by a_hnau » July 10th, 2009, 4:20 pm
Well remembered, Sven. To follow up on this, not quite on topic but interesting I hope; one of my treasured legacies from my departed and sorely missed friend A K (Jake) Barton, is that he left to me his Oxford notebooks from almost this exact period of time when he studied under Lewis; I have them in front of me now. I don't think they are verbatim lecture notes, but appear to me more like revision work. I did begin to transcribe some of the more salient portions, here are some excerpts with one or two of my editorial comments.
The notes are obviously textually related to Lewis’s essay “What Chaucer really did to Il Filostrato”, published in Essays and Studies, XIX, 1932.
The massively interesting question is, did AKB get his notes from Essays and Studies, or – my hope – did he get them from a lecture by Lewis on the topic which Lewis gave while the published essay was in preparation?
(seems that I actually went back to Lewis's published essay and did a line-by-line comparison with these notes; the plain text is transcribed directly from the notebooks, while italicised passages are from the published work.)
1931?2 Il Filostrato & Troilus & Creseyde C.S.Lewis
At this time Chaucer not yet the Chaucer of the Tales. The author of the translation of R de la R & Duchesse the greatest English interpretation of l’amour courtoise.
He was not yet the Chaucer of the Canterbury Tales: he was the grant translateur of the Roman de la Rose, the author of the Book of the Duchesse, … In other words he was the greatest living interpreter in English of l’amour courtoise.
Majority of Chaucerian modification = rectification of errors committed by Boccaccio ?re courtly love.
The majority of his modifications are corrections of errors which Boccaccio had committed against the code of courtly love.
I. Constantly refers to his authorities or to authors where further information may be found;
[Roman numeral I] For the same reason they will want to know his authorities. … [he] adds what is almost a footnote to tell his audience where they can find that missing part of the story – ‘in Omer, or in Dares, or in Dyte’.
“… in Omer or in Dares or in Dyte” [Book I, line 146]
Inserts into speech of Calchas an a/c of battle between Phoebus, Neptune, and Laomedon [Book V, line 71ff]
Thus again, in IV, 120 et seq., Chaucer inserts into the speech of Calchas an account of the quarrel between Phebus and Neptunus and Lameadoun [sic].
II. “Amplified” Boccaccio in his “rhetorical” style
[Roman numeral II] … a cursory glance shows that Chaucer found his original too short and proceeded in many places to amplify it.
(a) substituted invocation to Thesephone for Muses []
He began by abandoning the device – that of invoking his lady instead of the Muses – whereby Boccaccio had given a lyrical instead of a rhetorical turn to the invocation, and substituted an address to Thesiphone.
(b) inserted a description of the month of May
Almost immediately afterwards he inserted a descriptio of the month of May.
(c) inserted 16 lines to Night in a short speech of Criseida expressing her sorrow at coming parting
… he found a short speech by Criseida, expressing her sorrow at the parting which dawn necessitated: but this was not enough for him … He therefore inserted sixteen lines of address to Night.
III. Poet of “doctrine”
[Roman numeral III] Chaucer approached his work as a poet of doctryne and sentence.
Boethian discussion is followed in act iv.
The example which will leap to everyone’s mind is the Boethian discussion on free will (IV, 946-1078).
NB. The edification of the reader by Chaucer’s doctrine and amusement by Pandarus’ platitudes.
His readers were to be, first of all, edified by the doctrine for its own sake, and then (slightly) amused by the contrast between this edification and Troilus’ obstinate attitude of the plain man … a loquacious and unscrupulous old uncle talks solemn platitude at interminable length.
IV. Poet of courtly love
[Roman numeral IV] Finally, Chaucer approached his work as the poet of courtly love.
(a) makes Troilus a ?mere member of the courtly world smitten by love. No lady-killer like B. Like the Dreamer he plays “along full merily” until he looks into the fatal well.
Troilus, an unattached young member of the courtly world… is smitten with Love. In the same way the Dreamer having been admitted by Ydelnesse into the garden goes ‘Pleying along ful merily’ until he looks in the fatal well.
(b) inserts a moral tone emphasising the dangers of hubris v love and the certainty of failure. Exhorts his readers to avoid T’s error, because a) irresistible b) ‘vertuous in kinde’.
In strict obedience to this tradition Chaucer inserts his lines 214-31, emphasising the dangers of hubris against Love and the certainty of its ultimate failure. … He adds four stanzas more (239-66) in which he directly exhorts his readers to avoid the error of Troilus, and that for two reasons: firstly because Love cannot be resisted (…); and secondly because Love is a thing ‘so vertuous in kinde’.
(c) alters the scoffing attitude of Troilus
In lines 330-50 Chaucer again returns to Troilus’ scoffing.
B.’s based on contempt of women.
Boccaccio’s is based on contempt for women.
C’s [based on] hardships of love’s cult.
Chaucer’s is based on the hardships of love’s lay or religion.
(d) difference between B&C Troilus’ revelation of name of his lover.
[long example of both dialogues]
(e) difference in character of P after the revelation.
[discussion of the responses of Boccaccio’s Pandarus vs. Chaucer’s]
Urendi Maleldil