FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
A NOTE ON TROILUS A N D CRISEYDE
V. 1786-92
Renate Haas
T he first envoy of Troilus and C riseyde is an im portant locus for C haucer’s
view of his great poem and of his own statu s as a poet. Various scholars
have felt it is here th a t Chaucer makes the highest claim ever for his poetry.
T hus this stanza has often been cited; yet it is astonishing how little it has
been analyzed. Its elegance has repeatedly been mentioned en passant, but,
pursuing broader questions, Chaucerians have largely forgotten to scrutinize
how this elegance is effected or how Chaucer actually makes his claim and
w hat may be implied by this.
Basically, the artistry of the stanza, as in classical poetry, rests on its
clear and clever structure. Four of its seven lines begin with a conjunc­
tion — m ost of them 1 adversative conjunctions, which due to their rational
character usually work towards clarity. Moreover, the two sentences, which
make up the stanza (1786-88 and 1789-92), are antithetical on two levels:
each is antithetical within itself and sentence 2 also forms an antithesis to
sentence 1. At the sam e tim e, both levels conform to the rhetorical prin­
ciple of growing emphasis ( modus p e r in c re m e n ta ): in both sentences, the
thesis consists of one line, whereas the antithesis comprises two lines in the
first sentence and three in the second, and, on the next higher level, the
antithesis (sentence 2) is again longer than the thesis (sentence 1).
93
94
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
As in classical poetry, this distinguished structure is much embellished
w ith further “colours of rethorike,” “figures of poetrie,” and choice vocab­
ulary, which m ay have impressed contem porary audiences as “subtil” and
close to the “term es of philosophie.” To m ention only the m ost striking
ornam ents: diverse repetitions, particularly of the initial address, “Go, litel
boke,” anaphorically, in parts and with variations; the unusual, Italianizing
(plus classicizing) hyperbaton of “litel myn tragedye” ; the uncommonly long
a d n o m in a tio with mak-, which produces a kind of internal rhyme, delicately
diversified;2 the tour-de-force rhym e over five lines; the contrast between the
lively rhy th m of the same five lines and the measured procession of the last
two, underlined in 1791 by a striking, partly alliterating accum ulation of
s ’s.
All this means: while bowing low to the greatest poets of antiquity,
Chaucer has already produced a superb, classical stanza. In his very bow,
he renders w ith adm irable congeniality two lines from the poet whose nam e
he slyly accentuates by the rhyme, «-accumulation, and position as the
final word of the stanza.3 As Statius m ade his reverence to Virgil, Chaucer
is m aking his reverence to Statius and joining him to the select company
— not w ithout trying S tatiu s’s trick of modesty for himself. Even the m ost
hum ble following implies some succession.
A lthough Chaucer does not mention the nam es of the three great Italian
poets who are the im m ediate models for his am bition, they are neverthe­
less present in this polished stanza, which parades term s central to the new
classicizing: tragedye — comedye — Poyesie.4 Moreover, since the topos
of succession epitom ized their endeavours, they had appropriated it before
Chaucer, and his presentation more or less resounds against these appro­
priations, too.
In his great “comedye,” as is well known, D ante also assumed S tatiu s’s
role of disciple to Virgil and even elaborated it into the fiction sustaining
m ost of the poem . A t their meeting, he actually m ade Statius stoop to
em brace Virgil’s feet ( P u r g . XXI, 130-31). On the other hand, D ante did
not hesitate to m ake himself be accepted into Virgil’s “bellascola” as “sesto
tra cotanto senno” ( I n f . IV, 94-102). Boccaccio, for his part, in the envoy to
the Filocolo, presented his claim again more indirectly, in closer adherence
to Statius: m entioning his great m aster in connection with Virgil, Ovid,
Lucan, and Statius, he bade his little book ‘to follow’ ( “seguire”) D ante
“m olte reverente” — yet not w ithout some self-confidence about his work’s
separate, special purpose.
RENATE HAAS
95
It seem s m o stly by m eans o f his em p h atic a n d p erh ap s — as several
scholars hav e felt — endearing addresses to his po em th a t C haucer evokes
these ap p ro p ria tio n s o f th e topos by his Ita lia n forerunners. T h e striking
hyperbaton o f “litel m yn trag ed y e” ap p ears to echo D ante, w ho first m ade
V irgil speak o f his trag ed y ( “l’a lta m ia tra g e d ia ” ) an d very soon set his own
com edy ( “la m ia com edia” ) ag ain st it (Inf. X X , 113 and X XI, 2). It also
evokes Boccaccio (w ho in his tu rn echoed th e classics plus D an te), since he
a p p a re n tly w as th e first post-classical p o e t to call long w orks w ith polished
m o d esty ‘sm a ll’ a n d in th e Filocolo provides a p a rtic u la rly close parallel,
as he in tro d u ces th e final ch a p te r co ntaining th e succession topos by the
address, “0 piccolo m io lib re tto .”
T h e elegance o f C h au cer’s claim rests n o t only on its indirectness and
rich allusiveness5 b u t also very m uch — as in classical p o e try — on the
sm o o th in g o f th e sh arp edges of th e stru c tu re a n d the distinctions. Not
only does th e logic o f th e stru c tu re tip over in its intensification6 and is
his “trag e d y e ,” to g eth er w ith his fu tu re “com edye,” presented in one line
w ith th e v enerable “Poyesye” (an d w ith m uch em phasis, a t th a t), b u t it
is his very use o f “m ak -” th a t underm ines th e fu n d a m e n ta l opposition of
“m ak y n g ” a n d “Poyesye.”
C h au cer rep eats th e m o d est mak- derivatives w ith an insistence th a t
draw s a tte n tio n to th e m and sublim inally im p a rts w eight. M oreover, he uses
th e m in w ays th a t fru stra te easy an ticip atio n s an d create brief — or a little
longer —- u n certain ties. In lines 1786-88, as A nne M iddleton has pointed
o u t, th e audience m ay a t first u n d erstan d “th i m akere” as an appposition to
th e preceding w ord, “god,” 7 an d th e m ore so, since C haucer m o stly applies
th e te rm “m ak er” to G od an d “(al)m y g h t” was form ulaically linked to G od
as well. T h e “m ake in ,” w hich has caused C h au cerians m an y a headache,
seem s to be p a r t o f th e sam e stra te g y o f s ta rtlin g th e audience. For the
u n u su al co n stru ctio n a ttra c ts th e a tte n tio n an d brings a variety of associ­
atio n s in to p lay b y m ak in g th e audience w onder w hich o f th e m an y senses
of th is basic verb or o f a possible derivation from th e hom onym ous noun
m eaning ‘m a te ’ m ig h t precisely be intended.* E ven th o u g h th e idea o f G od
as th e c reato r o f th e little trag ed y is soon discarded, som e sublim e associa­
tio n o f C h au cer a n d his w ork w ith G od lingers o n a n d m ay sublim inally be
reinforced b y theological senses o f “to m ake in .” 9 Very indirectly, C haucer
th u s seem s to play on th e analogy betw een divine and po etic creation, w ith
w hich th e early h u m a n ists tried to elevate classical p o etry a n d th eir own.
A n im p o rta n t effect o f th e mak-adnominatio is to a cc en tu ate th e basic
m eaning, w hich, to g eth er w ith th e ro o t, is com m on to all these w ords. It
96
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
is th is basic m eaning, however, which “m akyng” has also in com m on w ith
th e noble-sounding “Poyesÿe,” whose etym ology h a d th ro u g h th e centuries
been kep t alive by th e a u th o rity o f C hurch F ath ers and o th e r C h ristian
o p p o n en ts to classical p o e try an d secular p o etry in general. C onsequently, it
h a d been p rim arily in order to forestall th e prosaic and negative exp lan atio n
o f poesis (from ir o u lv / L atinized poire — ‘to m ak e’ and ‘to m ake u p ’ / ‘to
lie’) th a t P e tra rc h an d Boccaccio endorsed Isidore’s derivation from poiotes
(poetes in P e tra rc h ’s codex o f th e Etymologiae). Y et finding acceptance for
th e d eriv atio n from th e “vetu stissim u m G recorum vocabulum ” poetes, for
w hich Boccaccio claim ed th e noble m eaning “ex q uisita o ra tio ,” 10 was no
easy task w hen th e sim ple ex p lan atio n lay so n ear and could relie on so
m uch a u th o rity , b o th classical and C h ristia n .11 In fact, th e poire etym ology
m u st have a p p eared alm o st as self-evident as C h au cer’s p u n ning “m akere
— m y g h t — m ake — m ak y n g ,” i.e. agent — energy — action — result,
w hereas B occaccio h a d to m arsh al m uch persuasion to establish th e learned
sequence “p o etes / poesis — p o e ta — p o em a.” 12
As h a s re p eated ly been p o in ted o u t, th e concern o f D an te, P e tra rc h ,
a n d Boccaccio w ith th e etym ology o f poesis w as in tim ately related to the
m a tu rin g o f th e ir new ideas a b o u t th e ir a r t.13 A t th e sam e tim e, th eir high
claim s for p o e try shifted th e use o f o th er te rm s as well and considerably
destabilized th e whole sem an tic field u n til th e new m eanings an d d em arca­
tio n s w ere finally accepted m ore widely. T h eir etym ologizing, w hich helped
to su b s ta n tia te th e ir a rg u m e n t, a n d its repercussions in late 14th c. lite r­
ary discussion m ay, therefore, well have been in C h au cer’s m in d , w hen he
th is one tim e , n o t only as fa r as Troilus and C riseyie b u t th e w hole o f his
oeuvre is concerned, em ployed th e w ord “Poyesye” an d counterbalanced it
w ith his etym ological p lay on “m akere” / “m akyng,” w hich to h im certainly
resounded also a g ain st th e L atin-derived auctour an d th e French an d Ita l­
ian p arallels faire an d faiseur, fare an d fattore in th eir various litera ry and
n o n -lite ra ry uses a n d sim ilarly rich associations (e.g. w ith faiteur ‘C re a to r’
an d faindre / feindre ‘to m ake u p ’).14 C h au cer’s in terest in th e lim its and
am biguities o f th e various term s for his a rt is clear from his use o f th em
th ro u g h o u t his w o rk ,15 an d soon, after ad o p tin g various C h ristian perspec­
tives, he w ould end Troilus and Criseyde w ith a sublim e w riting m etap h o r,
w hich belonged to a com plex o f th o u g h t a b o u t w riting fu n d a m en ta l to m e­
diaeval C h ristia n belief an d culture. T h e pious an d highly polished D an tean
subm ission to th e Holy T rin ity , who, “u ncircum script” itself, m ay “circum scrive al,” reaffirm s G od as th e W ord, th e suprem e artifex, th e tru e “au cto u r
an d m ak ere.” 16
RENATE HAAS
97
T h u s, it seem s th a t th e p iv o tal sta n z a of th e first envoy, w hich is one of
C h a u c er’s m o st classical passages, also contains in nuce his conflicting a t­
titu d e s tow ards th e new classicizing an d its high claim s for poetry: his
m ix tu re o f a d m ira tio n and reserve, his playful, critical, and self-critical
ex p erim en tin g . A lthough such am bivalence was, to varying degrees, also
characteristic o f his Ita lia n m asters, th e very cleverness and a rtistry of the
sta n z a suggests for C haucer m uch m ore confidence and reliance on his own
experience a n d ju d g m e n t th a n he has usually been accorded by scholars
view ing him ag ain st th e three g reat T recentisti, in p a rtic u la r D a n te .17
P âdagogische H ochschule Kiel
NOTES
1
In a cc o rd an c e w ith th e u su a l form of th e to p o s, th e “th e r” o f line 1787 m ay be
u n d e rs to o d a s ad v ersa tiv e : u n d e rlin in g th e c o n tra st b e tw ee n th e b o o k w hich is se n t in to
th e w orld a n d its a u th o r w ho is left b e h in d . All q u o ta tio n s from T ro ilu s a n d C r i s e y d e
a re ta k e n fro m B .A . W in d e a tt’s e d itio n (L ondon, 1984); all o th e r C h a u c e r c ita tio n s a re
fro m T h e R i v e r s i d e C h a u c e r , 3 rd e d n ., L arry B enson ed. (B oston: H o u g h to n Mifflin,
1987).
^ In c lu d in g “m y g h t,” w hich th ro u g h various M iddle E n g lish form ulae w as closely
a sso c ia te d w ith th e m a k - ste m , th e m a k ^ a d n o m i n a t i o e x te n d s over a full th re e lines,
o c c u rrin g u n d e r th e sam e ic tu s, w ith a gracefu l v ariation: n a m e ly u n d e r th e second ic tu s
in lines 1787 a n d 1788 a n d u n d e r th e th ir d in lines 1788 a n d 1789. T h o u g h different in
m ean in g , th e “m ak e in ” o f 1788 a n d “m ak y n g ” of 1789 so u n d a lm o st id en tica l o r even
id en tica l, if th e g is d ro p p e d , as seem s to h av e h a p p e n e d q u ite frequently.
^ T h e b a i d X II, 816—17. P a ra lle l to G re ek i r p o a n v i/ e l v , a d ora re d e n o te d th e h ig h e st
degree o f rev eren ce in religious w orship a n d com prised th e m o st lowly g e stu res su c h as
p ro s tra tin g oneself a n d kissing th e se a m o f th e p u rp le of a n e m p e ro r w hen tra n s fe rre d to
th e c u lt o f th e C aesars. T o g e th e r w ith th e rh y th m , th e ra re v e rb “sp a c e ” suggests th e
d ig n ity of th e strid e , w hich also im plies som e d ista n c e b e tw ee n th e pro cessio n a n d th e
h u m b le w o rsh ip p e r ( “longe se q u e re ” ).
4
If th e c o n te m p o ra ry lite ra ry c o n te x t, especially in Italy , is ta k e n in to acc o u n t,
C h a u c e r’s reference to tra g e d y does n o t c o n s titu te th e p a ra d o x W in d e a tt h a s re ce n tly
seen in it. I t goes fa r b e y o n d a “g eneric la b e l” a n d c ertain ly does m o re t h a n “d im in ish ”
T r o i l u s . B a rry W in d e a tt, “C lassical a n d M ediaeval E le m en ts in C h a u c e r’s T r o i l u s in
T h e E u r o p e a n T rag ed y o f T r o i l u s , ed. P ie ro B o itan i (O xford, 1989), 122. F o r th e rev iv ed
in te re s t in tra g e d y see m y a rtic le , “C h a u c e r’s M o n k ’s Tale: A n In g enious C ritic ism of
E a rly H u m a n ist C o n c ep tio n s o f T ragedy,” H u m a n i s t i c a L o v a n i e n s i a , 36 (1987), 44 -7 0 .
^ F o r re so n an ces a g a in st J e a n d e M e u n 's use of th e to p o s “six th o f six,” see D av id
W allace, C h a u c e r a n d th e E a r l y W r i t i n g s o f B occa ccio (W oo dbridge, 1985), 51-54.
® W h en h e a rd o r ju s t re a d , n o t sc ru tin iz ed , th e q uick succession o f th e tw o “b u t" s
in lines 1789 a n d 1790 r a th e r w orks to w a rd b lu rrin g th e d istin c tio n s th a n to w a rd clarity.
^ “C h a u c e r’s ‘New M e n ’ a n d th e G o o d of L ite ra tu re in th e C a n t e r b u r y T ales ” in
L i t e r a t u r e a n d S o c i e t y , ed. E d w a rd S aid (B a ltim o re , 1980), 55.
® P e rh a p s “to m ak e ” m a y b e c o n sid ered to be used in tra n sitiv e ly in th e m ea n in g ‘to
w rite ,’ while “in som e com edye” form s a n o n c h a la n t p a ra lle l to “m ak e in th is m a n e re ”
98
FLORILEGIUM 10, 1988-91
( L e g e n d o j G o od W o m e n F 573) o r sim ila r c o n stru ctio n s w ith “e n d ite n ” ( “e n d ite n in
p ro se / in verse / in E n g lish ” ). T h is c o u ld b e fa c ilita te d b y tra d itio n a l u n d e rsta n d in g s of
co m ed y a n d tra g e d y a s specific styles. P e rh a p s “to m ak e in ” c a n also m e a n q u ite sim p ly
‘to b rin g i n ’ (a sense d o c u m e n te d in th e O E D for th e la te 1 5 th c .), ‘to p u t in ’, ‘to b u ild
in ’ o r *to p re p a r e ’ (a sense su rv iv in g in c e rta in d ialects). T h e n C h a u c e r w ould a n n o u n ce
o bliquely w h a t h e is a b o u t to d o n e x t: nam ely to ch an g e th e tra g e d y of T ro ilu s an d
C r i s e y d e in to a com edy.
® J o s e p h G re iu ie n sees th e p h ra se re la te d to p h ilosophical a n d theological c o n ce p ts
o f c re a tio n , w hich h a d also b e e n tra n s fe rre d to a rtistic c re a tio n . T h u s, “to m ak e in ” co u ld
b e a n allu sio n to th e n o tio n — a d v an c ed b y A u gustine a n d q u o te d in C h a u c e r’s c e n tu ry
b y B ra d w ard in e — o f th e p resen ce of th e divine C re a to r in his c re a tio n , i.e. th e divine
“M a k e r m a k in g ” w ith in h is w orld r a th e r th a n sh ap in g it fro m som e e x te rn a l p o sitio n .
“M a k i n g in C om edy: T r o i l u s a n d C r i s e y d e , V , 1788,” N e u p h ilo lo g is c h e M i t t e i l u n g e n , 86
(1985), 488-93.
T h e &bove fo rm u la tio n s a re fro m Genealogia D e o r u m G e n tiliu m X IV , vii. F or
P e tr a r c h ’s a n d B occaccio’s f u rth e r e tym ological co m m en ts a n d a su c c in c t discussion of
th e m see th e E n c i c l o p e d i a D a n t e s c a , s.v. “p o e sia .”
11
In h is com edies, P la u tu s p re se rv e d th e ante-classical g e n era l a n d n e g ativ e m e a n ­
in g s o f po eta : ‘m a k e r’ a n d ‘c o n triv e r’ / ‘tric k s te r’. See L a tin d ictio n aries, e.g. Lew is a n d
S h o rt. In E n g lish , to o , po et still re ta in e d its m ore general sense o f ‘a u th o r ’ / ‘w rite r’, so
t h a t L a n g la n d c o u ld call P la to a n d A risto tle “p o e ts” ( O E D ) .
B occaccio r e p e a te d th e tr ia d (w hich was, w ith m od ificatio n s, in h e rite d fro m
A le x a n d rin ia n c ritic ism ) w ith co n sid era b le in sisten ce in se v e ra l w orks a n d even w ith in
o n e a n d th e sa m e w ork, w hich w as n o t b y ch an ce Gen ea lo g ia D e o r u m G e n t i l i u m X IV .
I t h e lp e d h im to fig h t th e sch o lastic enem ies o f p o e try w ith th e ir ow n a rg u m e n ts; fo r b y
c la im in g p o e try a s a “sc ie n tia ” , i.e. as h a v in g c o n te n t, h e co u ld re fu te th e ir d e n ig ra tio n
of i t a s a m ere “fa c u lta s ” (w ith n o c o n te n t).
See, e.g., th e E n c i c l o p e d i a D a n t e s c a , s.v. “p o e sia .”
Cf. th e ex am p les in G le n d in g O lson, “M aking a n d P o e try in th e A ge o f C h a u c e r,”
C o m p a r a t i v e L i t e r a t u r e , 31 (1979), 2 7 2 -9 0 . How m u ch w ord play, also in its e ru d itio n a n d
etym ologizing, w as p a r t of th e classical tra d itio n h a s b e e n b ro u g h t b a c k to C h a u ce ria n s
b y F red erick A hl. I t w as n o s h e e r co incidence e ith e r t h a t m o st o f A h l’s C h a u c e r exam ples
in h is p a p e r “How L a tin W o rd p la y m a y h a v e sh a p e d C h a u c e r’s” a t th e 6 th C ongress of
th e New C h a u c e r Society, 1988, w ere from T ro ilu s . A s se v e ra l scholia's h a v e su g g ested ,
th e e x ce p tio n a l use o f “Poyesye” m a y p e rh a p s allude p rim a rily to D a n te w ho em ploys
th e w ord “p o e si” o nly o nce in h is C o m e d i a a n d a s a (n e ar-)p e rso n ific atio n , a t t h a t . In
D e v ulg ari elo q u e n iia II, iv, 2, D a n te availed him self of th e p o ire e tym ology in o rd e r to
d e fen d th e p o ssib ility of a v e rn a c u la r “p o e ta .” He reco m m en d ed assid u o u s im ita tio n of
th e “m a g n i p o e te ” a n d , first o f a ll, th e tra g ic style.
See, e.g., h is h a n d lin g o f a u c t o u r a n d its d erivative a u c t o r it e e . B asically, a u c t o u r ,
to o , m e a n t som eone w ho b rin g s a b o u t th e e xistence o f so m e th in g a n d th is b ro a d , n e u tra l
m ea n in g is still to b e fo u n d in C h a u c e r. P a ra lle l to “m a k e r,” h e also u ses th e n o u n m o re
specifically a n d p o sitiv e ly w ith reference to th e divine C re a to r a n d to w riters, esp. th o se
o f a u th o rity . A u c t o r i t e e c a n lap se in to sh e e r sub jectiv ity .
C h a u c e r’s tra n s la tio n o f L a tin a u c t o r in B o ece III, p r. v, 10 a n d m . vi, 11.
E .g . W in th ro p W eth erb e e , C h a u c e r a n d the P o e ts: A n E s s a y on T r o i l u s a n d
C r i s e y d e (Ith a c a : C o rn ell U P , 1984). A re c e n t ex cep tio n w as Je rem y T am b lin g ’s p a p e r
“D a n te ’s V irgil, C h a u c e r’s D a n te : P ro b le m s o f T ragedy, C om edy a n d T ra n s la tio n ” a t th e
7 th C ongress of th e New C h a u c e r Society, 1990.