was the direct source of Boccaccio, and with that writer's
_Filostrato_ of Chaucer, and it formed the foundation of almost all
the known Troy-books of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Benoit
being completely forgotten. Yet recent investigation has shown that
Guido not merely adapted Benoit in the usual mediaeval fashion, but
followed him so closely that his work might rather be called
translation than adaptation. At any rate, beyond a few details he has
added nothing to the story of Troilus and Cressida as Benoit left it,
and as, in default of all evidence to the contrary, it is only fair to
conclude that he made it.

From the date, 1287, of Guido delle Colonne's version, it follows
necessarily that all the vernacular Troy-books--our own _Destruction
of Troy_,[85] the French prose romance of _Troilus_,[86] &c., not to
mention Lydgate and others--fall like Boccaccio and Chaucer out of the
limits of this volume. Nor can it be necessary to enter into detail as
to the other classical French romances, the _Roman de Thebes_, the
_Roman d'Eneas_, the _Roman de Jules Cesar_, _Athis and Profilias_,
and the rest;[87] while something will be said of the German AEneid of
H. von Veldeke in a future chapter. The capital examples of the
Alexandreid and the Iliad, as understood by the Middle Ages, not only
must but actually do suffice for our purpose.

[Footnote 85: Ed. Panton and Donaldson, E.E.T.S. London, 1869-74.]

[Footnote 86: Ed. Moland and d'Hericault, _op. cit._]

[Footnote 87: The section on "L'Epopee Antique" in M. Petit de
Julleville's book, more than once referred to, is by M. Leopold
Constans, editor of the _Roman de Thebes_, and will be found useful.]

[Sidenote: _Meaning of the classical romance._]

And we see from them very well not merely in what light the Middle
Ages regarded the classical stories, but also to what extent the
classical stories affected the Middle Ages. This latter point is of
the more importance in that even yet the exact bearing and meaning of
the Renaissance in this respect is by no means universally
comprehended. It may be hoped, if not very certainly trusted, that
most educated persons have now got rid of the eighteenth-century
notion of mediaeval times as being almost totally ignorant of the
classics themselves, a notion which careful reading of Chaucer alone
should be quite sufficient to dispel. The fact of course is, that all
through the Middle Ages the Latin classics were known,