division of the romances of
antiquity does not exhibit the more fertile, the more inventive, the
more poetical, and generally the nobler traits of Middle-Age
literature. As will have been noted, there was little invention in the
later versions, the Callisthenic fictions and the _Iter ad Paradisum_
being, with a few Oriental accretions, almost slavishly relied upon
for furnishing out the main story, though the "Foray of Gaza," the
"Vows of the Peacock," and _Florimont_ exhibit greater independence.
Yet again no character, no taking and lively story, is elaborated.
Nectanabus has a certain personal interest: but he was given to, not
invented by, the Romance writers. Olympias has very little character
in more senses than one: Candace is not worked out: and Alexander
himself is entirely colourless. The fantastic story, and the wonders
with which it was bespread, seem to have absorbed the attention of
writers and hearers; and nobody seems to have thought of any more.
Perhaps this was merely due to the fact that none of the more original
genius of the time was directed on it: perhaps to the fact that the
historical element in the story, small as it was, cramped the
inventive powers, and prevented the romancers from doing their best.

[Sidenote: _The Tale of Troy._]

In this respect the Tale of Troy presents a remarkable contrast to its
great companion--a contrast pervading, and almost too remarkable to be
accidental. Inasmuch as this part of mediaeval dealings with antiquity
connects itself with the literary history of two of the very greatest
writers of our own country, Chaucer and Shakespeare; with that of one
of the greatest writers of Italy, Boccaccio; and with some of the most
noteworthy work in Old French, it has been thoroughly and repeatedly
investigated.[82] But it is so important, and so characteristic of
the time with which we are dealing, that it cannot be passed over
here, though the later developments must only be referred to in so far
as they help us to understand the real originality, which was so long,
and still is sometimes, denied to mediaeval writers. In this case, as
in the other, the first striking point is the fact that the Middle
Ages, having before them what may be called, _mutatis mutandis_,
canonical and apocryphal, authentic and unauthentic, ancient and not
ancient, accounts of a great literary matter, chose, by an instinct
which was not probably so wrong as it has sometimes seemed, the
apocryph