For remarks on the spurious Prologues to this Tale, see vol. iii. p. 434.
For further remarks on the Tale, see the same, p. 435, where its original
is printed in full.
1. The story is told by Livy, lib. iii.; and, of course, his narrative is
the source of all the rest. But Tyrwhitt well remarks, in a note to l.
12074 (i. e. C. 140):--'In the Discourse, &c., I forgot to mention the
Roman de la Rose as one of the sources of this tale; though, upon
examination, I find that our author has drawn more from thence, than from
either Gower or Livy.' It is absurd to argue, as in Bell's Chaucer, that
our poet must necessarily have known Livy 'in the original,' and then to
draw the conclusion that we must look to Livy only as the true source of
the Tale. For it is perfectly obvious that Tyrwhitt is right as regards the
Roman de la Rose; and the belief that Chaucer may have read the tale 'in
the original' does not alter _the fact_ that he trusted much more to the
French text. In this very first line, he is merely quoting Le Roman, ll.
5617, 8:--
'Qui fu fille Virginius,
_Si cum dist Titus Livius_.'
The story in the French text occupies 70 lines (5613-5682, ed. Méon); the
chief points of resemblance are noted below.
Gower has the same story, Conf. Amant. iii. 264-270; but I see no reason
why Chaucer should be considered as indebted to him. It is, however, clear
that, if Chaucer and Gower be here compared, the latter suffers
considerably by the comparison.
Gower gives the names of Icilius, to whom Virginia was betrothed, and of
Marcus Claudius. But Chaucer omits the name Marcus, and ignores the
existence of Icilius. The French text does the same.
11. This is the 'noble goddesse Nature' mentioned in the Parl. of Foules,
ll. 368, 379. Cf. note to l. 16.
14. _Pigmalion_, Pygmalion; alluding to Ovid, Met. x. 247, where it is said
of him:--
'Interea niueum mira feliciter arte
Sculpit ebur, formamque dedit, qua femina nasci
Nulla potest; operisque sui concepit amorem.'
[261]
In the margin of E. Hn. is the note--'Quere in Methamorphosios'; which
supplies the reference; but cf. note to l. 16 below, shewing that Chaucer
also had in his mind Le Roman de la Rose, l. 16379. So also the author of
the Pearl, l. 750; see Morris, Allit. Poems.
16. In the margin of E. Hn. we find the note:--'Apelles fecit mirabile opus
in tumulo Darii; vide in Alexandri libro .1.º [Hn. _has_ .6.º]; de Zanze in
libro Tullii.' This note is doubtless the poet's own; see further, as to
Apelles, in the note to D. 498.
_Zanzis_, Zeuxis. The corruption of the name was easy, owing to the
confusion in MSS. between _n_ and _u_.[26] In the note above, we are
referred to Tullius, i. e. Cicero. Dr. Reid kindly tells me that Zeuxis is
mentioned, with Apelles, in Cicero's De Oratore, iii. § 26, and Brutus, §
70; also, with other artists, in Academia, ii. § 146; De Finibus, ii. §
115; and alone, in De Inventione, ii. § 52, where a long story is told of
him. Cf. note to Troil. iv. 414.
However, the fact is that Chaucer really derived his knowledge of Zeuxis
from Le Roman de la Rose (ed. Méon, l. 16387); for comparison with the
context of that line shews numerous points of resemblance to the present
passage in our author. Jean de Meun is there speaking of Nature, and of the
inability of artists to vie with her, which is precisely Chaucer's argument
here. The passage is too long for quotation, but I may cite such lines as
these:--
'Ne _Pymalion_ entaillier' (l. 16379),
'voire _Apelles_
Que ge moult bon paintre appelles,
Biautés de li james descrive
Ne porroit,' &c. (l. 16381).
'_Zeuxis_ neis par son biau paindre
Ne porroit a tel forme ataindre,' &c. (l. 16387).
Si cum _Tules_ le nous remembre
Ou livre _de sa retorique_'; (l. 16398).
Here the reference is to the passage in De Oratore, iii. § 26.
'Mes ci ne péust-il riens faire
_Zeuxis_, tant séust bien portraire,
Ne colorer sa portraiture,
Tant est de grant biauté _Nature_.' (l. 16401).