ABSTRACT
Having formed some general estimate of Chaucer's attitude towards the FZlostrato, we may now concentrate upon the detailed business of his makinge. Chaucer's general restructuring and amplification of the Ftlostrato need not detain us here: this subject has been considered by a succession of scholars, and their findings have been intelligently summarized and improved upon by Robert Payne (Key 0/ Remembrance 177-88). We will seek, rather, to observe the fine details of Chaucer's reactions to the language, syntax and prosody of the Italian poem. Few critics would doubt the value of such close comparative analysis, although some might question the feasibility of applying it to the works of medieval authors. 1 The vagaries of manuscript transmission certainly impede the process of detailed verbal comparison: for we cannot definitively establish what Boccaccio wrote (no autograph Ftlostrato having yet come to light), what Chaucer read, or even what Chaucer himself composed. Such uncertainties do not threaten the general conclusions reached in our last chapter: but the limitations that they impose here must be acknowledged at the outset. It would be foolhardy to hang a thesis upon a single, isolated correspondence of phrasing or syntax. For this reason we will accumulate large numbers of correspondences, juxtaposing-for the most part-complete stanzas of the two poems. The editions of Branca (Opere di EoccacClo) and of Robinson (Works o/Chauce?) are employed throughout.2
