Huxtable
1
What Chaucer Did To Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy in his
Troilus and Criseyde
(Unless otherwise stated, quotations are from (a) Boethius. The
Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. V.E. Watts, Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1969. (b) Geoffrey Chaucer. Troilus and Criseyde. The Riverside
Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. Oxford: OUP, 1987. 473-585.)
Overview
These notes work from the premise that Chaucer wrote his Troilus and
Criseyde (c. 1385) having recently translated Boethius’ Latin The
Consolation of Philosophy, (as Boece, c. 1382) and as such, followed the
structure of the latter in forming his version of the Boccaccian story.
Boccaccio’s Il Filostrato was formed from nine cantos whereas Chaucer
imposed a five book structure on the material, which is thereafter a vital
factor in his ability to redistribute the weight of the story into what many
would agree is a more satisfying whole. Brewer (1969) writes,
“…(Chaucer) produces an almost perfectly symmetrical five-book
structure, where the climax of joy and success comes in the middle book.
This rise and fall represents the turn of Fortune’s wheel. Troilus climbs
on the wheel in the first book, reaches its height at the end of the third,
and is eventually utterly cast down in the fifth.” (p.xxii, Brewer, D.S. &
Brewer, L.E.eds. Troilus and Criseyde (Abridged). London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1971.)
Although it has often been noticed that Chaucer’s works are deeply
indebted to Boethius in the philosophical sophistication of his treatment
of his characters, and on his thought in general, there has been less
coverage of the potential for seeing the overarching formation of
Chaucerian fiction in terms of its Boethian legacy. Specific instances of
Boethian influence and borrowings can easily be pointed out, as in the
following lines, (Jefferson, 1917), but the bigger picture can just as easily
be forgotten:
“Troilus, especially, offered Chaucer opportunity for a practical study in
real life of the working out of the Boethian teaching. In the tale as it was
presented to him in the Filostrato of Boccaccio, he saw a capital example
of the sudden reversal of Fortune’s wheel, and an unusually interesting
example of human falseness or lack of steadfastness, of worldly felicity,
and of human affairs directed to a predetermined end by a relentless fate;
and it will be found that most of the extended passages gathered by
Chaucer from sources outside the immediate original, itself influenced
Huxtable
2
somewhat by the Consolation, concern these very things.” (p.120,
Bernard L. Jefferson. Chaucer and The Consolation of Philosophy of
Boethius. New York: Gordian Press, 1917, 1968.)
And a more specific example:
“The first visit of Pandarus to Troilus lying grief-stricken on his bed
seems to recall to Chaucer the similar visit of Dame Philosophy to
Boethius on his bed in prison.” (p. 124, Bernard L. Jefferson. Chaucer
and The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius. New York: Gordian
Press, 1917, 1968.)
If one looks at Chaucer’s development of the story of Troilus in direct
parallel with the development of Boethius’ autobiographical story and
arguments in the Consolation, it is difficult not to see significant
similarities in the manner of their unfolding. My purpose is simply to lay
the two works side by side in the hopes that their paralleling will shed
light upon the structure of Chaucer’s imagination in his writing of one of
his greatest works. (It might at least be a way of understanding why
Chaucer felt obliged to move from a four book tale to one of five books,
having anticipated in the prologue to Book IV that he would have
finished his work by the end of that book:
Thou cruel Mars eek, fader to Quiryne,
This ilke ferthe book me helpeth fyne,
So that the los of lyf and love y-fere
Of Troilus be fully shewed here.
Book I
(a) Boethius – Plot Summary:
The narrator (Boethius) is sheltering in ‘sad songs’, lamenting his fall
from Fortune, when a Lady visits him. She rebukes the Muses of Poetry
that surround his bedside and they leave shamefaced. Her attitude to them
being that:Never do they support those in sorrow by any healing remedies, but
rather do ever foster the sorrow by poisonous sweets. These are they who
stifle the fruit-bearing harvest of reason with the barren briars of the
passions: they free not the minds of men from disease, but accustom
them thereto. (I.i.36.)
Huxtable
3
The Lady is Philosophy and she has come to console the narrator in his
grief. However, our narrator is ‘dumbstruck’ – he has forgotten his true
mind and does not recognize philosophy; hence his despair at the hands of
mere Fortune. Philosophy wipes away his tears (that were blinding him
with worldly cares) and states of his condition,
There is no danger: he is suffering from drowsiness, that disease which
attacks so many minds which have been deceived. He has forgotten
himself for a moment and will quickly remember, as soon as he
recognises me. (I.ii.38.)
The Narrator sees at last that she is Philosophy. He asks if she has come to
‘suffer false accusation’ with him. She says she has indeed come to not
desert him and cites others philosophers whom she has comforted when
Fortune had led them to despair (Socrates, Anaxagoras, Zeno, Canius,
Seneca, Soranus, etc.). She sees this as a typical condition for,
…it is no matter for your wonder if, in this sea of life, we are tossed
about by storms from all sides; for to oppose evil men is the chief aim we
set before ourselves. (I.iii.39.)
Philosophy seeks to find relief for Boethius’ suffering, but first must
diagnose his complaint. He is asked to reveal his wound, which he does
by recounting at length his false accusation and fall from wealth and
power into imprisonment facing execution. His complaint, as such, is
about Fortune, given that he has been unjustly treated:
Fortune should have blushed at the sight of innocence accused, or at least
at the depravity of my accusers. (I.iv.43.)
…it is nothing short of monstrous that God should look on while every
criminal is allowed to achieve his purpose against the innocent. (I.iv.44.)
For the very fact that I am steeped in your [Philosophy’s] teaching and
trained in your morality seems to prove to them that I have been engaged
in evil practice. (I.iv.46.)
The Narrator finishes his lament with an appeal in verse to God, which
summarizes the ‘unfairness’ of Fortune:
O Thou who dost weave the bonds of Nature's self, look down upon this
pitiable earth! Mankind is no base part of this great work, and we are
tossed on Fortune's wave. Restrain, our Guardian, the engulfing surge,
and as Thou dost the unbounded heaven rule, with a like bond make true
and firm these lands. (I.v.48.)
Huxtable
4
Boethius echoes The Lord’s Prayer in its appeal that “Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven” and sees Fortune as the culprit blocking the
rule of Heaven on Earth. Philosophy, in turn, notes that Boethius’
complaint is with Fortune and that in his emotional state is incapable of
any but the lightest of treatments…
…with your anger flaring up against Fortune, and the bitter complaint
that reward is not measured out according to desert… it is as if you had
become swollen and calloused under the influence of these disturbing
passions… (I.v.49.)
Philosophy questions the Narrator to begin disassembling his complaint
against Fortune. It transpires that the ‘missing’ element in his thinking,
that is causing his misery, is his forgetting of the ‘final cause’ – the good
– an absence caused by the (understandable) shaking of his faith under the
present circumstances. The ‘final cause’ needs to be remembered for
peace to return to him, since without such a belief, the ups and downs of
Fortune must be seen to happen haphazardly, and the wicked to have real,
unaccountable power, etc. At this stage, given the heat of Boethius’
emotions, Philosophy can only stress (in verse) the need for mental clarity
in order to see the truth, for emotions, be they + or – , cloud and chain the
mind:
If thou wouldst see the truth in undimmed light, choose the straight road,
the beaten path; away with passing joys! away with fear! put vain hopes
to flight! and grant no place to grief! Where these distractions reign, the
mind is clouded o'er, the soul is bound in chains. (I.vii.52-3.)
(b) Chaucer – Plot Summary:
Chaucer invokes the Fury ‘Tisiphone’ to aid him in his telling of a
sorrowful tale. She represents, as such, his troubled conscience in telling
a story in which right and wrong are weighed against Fortune and
Providence. The Muses are not welcome here, perhaps because Chaucer
takes Boethius’ Philosophy to heart – they cannot provide solace, only
provoke emotion:The double sorwe of Troilus to tellen,
That was the king Priamus sone of Troye,
In lovinge, how his aventures fellen
Fro wo to wele, and after out of Ioye,
My purpos is, er that I parte fro ye.
Thesiphone, thou help me for tendyte
Thise woful vers, that wepen as I wryte!
Huxtable
5
(I.477. 1-7.)
Chaucer goes on to present for prayer all those who have experienced
Love, be it well or no, in recognition of Troilus’ suffering in this regard.
He is openhanded in his regard for human love as a phenomenon. His job
is to tell a tale and leave the wondering to his readership.
For so hope I my soule best avaunce,
To preye for hem that Loves servaunts be,
And wryte hir wo, and live in charitee.
And for to have of hem compassioun
As though I were hir owene brother dere.
(I.477-8. 47-51.)
Chaucer proceeds to rehearse the matter of Troy such as it effects his
planned story. It is set in terms of Fortune and Destiny – the destiny of
Troy to fall (such that ‘wise man of foreknowledge’ Calchas flees,
leaving his daughter Criseyde behind to face shame and then Troilus’
passionate embrace) and the Fortune of the Greeks and Trojans in
experiencing their numerous ups and downs along the way (such that the
destined Greek victory is ultimately produced via Fortune, but in
accordance with their overall Destiny, so that all individual efforts
towards that end are subsumed and demeaned). Finally the matter is left
to other sources to tell (Homer, Darys, Dichtus, et al) since it is of little
import for the fateful story about to be told, except to mark out a
background involving exactly the same dilemmas (Fate vs. Fortune vs.
Providence vs. Freewill) on a grander, more political, scale:
The thinges fellen, as they doon of werre,
Bitwixen hem of Troye and Grekes ofte;
For som day boughten they of Troye it derre,
And eft the Grekes founden no thing softe
The folk of Troye; and thus fortune on-lofte,
And under eft, gan hem to wheelen bothe
After hir cours, ay whyl they were wrothe.
But how this toun com to destruccioun
Ne falleth nought to purpos me to telle;
For it were a long digressioun
Fro my matere, and yow to longe dwelle.
But the Troyane gestes, as they felle,
In Omer, or in Dares, or in Dyte,
Who-so that can, may rede hem as they wryte.
(I.475. 134-147.)
Huxtable
6
Troilus falls in love with the attractive widow Criseyde and suffers for his
concealed passion. He is (in this alone) like Boethius, caught on the horns
of Fortune, and his lament gains gravity (via Chaucer) by infusion from
the deeper concerns of Boethius’ Philosophy’s riposte to his complaint
against Fortune:
So muche, day by day, his owene thought,
For lust to hir, gan quiken and encrese,
That every other charge he sette at nought;
For-thy ful ofte, his hote fyr to cese,
To seen hir goodly look he gan to prese;
For ther-by to ben esed wel he wende,
And ay the ner he was, the more he brende.
For ay the ner the fyr, the hotter is,
This, trowe I, knoweth al this companye.
But were he fer or neer, I dar seye this,
By night or day, for wisdom or folye,
His herte, which that is his brestes ye,
Was ay on hir, that fairer was to sene
Than ever were Eleyne or Polixene.
(I.479. 442-455.)
Troilus is clouded and chained by emotion and cannot see his way to
satisfaction. His friend Pandarus consoles him and eventually gets him to
‘show his wound’ and allow him to begin finding its remedy. Troilus’
insensibility is likened to an ass hearing but not comprehending music –
an image drawn from Boethius:
What? Slombrestow as in a lytargye?
Or artow lyk an asse to the harpe,
That hereth soun, whan men the strenges plye,
But in his minde of that no melodye
May sinken, him to glade, for that he
So dul is of his bestialitee?
(I.483. 730-735.)
Pandarus succeeds in raising Troilus from his bed of lovesickness by his
hopeful advice – simply to find out her feelings and offer his service. As
such Fortune is to be contested as the final mediator of reality. Where the
Consolation’s Book I ends in appeal for clarity and calm to ‘remember’
why it is that Fortune cannot take away what is of true value, Troilus’
Book I ends with the recognition that what a lover values will come
eventually from Fortune’s hand – but will peace follow?
Quod Pandarus, `Than blamestow Fortune
For thou art wrooth, ye, now at erst I see;
Huxtable
7
Wostow nat wel that Fortune is commune
To every maner wight in som degree?
And yet thou hast this comfort, lo, pardee!
That, as hir Ioyes moten over-goon,
So mote hir sorwes passen everichoon.
`For if hir wheel stinte any-thing to torne,
Than cessed she Fortune anoon to be:
Now, sith hir wheel by no wey may soiorne,
What wostow if hir mutabilitee
Right as thy-selven list, wol doon by thee,
Or that she be not fer fro thyn helpinge?
Paraunter, thou hast cause for to singe!
(I.485. 841-854.)
Chaucer’s Pandarus advances Boethius’ conception of the wheel of
Fortune and hence its intrinsic mutability. He would see hope for Troilus
in the fact that if he is ‘down’ now, he may/will be ‘up’ later…Troilus’
world becomes positive as he sets his hope on Pandarus to find a way to
Criseyde’s heart. Pandarus, as a servant of Love, comically mirrors
Philosophy as the servant of Truth. Both will seek to bring healing, only
one will bring lasting peace.
Summary
There follows a brief summary of the further plot paralleling of Troilus
and the Consolation, to be explored elsewhere.
 Book II (Consolation)
Of the intrinsically mutable nature of Fortune and hence Boethius’ lack of
grounds for complaining about the bad, having enjoyed the good.
 Book II (Troilus)
Of the courtship – Pandarus’ contrivances and cajoling to bring Troilus
and Criseyde together.
 Book III (Consolation)
The nature of the ‘good’ as true happiness which is located in God. The
pleasures and ‘goods’ men seek are but the shadows of that which makes
Huxtable
8
men happy. Man’s natural state is to seek God. To reject God’s true
goodness is the unnatural/inhuman state of wickedness – evil is nothing
and the wicked powerless. True happiness is only to be obtained through
devotion to God.
 Book III (Troilus)
The consummation of T&C’s relationship. Happiness is attained, but in
the service of a passionate goddess of Love, not the God of true
happiness.
 Book IV (Consolation)
God is the still centre of the wheel of Fortune – towards him we must
progress to attain freedom and happiness. From this perspective, all
Fortune is ‘good’. It rewards or disciplines, corrects or punishes to aid us
in our path towards God.
 Book IV (Troilus)
The separation. T&C are torn apart by Fortune’s Wheel. Chaucer raises
the spectre of questioning the part divine foreknowledge plays in all this
unjust suffering.
 Book V (Consolation)
Philosophy defends the freedom of the will from the implications of
Divine Foreknowledge. God secures our freedom and it is to him that we
are accountable for it. Our praise is due.
 Book V (Troilus)
Criseyde’s inconstancy and Troilus’ despair. Chaucer looks to God to
help us to understand the humanity of the sorrowful situation. He is the
final judge of reality and it is to him that our responses will finally repair.
Overall, one might say that Chaucer responds, book by book, to Boethius.
However, he is ahead of Boethius’ arguments and sets him problems,
which Boethius’ Philosophy can then be seen to be answering, both as
Huxtable
9
logical problems and as lived events in Chaucer’s Troy. Finally,
therefore, Chaucer is still ahead at the end – to leave one last question not
able to be directly answered by Philosophy:- If our freewill cannot but
make us unworthy of God’s happiness and peace (like Criseyde and
Troilus) in that our choices (focused upon happiness in terms of human
love) fail to move us away from the dictates of Fortune, how is it possible
to reach the still centre that is God? Chaucer answers this by appeal to
Jesus’ grace, a factor that cannot be explicitly stated in Boethius’
Consolation, (though it is implicit) in that it is the Consolation of
Philosophy and not of Faith:
Thou oon, and two, and three, eterne on-lyve,
That regnest ay in three and two and oon,
Uncircumscript, and al mayst circumscryve,
Us from visible and invisible foon
Defende; and to thy mercy, everichoon,
So make us, Iesus, for thy grace digne,
For love of mayde and moder thyn benigne! Amen.
(V.585. 1863-69.)