ See Parliament of Fowls, 204-210; Robinson, p. 903, where also are to be found details related to the three preceding notes.

²⁸ See Parliament, 211-294; Teseida, vii, 54-66.

²⁹ See Parliament, 295-296.

³⁰ See Parliament, 222, 223, 229.

³¹ See Parliament, 223, 243.

³² See Teseida, vii, 64: 8; Parliament, 265-266.

³³ See Parliament, 205, 209-210.

³⁴ See Parliament, 214; Teseida, vii, 54: 4 reads Voluttà; it has been pointed out that Chaucer's manuscript may have read Voluntà at this point.

³⁵ Boccaccio wrote (Teseida, vii, 55: 7-8, where, it should be noted, the subject of the sentence is Arcita's prayer): “e Van Diletto con Gentilezza vide star soletto”; and Chaucer (Parliament, 223-224): “And by hymself, under an ok, I gesse, Saw I Delyt, that stod with Gentilesse.”

³⁶ The shifted stanzas are Teseida, vii, 61-62; see Parliament, 281-294. Chaucer's use of the lovers from Inferno, v, 58-69, is treated in detail by Robinson, p. 904, and discussed by J. L. Lowes, “Chaucer and Dante,” Modern Philology, xiv (1917), 706-707.

³⁷ See Parliament, 277-280.

³⁸ On Chaucer's revision of the Troilus, see Robert K. Root (ed.), The Book of Troilus and Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer (Princeton, 1926), pp. lxx-lxxxi. In quoting from the poem I use this text. On Chaucer's use of the Teseida in the Troilus, see Root, p. xlv; G. L. Kittredge, “Chaucer's Lollius,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, xxviii (1917), 110-120: Appendix ii, “Use of the Teseide in the Troilus.” The passages affected by the Teseida occur mostly in Books ii and v of the Troilus.

³⁹ I find no evidence that Chaucer here “borrowed” from Books v or vi. Whether there is an echo from Book xii is doubtful: see note 43, infra.

⁴⁰ The proposal that the influence of the Teseida on the Troilus is through recollection rather than through actual reference to the text itself is based on the following assumptions: that in a given situation, the process of recollection would as a rule precede the process of reference to the text of the poem; and that where both processes took place, we should expect to find some evidence of Chaucer's referring to the text of the Teseida above and beyond a slight recollection of phrase or idea. For example, during Troilus' premonitions regarding his death, he requests that his ashes be placed in an urn of gold. This idea, together with the words urne and gold, came from a stanza in the Teseida describing the disposal of Arcita's ashes. This, it seems to me, offers every evidence of recollection on the part of Chaucer, but no evidence that he returned to the poem itself.

⁴¹ See Troilus and Criseyde, iii, 1807-1813 and Teseida, I, 1 and 3; xi, 63: the invocation to Venus, Cupid, and the Muses; Troilus, ii, 435-436 and Teseida, i, 58: 1; iii, 1: 3-4: a protestation by Pandarus to Mars and the Furies; Troilus, iii, 720-721 and Teseida, vii, 43: 4-5: from Troilus' cry to Venus at the opening of his prayer to six planetary deities. Many of Boccaccio's classical allusions seem to be “echoed” in the Troilus, but it would be rash to call the Teseida always the source.

⁴² See Troilus, v, 1 and Teseida, ix, 1: 1: “Aprochen gan the fatal destyne … ”; Troilus, v, 7 and Teseida, x, 32: 1-3: “… Til Lathesis his thred no lenger twyne.”

⁴³ See Troilus, iv, 323-329 and Teseida, xi, 91; Troilus, v, 280-322 and Teseida, x, 89, 93-94; xi, 58, and the other passages in the Teseida noted by Root (p. 535) or Robinson (p. 945). Another definite parallel is between Troilus, n, 197-199 and Teseida, viii, 81: 1-4: a description of fighting transferred from Arcita to Troilus. Among the many doubtful parallels that have been pointed out, the most plausible are Troilus, iii, 1428 and Teseida, iv, 14: 7-8: (Almena's night with Jove); Troilus, iii, 1464-1470 and Teseida, iv, 72: 8: (“Titan” and Aurora); Troilus, iv, 1586 and Teseida, xii, 11: 1-2 (Making a virtue of necessity); on each of these see the notes of Root (pp. 489, 490, 527) or Robinson (pp. 939, 945).

⁴⁴ See Troilus, ii, 50-56; Teseida, iii, 5-6; Roman de la Rose, ii, 3-4, ll. 45-66; Root, p. 437. The actual verbal parallels between the description and its “sources” are few: mai, May; plein de joie, glade; flors, fioretti, floures; blanches e perses, blewe, white; her s, wynler; Febo, Phebus. Kittredge (pp. 118-120) lists Chaucer's and Boccaccio's “heightened time descriptions,” together with their heightened and unheightened definitions of time in terms of astronomy. In using such definitions of time, Chaucer may have been influenced by the Teseida, but he never borrows directly from Boccaccio. The present discussion is concerned with actual descriptions of the time of day or season of the year, not with mere astronomical definitions of time.

⁴⁵ See Troilus, ii, 64-70; Teseida, iv, 73: 1-2; Purgatorio, ix, 13-15; Root, pp. 437-438; Robinson, p. 930.

⁴⁶ See Troilus, v, 8-11 and Teseida, ii, 1: 1-14; for possible sources of “goldetressed Phebus,” see Robinson, p. 945; see also Root, p. 531.

⁴⁷ See Troilus, v, 274-279 and Teseida, vii, 94; Il Filostrato at this point reads “onde il mattino venuto” (v, 22).

⁴⁸ See Teseida, iii, 44; iv, 1. The first of these is perhaps echoed in the Franklin's Tale (v [F] 1250-1251). Also unutilized is an “unheightened” description of spring, colorless and conventional, in Teseida, ii, 3.

⁴⁹ See Troilus, iii, 1415-1420, based on the words “Ma poi ch' e' galli presso al giorno udiro cantar per l'aurora che surgea” (Filostrato, iii, 42). For the various sources, see Root, pp. 487-489; Robinson, pp. 938-939.

⁵⁰ See Troilus, v, 1016-1020; Root, p. 547; Robinson, p. 948. However, in the notes just cited it seems to me that the editors of the Troilus have gone too far from Chaucer's ordinary reading when they note the occurrence of the word “Signifer” in Claudian, In Rufinum, i, 365,—a poem we have no evidence that Chaucer ever read. The same word for the zodiac occurs in a poem by Claudian that was well known to Chaucer: the De raptu Prosperinae, i, 102.

⁵¹ See Troilus, v, 1107-1110; Root, p. 550; Robinson, p. 948. Troilus, ii, 904-910, offers an “unheightened” description of nightfall, with one line perhaps echoing Paradiso, xxii, 93. For Chaucer's later use of “heightened time descriptions,” see notes 75 and 76, infra.

⁵² See Root, p. xlv, where he writes: “From Italy, and primarily I think from Dante, came the inspiration to tell the story of Troilus in the bel stilo alto,” etc.; and “Similar in character to his debt to Dante is Chaucer's debt to the Teseide of Boccaccio, a poem in its style as ornate and elevated as the Filostrato is simple and direct.”

⁵³ See Daniel C. Boughner, “Elements of Epic Grandeur in the ‘Troilus,‘ ”E L H: A Journal of English Literary History, vi (1939), 200-210.

⁵⁴ See Karl Young, “Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde' as Romance,” PMLA, liii (1938), 38-63. Here each quality mentioned in these two sentences (I often use Young's phraseology) is shown to be in the tradition of medieval romance. I suggest that the exemplar in this tradition most vivid in Chaucer's mind was the Teseida. Similar to the Teseida in some of these various characteristics of epic and romance is Boccaccio's prose romance, Il Filocolo, which furnished for the Troilus certain elements of situation, episode, and character. See K. Young, The Origin and Development of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde (“Chaucer Society Publications, Second Series,” No. 40 [London, 1908]), pp. 139-181.

⁵⁵ See Troilus, iv, 26-28. These lines are from the Invocation to the Furies and Mars, which suits the matter of Book v even better than that of Book iv; Book v has no invocation.

⁵⁶ See Troilus, v, 1786-1788. For medieval definitions of tragedy and comedy, see Root, p. 409, who cites Dante (Epist. 10. 10) and Chaucer's Boece (2. pr 2. 51-52), and refers to Monk's Tale, B 3163-3167. That Chaucer came to tire of the Troilus is suggested by Tatlock, p. 67 and n. 1.

⁵⁷ See Root, p. xlv; Troilus, v, 1807-1827; Teseida, xi, 1-3; on the inclusion of this passage during the process of revision, see Tatlock, pp. 10-11; Root, p. lxxii and n. 151. On the date of the revision, see Tatlock (pp. 20-24), who shows that Troilus, iv, 953-1085, added in revision, was known to Usk in 1387; see Root, pp. lxxi-lxxii. The related passage, Arcita's prayer to Mercury (Teseida, x, 90-99) is matched in the first version of Troilus and Criseyde (v, 321-322).

⁵⁸ For a critical bibliography of Chaucer's use of the Teseida in the Knight's Tale, see Sources and Analogues, pp. 88-90. In the sketch to follow I am at times indebted to the comments of H. B. Hinckley, Notes on Chaucer (Northampton, 1907), pp. 50-120; Tatlock, pp. 231-233; J. M. Manly (ed.), Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer (New York [1931]), pp. 539-558; W. P. Ker, Epic and Romance (London, 1931), pp. 363-367; Robinson, pp. 4-5, 770-785; R. K. Root, The Poetry of Chaucer (rev. ed., Boston, etc. [1934]), pp. 163-173. I have profited also from the two following studies, each of which presents views somewhat different from mine: H. R. Patch, “Chaucer and Mediaeval Romance,” in Essays in Memory of Barrett Wendell (Cambridge, 1926), pp. 95-108 (reprinted with slight changes and additions in H. R. Patch, On Rereading Chaucer [Cambridge, 1939], pp. 195-212), and F. Torraca, “The Knightes Tale e la Teseide,” Atti della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti, n.s., x (1926), 199-217 (or F. Torraca, Scritti vari [Milan, etc., 1928], pp. 89-107). It is generally believed that the poem mentioned in LGW (see the note following) did not differ essentially from the Knight's Tale, and that only lines 875-892 (and possibly 3108) were written for the adaptation of the “Palamon and Arcite” for its place in the Canterbury Tales. See Tatlock, pp. 66-70; W. J. Wager, “The So-called Prologue to the Knight's Tale,” MLN, l (1935), 296-307. Recently Johnstone Parr (“The Date and Revision of Chaucer's Knight's Tale,” PMLA, lx [1945], 307-324) has proposed that the poem was revised after the middle of 1390, and that the revision was far more extensive than previously supposed. This theory has been questioned by the present writer in a note to appear in PMLA.

⁵⁹ See Legend of Good Women, F 420 (G 408). Chaucer's emphasis on the two lovers is reflected in the titles (“Arcite and Palamon,” etc.) found in three manuscripts (Ra², Se, Ll¹); see Sir William McCormick, The Manuscripts of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales: A Critical Description of their Contents (Oxford, 1933), pp. 434, 474, 545.

⁶⁰ Chaucer's eagerness for concentration of scene is so great that the lists and Arcite's funeral pyre are erected on. the same spot (see lines 1862 and 2857-2864).

⁶¹ See line 998; Hinckley (p. 53) writes, “Between the two [rivals] and near the foreground stands Theseus the umpire, a hot-blooded Plantagenet but usually dominated by a shrewd wisdom not unworthy of that historic house. In him we are nearest to the facts of life and of history.”

⁶² See Teseida, v, 92: 1, and Knight's Tale, 1814; Teseida, xi, 7, and K.T., 2831-2833.

⁶³ See W. C. Curry, Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences (New York, 1926), pp. 119-163.

⁶⁴ See S. Robertson, “Elements of Realism in the Knight's Tale,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology, xiv (1915), 226-255; H. M. Cummings, The Indebtedness of Chaucer's Works to the Italian Works of Boccaccio (“University of Cincinnati Studies,” Vol. x, Part 2 [Cincinnati, 1916]), pp. 144-146.

⁶⁵ See Knight's Tale, 1198-1200; Le Roman de la Rose, iii (Paris, 1921), 70-71:11. 8148-8154; Robinson, p. 774.

⁶⁶ See K. T., 1384-1392; Ovid, Metamorphoses, i, 671-672; Robinson, p. 775.

⁶⁷ See K.T., 1472; at the same time Boccaccio's physician, Alimeto, tebano (Teseida, v, 20: 4), disappears from this passage. Some oí Chaucer's audience may have associated the “opie” with Palamon's native city rather than with Egyptian Thebes (see Robinson, p. 776).

⁶⁸ See K.T., 2626-2633; the passage seems to be derived partly from Teseida, vii, 106 and viii, 26.

⁶⁹ See K.T., 975-980; both seem to derive from Statius (Thebaid, xii, 523, 665-673); for Mars, see also Andida and Arcite, 30-31; for the Minotaur, see B, A. Wise, The Influence of Statius upon Chaucer (Baltimore, 1911), pp. 50-51. These various archaic details correspond to the “Trojan” detail noted in the Troilus by Kittredge (“Chaucer's Lollius,” pp. 50-54 and Tatlock (in Modern Philology, xviii [1921], 640-647).

⁷⁰ See, for example, pp. 15-16 of Sir Mungo MacCallum's valuable booklet, Chaucer's Debt to Italy (Sydney, 1931). A corrective is offered by P. V. D. Shelly, The Living Chaucer (Philadelphia, 1940), p. 47.

⁷¹ See Teseida, vii, 22-93; K.T., 1918-2088, 2209-2437. Already, in Andida and Arcite (see lines 354-357) Chaucer had apparently proposed to move the Temple of Mars from the wilds of Thrace to the immediate locale of his story.

⁷² See K.T., 1918-1939, 1943, and Teseida, vii, 50, 53, 55-57, 59, 62, and 64 (stanzas 51-66 had been used in the Parliament, 183-289). K.T., 1955-1966, like H.F., 130-139, derives from some such mythographical treatise as the De imaginibus deorum libellus. Regarding all these comments, see, for example, Robinson, pp. 778-779.

⁷³ See K.T., 2051-2088, and Teseida, vii, 61,79, and 90; Troilus, v, 1464-1484; Robinson, p. 780.

⁷⁴ See K.T., 1967-2050, and Teseida, vii, 29-38; Robinson, pp. 779-780.

⁷⁵ See K.T., 1491-1496; Teseida, iv, 73; Troilus, ii, 64-70; Purgatorio, i, 20: “faceva tutto rider l'oriente.” The circumstances involving this description seem to me to fit in with the supposition that the Troilus preceded the Knight's Tale. See note 45, supra. Another corresponding passage in the Teseida is v, 37, where Arcita awakens, hearing the birds. Chaucer coalesces the events of the mornings described in Teseida, iv, 73, and v, 37.

⁷⁶ See, for example, L.G.W., F 112-137 (cp. Teseida, iii, 5-7; Robinson, pp. 955-956); Canterbury Tales, i (A), 1-11 (cp. Teseida, iii, 5-7; see Robinson, p. 752); C.T., iv (E) 2219-2224; C.T., v (F) 48-57 (Robinson, p. 823); C.T., v (F) 1245-1255 (with 1250-1251 cp. Teseida, iii, 44:2-3). These, together with passages defining time in terms of astronomy, are listed by Kittredge, pp. 118-120.

⁷⁷ See K.T., 2129-2186; Teseida, vi, 14-17, 21-24, 30, 36, 41. Curry (pp. 130-137) suggests that certain of the added details are related to the astrological forces at work in the story.

⁷⁸ The portrait of Blanche was indebted to the French sources of the Book of the Duchess and doubtless to the lady herself (see lines 817-1033; Robinson, p. 885). The three portraits in the Troilus “are primarily indebted to the Frigii Daretis Ylias of Joseph of Exeter” (see Troilus, v, 799-840; Root's edition, pp. 541-545).

⁷⁹ See K.T., 2130, 2134-2136, and Teseida, vi, 14: 3; 21: 7-8; 2165-2168, and vi, 17: 1; 23: 5; 30: 3-5; 41; 2172-2176, and vi, 30:3-5; 41:8.

⁸⁰ Among Chaucer's subsequent formal portraits are those of hende Nicholas, Alisoun, and Absolon in the Miller's Tale (C.T., i [A] 3190-3220, 3221-3270, 3312-3351), of Symkyn, his wife, and daughter in the Reeve's Tale (3925-3976), and of the Canon in the Canon's Yeoman's Prologue (viii [G] 554-581).

⁸¹ Regarding the Legend of Good Women, see Robinson, pp. 955-956, 965-966; J. L. Lowes in PMLA, xx (1905), 803-808; Tatlock, pp. 123-125. Regarding the Franklin's Tale, see Robinson, pp. 826-830; J. L. Lowes in Modern Philology, xv (1918), 689-699. The time descriptions are cited in note 76, supra.