biliter variantur. Non enim cadit in homine varietates et dolos earum posse describere, cum magis quam dici possint, sint earum volubilia proposita nequiora." (Historia Trojana sig. i, 3, rect, I, 41–2, 15.)

Thus the object of Benoit and of Guido was not, like that of Chaucer, artistic but didactic. A disfigured Briseida must accordingly have proved indifferent, if not actually serviceable, to their design. But with Chaucer the case was otherwise. A physical defect that might readily pass unchallenged when admitted by authors whose purpose it is to hold their heroine up to ignominy and contempt, cannot fail to excite surprise when allowed by an author whose object it is to enlist the reader's sympathy for his heroine. Evidently therefore we cannot throw the initial blame for Chaucer's artistic lapse back upon the shoulders of his French and Latin predecessors. Nor can it be maintained that Chaucer merely copied inadvertently a representation appropriate enough for their purpose but out of keeping with his own. The English poet is not in the habit of falling asleep in this manner-particularly in the case of a heroine. Much more probable is it that we have to do with an instance in which Chaucer sought above all else to comply with the facts of history and indeed for the very reason that Criseyde was his heroine felt it incumbent upon him to paint her as she was-not as she might have been. In matters historical-or supposedly historical-a scrupulously conscientious fidelity to sources was, as we know, a characteristic of the author of the Troilus and Criseyde no less than of his contemporaries. Moreover in the telling of the Trojan story the English poet had peculiar reasons to sacrifice art to accuracy. For had he

'Serviceable if we may suppose that the disapprobation visited upon knit eye-brows by Benoit and Guido was due to the fact that they regarded them less as a mark of physical ugliness than as a sign of moral obliquity. Countenance is given to this interpretation by the example of Benoit's eleventh century Byzantine contemporary Johannes Tzetzes who in his Ante-Homerica (vs. 355-7) represents Briseis as one (to translate freely) 'whose sweet smiles did not disguise the fact that she possessed knit eye-brows.' Hamilton, G. L. (Modern Language Notes XX, 80), to be sure, while admitting moral disapprobation on the part of Tzetzes, denies it on the part of Benoit. But certainly Benoit's attitude towards women in general and towards Briseida in particular is sufficiently censorious to justify amply the conclusion that he too regarded Briseida's knit eye-brows as constituting a sort of bar sinister in her temperamental endowment.

not in the history of Dares Phrygius, whom he twice cites in the Trolar 1. 146; V, 1 the record of a personal participant in the Trojan war and an eye-witness of that event (De Excidio Trojac Historis, ed. Meister, F., cap. XII? And was it not with a view to providing special authentication for his portraits of the Trojans (cap. XII, and of the Greeks (cap. XIII) that Dares thus particularizes with regard to his identity? For why otherwise should he have placed the foregoing specifications with regard to himself immediately in front of his list of portraits and why in particular should he have been so careful to explain the precise occasions upon which he beheld these Greeks and Trojans, viz. partly during periods of war and partly during intervals of peace? Particularly valuable, of course, must have been his testimony with regard to the exact appearance of Briseida since she was a Trojan and he had fought on the side of the Trojans (cap. XLIV). Now this information respecting Dares, despite his two citations of that author, Chaucer did not glean directly from the Historia. There is no reason to suppose that he ever possessed direct access to the annals of the Phrygian soldier (cf. Young, K., The Origin and Development of the Story of Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer Society, 1908, p. 106, n, 2). Indeed had he enjoyed such access he could hardly have been led into his present blunder. For while Dares records 'supercilia juncta' among the various attributes that go to make up his portrait of Briseida (cap. XIII), he abstains altogether from passing any derogatory comment thereupon. Nor can we doubt that he intended it as a mark of beauty. Such was the interpretation it regularly bore among the ancients (cf. Fürst, J., Philologus LXI, 387) and Dares, if not himself an ancient, was certainly dependent upon antique authors (cf. my Dares and Dictys, Furst and Co., Baltimore, 1907, p. 5. n. 3). Moreover since all the other specifications with which this of the joined eye-brows is associated are without exception complimentary, there can be no doubt that this one as well was intended by the author to be so construed. In any case the absence of any derogatory reference to knit eye-brows

• Since Dictys is now known to have been a Greek author, presumably of the age of Nero, there is no good reason to doubt that his fellow author Dares w sa likewise a Greek of about the same date.

on the part of Dares would have enabled Chaucer to save himself the necessity of adverse comment, had he enjoyed opportunity to consult that author directly. Young has, however, shown (op. cit. pp. 105ff.), by the adduction of a number of verbal parallels, that it was in all probability Benoit and Guido whom Chaucer had in mind when he cites Dares (I, 146; V, 1771). Both Benoit and Guido refer constantly to Dares throughout their respective histories and it would accordingly appear that in the two foregoing citations Chaucer is seeking merely, in compliance with a practice well nigh universal in the Middle Ages, to win superior authority for his recital by naming an ulterior rather than an immediate source. But whether or no it may have been Benoit and Guido to whom Chaucer is referring under the name of Dares, it was certainly from them that he derived his unflattering allusion to the knit eye-brows

'It is possible, though by no means probable, that it is Joseph of Exeter rather than Benoit or Guido to whom Chaucer is referring under the name of Dares. The two particulars for which Chaucer cites the authority of Dares are the capture of Troy (I, 146) and the prowess of Troilus (V, 1771). The capture of Troy is treated at length by Benoit (vv. 25945-6590) and by Guido (sig. m, 5 vers. 2, I—n. I, rect. I, 29). It is treated also as Root observes (op. cit., p. 5) by Joseph of Exeter in the sixth book of his history. Since, however, Chaucer passes over the incident in silence, as lying outside the scope of his poem, it would be impossible to determine to whom he is here referring. To the bravery of Troilus, however, which naturally lies very much within the province of his poem, Chaucer devotes no inconsiderable amount of attention (I, 482-3, 1074; III, 1775; V, 1755-6, 1802-4) and in one instance at least, as Young has shown (p. 130), in close conformity with Benoit and Guido, who likewise have much to say of the exploits of Troilus (Roman de Troie vv, 19955-20042; 20451-620; Historia Trojana sig. k, 5, vers. I, 16—6, vers. I, 22; 1. I, rect. 2, 19-vers. I, 34). As to whether or no Joseph of Exeter, who though he omits altogether the story of his love for Briseis has touched in at least two passages upon the exploits of Troilus, deals with them in a manner at all closely resembling Chaucer's, the author of the article in question says nothing. In so far as the Troilus is concerned that critic had, of course, set before himself simply the task of pointing out the indebtedness of Chaucer to Joseph in so far only as regards the portraits. It is therefore a little unfortunate that he should have selected for the title of his article Chaucer's Dares. For while that title, as the writer remarks (p. 5), was not unnaturally suggested by the occurrence, in early mss. of Joseph's history, of the title Frigii Daretis Ylias in place of the more modern title De Bello Trojano, it nevertheless conveys the impression that the author has prejudged his case and means to go so far as to claim that it is Joseph of Exeter rather than Benoit and Guido that Chaucer has in mind when he uses

the name Dares.

NATHANTED E. GRIFFIN nave preferred to retain in mather than fasen his matere."

Jettuce is were r gems Day by assuming in mimited

PSYCHOLOGICAL ABNORMALITIES IN

AUGUST STRINDBERG

In his famous preface to "Miss Julia," Strindberg has remonstrated against the customary practice in literature of constructing only simple automatic characters. Human nature is too deep, and possesses too plastic a mobility, and too great a complexity of structure to be disposed of in a sweeping manner. Of this complexity and unfathomableness of the human nature, he himself is the best example. The number of pronounced, and, as it will seem, strangely antagonistic elements of his personality, is the first thing noticed by him who attempts to interpret the character of August Strindberg.

What a soul-complex is his; the full natural force, and the fear, and the unbridled imagination of early man, proud and irresistible in its unsubdued, primitive strength; the love of perfected, ideal beauty of classical Greece; the voluptuous, sensualistic love of art and life, characteristic of the Renaissance; the ethical sternness of the Reformation; the keen intellect of the twentieth century scientist: his intensely sensitive perceptions, his sceptical attitude, ever ready to criticize, dissect and analyze all things, from the chemical solution in his retort to the vaguest moods of the longing soul; the credo quia absurdum-atmosphere of the Middle Ages, where mischievous goblins in the dusk perform their hocus pocus with duped mortals, and witches prepare their mysterious potations in the church yards by night, all the different strata of human civilization seem to have made their deposits to form the phenomenon called August Strindberg. But the process was not of that quiet, unpassionate nature which we find represented in the mind of a scientist, nor like the gentle geologic formations of a plain, but rather the wild strata-formations of a volcanic region, fantastic at times, grandiose often, interesting always, a region where impetuous forces are ever at war with one another. It is on these chaotic depths of strength and weakness, of refined genius and strange abnormality that the modern psychologist has ample opportunity to exercise his analytic acuteness.

'Fröken Julie, Samlade skrifter av August Strindberg, v. XXII, p. 102 ff.