CHAUCER'S CAREER AND HIS RELATION TO JOHN OF GAUNT
What then is the bearing of all this upon Chaucer's career? Let us take up the matter point by point. In the first place it is clear that although in a few cases the esquires were connected with important families, in none did any come from a major branch of an important family and in most the derivation is from ordinary stock. Chaucer was then associated with a group of men who came from much the same class as himself. [Footnote: Cf., pp. 6-11 above.] Secondly it appears that the esquires were frequently the sons of men connected in some way with the court. [Footnote: p. 12.] In this respect also Chaucer, was like his associates, for his father, in 1338 at least was in the King's service. [Footnote: L. R. No. 13, p. 145 Intro. p. XI.] Further many of the esquires had served in the household of one of the King's children before becoming members of the King's household. In this respect also Chaucer with his service in the Duke of Clarence's house was like a number of his fellows.
The exact nature of Chaucer's position in the household it is difficult to discover. Dr. Furnivall supposed from an entry of May 25, 1368, the second half yearly payment of Chaucer's annuity, that he was first a "vallettus" of the King's chamber. [Footnote: L. R. No. 50, p. 161.] But it is by no means certain that this is correct. Chaucer is called "vallettus" of the King's chamber only once; in all other early references he is described, if at all, as "vallectus hospicii Regis." There is, I believe, a difference between these two. As I have already pointed out, [Footnote: p. 17 above.] a certain confusion with regard to the use of such phrases undoubtedly exists in the records. As evidence of this confusion we find men called "vallettus" after they have been called "armiger," and sometimes men who are normally called "vallettus camere Regis" named as "vallettus hospicii Regis." Yet if we look up the entries with regard to the men called "valletz de la chambre du Roi" in the list of 1368, [Footnote: L. R., p. 167. 'In many cases, of course, they are called merely "vallettus noster," "dileatus vallettus" or "dileatus servitor."] we find that in such records as the Patent Rolls where DEFINITELY characterized, they are generally referred to as "vallettus camere nostre." For example, William Gambon is so titled seven times and never as "vallettus hospicii nostri." [Footnote: Pat. Roll 285, mem. 2, idem 274, mem. 37, 257, mem. 25. Cal. Pat. Roll 1377, p. 79. Issues, P. 228, mem. 17. C. R. 207, mem. 12. Pat. Roll 295, mem. 26.] Reginald Neuport is called six times "vallettus camere Regis." [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 139. Issues, P. 237, mem. 17. P. 249, mem. 3. P. 251, mem. Pat. Roll 288, mem. 21, etc.] John Tipet is called the same at least five times, and never by any other title. [Footnote: Issues A 169, mem. 35. P. 228, mem. 17. P. 228, mem. 38. P. 235, mem. 20, etc.] Thomas Cheyne is called "vallettus camere Regis" five times. [Footnote: Pat. Roll 262, mem. 23, 254, mem. 4, 255, mem. 25. Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon. p. 174. Abb. Rot. Orig. II, 222.] Thomas Loveden alone is called "vallettus hospicii Regis" twice and "vallettus camere" once. [Footnote: Issues, P. 287, mem. 8. p. 250, mem. 1. Pat. Roll 266, mem. 5.] Under the circumstances, if Chaucer ever was a "vallettus camerae Regis," we should expect him to have been so called more than once. It seems rather more likely that his proper position was that of "vallettus hospicii Regis" [Footnote: The household books, published in the Chaucer Records, recognize no such classification as "vallettus hospicii Regis," pet the records certainly point to the existence of such a classification.] and later of course, "armiger" or "scutifer." This view is of course supported by the fact that in the household lists his name does not appear in 1368 as a "vallet de la chambre du Roi" or in 1369 even near the names of men who had been "valletti" of the King's chamber. Further that Chaucer's position by 1363 was distinctly honourable appears from the fact that his name appears as Esquier among a group of men who were not engaged in menial occupations of any kind—as distinguished from the cooks and farriers of the groups called "esquiers survenantz" and "sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon."
With regard to Chaucer's employment as an envoy abroad, it is clear that he was, when so engaged, performing a customary service, that indeed he was one of several who were constantly used in minor missions abroad and that his rank and duties were similar to those of a King's messenger today. [Footnote: Cf. pp. 19, 20 above.] Likewise the rewards which Chaucer received were not extraordinary. Practically every esquire of Chaucer's rank who remained for any considerable time in the court received an annuity; evidently such pensions were part of the perquisites of the office. A few esquires received a smaller annuity than Chaucer's, many received about the same amount, and, many received more. [Footnote: Cf. p. 21 ff.] Similarly the special offices which Chaucer held, particularly his controllerships, were not evidences of remarkable favour: other esquires received the same kind of offices and indeed they were apparently regular sinecures for the members of the King's household. [Footnote: Cf. p. 22 ff.] So also the grant of wardships and forfeited goods can be paralleled in many cases. In two respects Chaucer received rather less than the other esquires—he was given no corrody and no grant of land.
In one more respect can Chaucer's career be paralleled by that of other "esquires"—in that of his marriage. Marriages between the esquires of the King and the damsels of the queen were decidedly frequent. [Footnote: Cf. p. 25 ff.]
Indeed, it is clear from the study of the careers of the other esquires that, so far as we know, Chaucer received no exceptional favours, and that his career was in practically every respect a typical esquire's career.
In all this then there is no evidence that Chaucer enjoyed the favour of any particular patron. Aside from the fact that, like Chaucer, some of the esquires had served in the household of one of the King's children before entering the King's, I have been able in no case to find evidence of connection between them and any patron. Since Chaucer received no more favours than did the average esquire, there is no particular reason to suppose that he had any patron.
Now let us examine the evidence in favour of his close connection with John of Gaunt. We have two pieces of definite evidence of a connection between Chaucer and John of Gaunt; Chaucer's writing (probably shortly after 1369) of the Book of the Duchess, and John of Gaunt's grant of an annuity of ten pounds in June 1374. The former does not prove anything with regard to a definite relation; such complimentary poems were commonly written for nobles who were not special patrons of the poets; and Chaucer in his Parlement of Foules possibly complimented Richard II in much the same way. In regard to the latter piece of evidence—John of Gaunt's grant of an annuity—two things are to be noted, first that John of Gaunt had previously given an annuity to Philippa Chaucer (in 1372) and, second, that in the grant he gives the cause of making it to Chaucer as services rendered by Chaucer to the Duke and by Chaucer's wife to Queen Philippa and the Duke's Consort. In the grant to Philippa on the other hand no mention is made of Geoffrey. This greater particularity in the statement of Philippa's services in Geoffrey's grant, the fact that Philippa was in the duke's household (evidenced by the Christmas gifts of silver cups to her) and the fact that nothing else connects Chaucer definitely with John of Gaunt, make it seem almost certain that the grant of an annuity to Chaucer was made merely in order to increase the sum given to Philippa. Grants of this time which mention the services of both husband and wife are usually made out to both, and undoubtedly in this case the real purpose was to give it to Philippa and her husband.
On the other hand, if John of Gaunt really was "Chaucer's great patron," why did he not give the poet employment in his own household? Anyone who will run thru the Lancashire Registers of this time will be struck with the immensity of the duke's income and the regal scale of his household. [Footnote: Cf. Abstracts and Indexes I f. 13'7 dorso. Warrant to deliver to a damsel for the queen (i.e. John of Gaunt's Spanish wife) 1708 pearls of the largest, 2000 of the second sort. Warrant to bring him at the Savoy all the Rolls of Accounts of all his Recevors General and of his Treasurers of War and of the Household and other officers of the Household, there to be deposited and safely kept. Next page-long list of jewels.] Surely had he wished to patronize the poet, he could have done so most easily and most surely by giving him some honorable post in his own control. Why should he have taken the difficult method of procuring him precarious offices under the King!
Since the assertions with regard to John of Gaunt's ascendancy over Chaucer's career have been so common, however, we ought to take up the matter point by point. We have no reason to connect John of Gaunt with Chaucer's start in the world—his employment in the household of the Countess of Clarence. We know that Chaucer's father had relations with the court and, although merely a merchant, he may very likely have secured Chaucer's appointment to the place in the Countess's household, as the fathers of Simon de Burley (not a merchant, but a man of no rank), Michael de la Pole, (a merchant), John Legge, Thomas Frowyk and Thomas Hauteyn obtained appointments for their children in the households of the Prince of Wales and of the King. This was an age when the merchant class was obtaining unusual power and privileges. Richard II, it will be remembered, was called the "Londoner's King." It has been shown that John of Gaunt visited the Countess of Clarence at Christmas 1357, and it has been suggested that he may have met Chaucer then and taken a liking to him. Of actual meeting, however, we have no proof. Chaucer was in the service of the Duke of Clarence in October 1860. [Footnote: See Modern Lang. Notes March 1912 article of Dr. Samuel Moore on The New Chaucer Item.]; the Duchess of Clarence died in 1363; and we learn of him next in the King's household in 1367. The transition from the household of the wife of one of the King's sons to that of the King himself is one which can be paralleled in many cases; we have no need to suppose patronage on the part of the Duke of Lancaster to account for it. As a matter of fact we have no reason to suppose that John of Gaunt knew anything of Chaucer at this time.
The diplomatic missions, and the grants of annuities and offices were not, as I have shown, evidences of special favour; they were a regular thing in the King's court. We have no reason to suppose that John of Gaunt's influence in favour of Chaucer was a cause for any of them. Further John of Gaunt's influence would have been worthless in helping Chaucer to become Justice of the Peace in Kent in 1385. This appointment must have been made by the Chancellor—Michael de la Pole—possibly at the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County or the Custos Rotulorum. Whether there was a Lord Lieutenant of Kent or not, I do not know. At any rate the constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports (at this time Simon de Burley) held powers in Kent similar to those of a lord lieutenant, and he occupies the position of the lord lieutenant in the list of Justices of the Peace—at the top. Both de la Pole and de Burley were enemies of John of Gaunt. Even if the appointment was not due to them, we cannot ascribe it to John of Gaunt, for I have been able to find no evidence that John of Gaunt had influence in Kent, or that he controlled any of the other Justices.
Furthermore that Chaucer did not owe his place in the customs to the influence of John of Gaunt is clear from the fact that the collectorships of customs in London, at any rate, were controlled by the duke's enemies. If they had sufficient power with the king to gain control of those offices, it hardly seems likely that the King would appoint a member of the faction opposed to them to serve with them. It is to be noted also that Chaucer on account of the business connections of his family—his father was a vintner and another relative evidently a pepperer—would be more likely to sympathize with the party of Brembre than with that of Northampton.
Now we come to a point where nearly all writers on Chaucer make inferences in regard to John of Gaunt's influence—Chaucer's separation from the office of controller of the customs. Most writers have said more or less directly that Chaucer lost the office because John of Gaunt had left England earlier in the same year. The facts themselves show indubitably that Chaucer's leaving office was in no respect due to John of Gaunt's departure. Before discussing this matter, I must say a word about the political situation before 1386 and in that year. At the very end of Edward III's reign John of Gaunt, who had been the real power since the death of the Black Prince, became extremely unpopular because of his bad administration of the government and his quarrels with the Condoners. This unpopularity continued both in the court and without. Under the new King the great duke had little influence; he was not even included in the great council appointed to control the government during the King's minority. Further a group of young men, connected with the King, gradually assumed charge of affairs—Michael de la Pole, Robert de Vere and others. These men were outright enemies of John of Gaunt; according to the stories of the time they even made plots to poison and to stab him. He himself retired from active political life and, apparently, largely because he saw no chance for gaining great power in England, turned his attention to his Spanish projects; [Footnote: Trevelyan's view.] and in 1386 he left England for Spain. Others of the great lords, however, were not content to play a passive role; the brother of John of Gaunt, Gloucester, as leader, and the Earl of Arundel and Warwick, most prominent followers, were particularly violent in their attacks on the King and his friends. To revert now to Chaucer's case: these are the significant facts in their order:
End of March, 1386 [Footnote: Or July 7 according to Oman.] John of
Gaunt leaves England.
October 24, 1386 Gloucester, Arundel et al. succeed in ousting
Michael de la Pole and the King's other cabinet officers.
December, 1386 Adam Yardley and Henry Gisors are appointed to
Chaucer's places in the customs.
These dates speak for themselves; they show indubitably that Chaucer was not removed from office shortly after John of Gaunt's departure; that he was not removed from office (if at all) until the friends of John of Gaunt, the men who represented his interests, [Footnote: In the following year his son and heir, the Earl of Derby, was one of the "lord appellants"] had in some measure at least gained the government of the Kingdom.
A similar condition of affairs appears when Chaucer was appointed to his next office in 1389.
May, 1389 The King regained power—dismissed Gloucester's
friends from office and appointed his own.
July 12, 1389 He made Chaucer clerk of his works at Westminster.
August, 1389 He seems to have asked John of Gaunt to return to
England.
November, 1389 John of Gaunt actually returned.
Richard II then appointed Chaucer to that place a little over a month after he had regained his authority, and four months before John of Gaunt appeared in England.
Finally we cannot connect John of Gaunt in any way with Chaucer's departure from the office of Clerk of the Works in June, 1391. From John of Gaunt's return to England in 1389 until 1395 he seems to have been influential with the King. In 1390 he was made Duke of Aquitaine for life. In 1392 he was ambassador to France, in 1393 he aided in putting down a revolt in Chester. He was in England, apparently, most of this time.
Certainly the analysis of Chaucer's life does not confirm the theory that John of Gaunt exercised a ruling influence over his destiny. Nor does a study of the connections of his associates indicate his dependency on John of Gaunt. His friend William de Beauchamp was at a later date certainly a member of the Gloucester—Warwick faction. But in 1378 and 1380, when Chaucer was apparently connected with him, Beauchamp was a member of the King's household (from 1379 on chamberlain of the household), evidently in favour with the King and not a partisan of the Lancaster-Gloucester faction. Further we know that Chaucer associated in a business way at least with Brembre, Philipot and Walworth, that he probably knew Thomas Usk, that the latter admired him, and that in the King's household he was connected with some men like John de Beauchamp and John de Salesbury who were not friends to John of Gaunt. Yet toward the end of Richard II's reign we find Chaucer connected in some way with John of Gaunt's son, and when a few years later that son ascended the throne as Henry IV, Chaucer received new annuities and aids. The fact then that Chaucer was friendly with prominent men in both factions makes it incredible that his fortunes were dependent on those of John of Gaunt.
One other suggestion-was John of Gaunt likely to have had enough interest in poetry to patronize a poet? I have found no evidence that he did patronize other poets or artists of any kind, and the impression of his character which a careful scholar like Mr. Trevelyan has gained from a study of his career, is not that he was such a man as would be interested in the arts.
From all these facts, I do not see how it can be maintained that John of Gaunt was Chaucer's "great patron." The evidence, so far as I can make out at present, leads one to the conclusion that Chaucer must have received his offices and royal annuities from the King rather than from John of Gaunt, at times when John of Gaunt's influence would have been harmful rather than beneficial, or when John of Gaunt was not in England to exercise it.
CHAUCER'S RELATION TO RICHARD II
Certain recent investigations have suggested that Richard II and his consort Anne may have been patrons of Chaucer. For this theory the most definite evidence is derived from references to Queen Anne in several of the poems. The most obvious of these references is that in Prologue to L. G. W., version F. 11. 496, 7; another is the one implied in Koch's explanation for the writing of P. F.; and Professor Lowes finds two more in his interpretations of a line in K. T. (M. L. N. XIX, 240.242) and of one in the Troilus. (2 p. M. L. A. 32; 285 ff) Since this investigation has to do wholly with external evidences as to Chaucer's life, it is not my business to deal with these references. I would merely point out that they can derive no active support from the facts which we know about Chaucer's life, for there is no exceptional feature of his career as an esquire which points toward patronage by anyone. We have no right from the circumstances of his rewards and appointments to suppose that Richard even knew that he was a poet, certainly none to suppose that Richard enjoyed his poetry and patronized him because of it.
To be sure we have certain evidences of Richard II's interest in literature, especially the well known stories of his suggestion to Gower that the poet write the Confessio Amantis, his gift to Froissart for the latter's book of poems, and the payment entered in 1380 on the Issue Roll of twenty-eight pounds for the Bible written in French, [Footnote: Devon's translation, p. 213, is incorrect; the phrase in the document is "lingua gallica." Issues P. 301, mem. 16.] the Romance of the Rose and the Romances of Percevale and Gawayn. But those are all; a careful reading of the Issue Roll for all the years of Richard's reign has failed to turn up another entry which would indicate an interest in literature. It is to be noted further that in the entire body of poems left to us by Chaucer but a few unmistakable references to the queen occur, and none to the King. If Chaucer is compared in this respect with his successors Hoccleve and Lydgate a marked difference appears. In a single volume of Hoccleve before me [Footnote: Hoccleve's works I, E. E. T. S. 1892.] occur three "balades" to Henry V, one to the Duke of York, one to the Duke of Bedford, and one to the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the striking contrast between this and Chaucer's practice is due to different notions as to the function of poetry, perhaps to some other cause, but it exists, and it causes one to feel that, in comparison with Hoccleve at least, the internal evidences of patronage in Chaucer's poems are slight indeed. Finally the fact that Chaucer was treated favourably by the government of Henry IV would suggest that his personal relations with Richard II had not been very close.
SOME GENERAL POINTS
Although I have objected to some of the inferences drawn by others, nevertheless it seems to me that from the facts viewed in their new relations, some legitimate inferences may be drawn. In the first place it seems almost certain that by 1386 Chaucer held considerable land in Kent. Every other man on the list of Justices of the Peace (with the single possible exception of Topclyff) held fairly extensive lands in the county; all except de Burley, Topclyff and Chaucer were of old Kentish families. De Burley's importance as Constable of Dover (indeed he undoubtedly held the office of Justice ex officio) and Topclyffs position as steward of the Archbishop of Canterbury counterbalanced the fact that they were not of Kentish stock. What then of Chaucer? He surely must have held a manor and lands of considerable value or he could never have been high enough in the estimation of the landed proprietors to gain the Justiceship and even the membership to Parliament. Now, he apparently did not receive this land by royal grant; consequently it would appear that he must have had it by grant of some great noble or by purchase. In any case we have no record to indicate what land he held or by what tenure he held it.
Again we do not know what Chaucer's income as controller of the customs amounted to. It is apparent, however, that the returns from the office of controller of the greater custom must have been very considerable. If the collectorship of the customs was not a profitable office, it is impossible to see why such men as Walworth, Philipot, and Brembre should have cared to hold it. That the twenty pounds which was their nominal salary was anything like all that they received is unbelievable. To suppose that a man who could fit out a fleet at his own expense and successfully campaign with it against a powerful pirate, should allow himself to be annoyed by so paltry an office is absurd. Yet the office was apparently not farmed, and so it seems likely that the income from fees was large and attractive. [Footnote: The View of W. D. Chester: Chronicles of the Custom's Dept., p. 30.] To how great an extent Chaucer, aside from the ten pounds yearly that he received, shared in the profits, we do not know. From the fact that the King in giving the collectors and the controller extra rewards seems to have rated the latter at about a third of the importance of the former, we might get some hint of the proportion in which he would share in the fees.
Chaucerian scholars have laid great stress upon the grant of permission to Chaucer in 1385 to appoint a permanent deputy in his office in the greater customs. They have even assumed that the L. G. W. was dedicated to the queen out of gratitude for her supposed intercession with the king, and the consequent permission, and have used these suppositions as evidence for dating L. G. W. Surely too much has been made of this matter. Not only have we no evidence whatever to connect Queen Anne with the granting of the deputyship; we do not have to assume any intercession with the king. [Footnote: See forthcoming article: Chaucer and the Earl of Oxford, in Modern Philology.] We know that esquires who were granted offices in the customs frequently did have deputies in their offices; [Footnote: Of. cases of John de Herlyng, Helming Leget, John Hermesthorpe et al.] probably leave to have a deputy could be had almost for the asking.
Moreover, the office of controller, if we can judge from the records of Chaucer's time (cf. Mr. Kirk's print in the Chaucer Society—not yet issued) could not have been a very burdensome one. Yet even the provision that Chaucer write the records with his own hand was not—in the opinion of the officials of the Record Office—held to even as early as 1381. The reason for this judgment is that the preserved records are written in a decidedly good Chancery hand, a style of writing which only a professional Chancery clerk is supposed to have been master of. [Footnote: See Tales of the Canterbury Pilgrims, Stokes & Co., Intro., by Furnivall, p. X note.] Consequently either Chaucer must have been a regular Chancery clerk, or he employed a clerk to write up the records. If he did the latter—as seems most likely—it is hard to see what work of importance can have been left to himself. Why then should he care for a permanent deputy? If we look at the circumstances of his life in 1385, we may discover a possible reason. In that year, he first appears prominently in connection with Kent. The sequence of events is:
February, 1385—deputy appointed.
October, 1385-Justice of the Peace in Kent.
June, 1386—Justice of the Peace in Kent.
August, 1386—Member of Parliament for Kent.
He must have been out of London at latest some time early in 1385, and he may have been occupied with the purchase and management of whatever land he possessed in Kent, and with the politics of that county. Consequently, he may have desired to have a recognized deputy in the office who would relieve him of all official responsibility. One can see no reason why he should have felt particularly grateful for the grant of this merely technical freedom.
Furthermore we can have no knowledge, with our present information alone, of why Chaucer ceased to be controller at the end of 1386. I have already shown that this could not have been due to John of Gaunt's absence from England. It is almost equally certain that it was not due to the fact that Chaucer was a partisan of the King or that the council of thirteen was instructed to inquire into the conduct of the King's offices and to initiate reforms. [Footnote: As Colton in his book on Chaucer's England assumes, pp. 58-59.] The proof of those statements is this: so far as we know Chaucer's only fault in the conduct of these offices was the fact that he "performed" them by deputy; now, although the two offices were granted in December to Adam Yardley [Footnote: Adam Yard&y, clericus, was in 1383 joined with a sergeant at arms to take and arrest mariners for the passage of the Bishop of Norwich across the channel. This would suggest that he was connected in some way with the court, since such duties were commonly assigned to esquires and clerks of the court.]—and Henry Gisorz, [Footnote: Henry Gisors seems to have come from an eminent London family. (Riley Memorials pp. 74, 185. Ancient Deeds; A 7833. Maitland History of London, p. 825). In 11 Richard II and 16 Richard II he was concerned with John Hermesthorpe in certain transfers of land in London. (Ancient Deeds; B 2118, 2121).] the controllership of the greater custom was re-granted scarcely six months later to John Hermesthorpe [Footnote: John Hermesthorpe was a very much more important person. He was for some years one of the chamberlains of the King's exchequer, probably as early as 1370 when on one day he conveyed payments of their annuities to Philippa Chaucer and three other damsels of the queen. He was likewise ft priest, for a time confessor to the King, and holder of various ecclesiastical preferments, in London and elsewhere. He was in particular Master of the Hospital of St. Katherine from 1368 till a few years before his death in 1412. The fact that he was in favour with the King and that he was allowed to exercise the office by deputy, makes untenable the supposition that Chaucer was dismissed because he was a friend to the King, or because he did not actually conduct the office himself. (Devon's Issues, p. 359, Cal. Pat. Roll 1379, p. 386. Full statement of ecclesiastical offices in Bibliotheca Topographies Brittanica II, 82.)] (July 2, 1387) and with that very grant he was empowered to exercise the office by deputy.
Furthermore Henry Gisorz, who succeeded Chaucer in the controllership of the petty customs, was appointed by Chaucer as his deputy, in 7 Richard II [Footnote: C. R. 224, mem. 36. Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 502.] in that office. This office was re-granted September 2, 1388 to Robert Kesteven. Now in the case of the controllership of the greater customs, it seems evident that Adam Yardeley was merely put into the office as a stop-gap. Note that he was not considered of sufficient importance to be given another grant in 1387 to compensate him for the loss of the office. And similarly in that of the lesser customs, it seems clear that Gisors, Chaucer's deputy in the office, was appointed temporarily to the office, on the departure of Chaucer, and deprived of it again as soon as the King found some one to whom he wished to give a sinecure. Surely, if one may be allowed to draw inferences from facts, it seems most likely that Chaucer resigned the offices either to take up some work not now known to us, or to have leisure after more than ten years' occupation in office and missions, and that on his resignation the King made merely temporary appointments and later filled the offices according to his pleasure.
The theory that Chaucer's surrender of his annuity indicates any extraordinary condition or disfavour on the part of his patrons is likewise not supported by the facts. In the introduction to the Chaucer Records, Mr. Kirk writes: "It may be asserted without fear of contradiction, that it was a most unusual thing for any man to surrender a pension, and for the King to grant it to someone else. Lands and tenements, or offices, were frequently surrendered in this way, but not pensions." [Footnote: p. XXXVI.] Surely Mr. Kirk's statement is too strong, for it is easy to find plenty of examples of transfers of annuity quite, analogous to Chaucer's. For example, in 38 Edward III a grant of ten marks yearly to John Gateneys was, with his consent, taken from him and given to Thomas de Fysshebone. [Footnote: Pat. Roll 269, mem. 12.] Later an annuity held by John de Stone, a valet, was transferred by his request to Peter de Bruge. [Footnote: idem 273, mem. 10.] Other examples are a transfer of an annuity from Hugh Ferrour to John Spencer at the request of the former; [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 248.] from T. de Laleham to John Stapenhull—at request of the former [Footnote: idem, p. 150.]—from Richard des Armes to John Andrews—"at supplication" of Richard [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p, 146, 1389, p. 95.]—from John Roose to Roger Lestrange—granted by the former, [Footnote: Pat. Roll 1378, pp. 112.113.]—from Peter de Saneto Paulo to John de Ilerlyng—made by the former and confirmed by the King. [Footnote: Cal. pat. Roll 1350, p. 574.] Doubtless many other examples could be found since I have not attempted to do more than note the cases that fell under my eye. Apparently the sale of annuities was quite as ordinary and recognized a practice as that of offices or lands. [Footnote: John Scalby, to whom Chaucer's annuity was granted, seems to have been an esquire in the King's household. The first record of him is a grant for life to John de Scalby of the forestership and custody of the forest of Parkhurst and Odepark, Isle of Wight (1382). In 1386 John de Scalby the elder was on a commission in East Riding (Yorkshire). In 12 Richard II John Scalby, esquire of the bishop of Sarum, borrowed twenty shillings from the Exchequer. In 17 Richard II he and his wife Mathilda borrowed L 26, 13s. 4d. i. e. the forty marks of his annuity, from the Exchequer. In 1396 the King granted to his esquires Richard Cardemewe and John de Scalby the goods and chattels of a certain outlaw, to the value of thirty-Seven pounds]. In 22 Richard H John Scalby, soutifer, was sent from Lichfield to Conway on secret business of the King, and was paid sixteen, shillings eight pence for his expenses. In 1399 Henry IV confirmed the grant of forty marks a year to John Scalby. (Cal. pat. Roll, 1382, p. 150. idem p. 261. Issues, P. 319, mem. 18. idem, P. 332, mem. 23. Cal. Pat. Roll, 1396, p, 48. Issues, P. 344, mem. 11. Cal. Pat. Roll 1399, p. 62).]
That Chaucer was out of favour from 1391 on, and in financial trouble is again difficult to establish. Mr. Kirk has shown that his "borrowings" at the Exchequer, in those years, were for the most part no borrowings at all but simply a device for getting money that was due him. [Footnote: L. R. pp. XLV, XLVI.] Furthermore, many examples of the drawing of money "de prestito" from the Exchequer may be found in the Issue Roll. In 11 Richard II Philippa Duchess of Ireland drew L 133, es. 8d. in this way. [Footnote: Issues, P. 316, mem. 18.] In the same year Bdmond Rose borrowed money from the Exchequer. [Footnote: idem.] As shown above, John Scalby twice drew money in advance in this way. John Herlyng, who in Chaucer's time, was usher of the Chamber, borrowed seven pounds four pence in 28 Edward III, repaying it later; [Footnote: idem, p. 294, mem. 18.] and in 29 Edward III drew forty pounds in the same way. [Footnote: Issues, P. 212, mem. 1. On Herlyng's financial position see p. 27 above.] So hosts of examples could be collected from the Issue Roll, of such "borrowings." Certainly they do not indicate that the "borrowers" were financially insolvent.
Moreover none of the other facts which we have, warrants us in assuming that Chaucer was pressed for money and out of favour. In January 1393 he was granted ten pounds for good service rendered in this year now present, i.e. apparently the later part of 1392—the year following his "dismissal." In addition he was in 1394 granted another annuity of twenty pounds. In view of these facts it would seem that the only definite evidence of Chaucer's poverty was the action for debt of L 14. 1s. 11d. in 1398, but the circumstances connected with it—the King's letters of protection and the sheriffs inability to find Chaucer—are so remarkable that we cannot draw certain inferences from it. [Footnote: See Kirk L. R., p. XLVII f.]
Looking at all the facts, then, we must admit that they do not form any proper basis for most of the assertions that have been made. They do not constitute even the suggestion of proof that, when Chaucer lost his controllerships and gave up his annuity, he was out of favour with the King, that he was soon in dire financial straits, and that when again in 1391 he lost the clerkship of the works, he was out of favour and pressed for money.
If we wish to guess at the reasons why Chaucer gave up his offices and his pension, we can find plenty of sufficient motives. He may have left the offices for several reasons; he had held the controllership of the customs of wool for twelve years, a long time for the holding of such an office in those days; he may therefore have left because he was tired of them. He may have left them because some one had given him something better-we know, for example, that in the year after he left the clerkship of the works he was employed in some way by the King; so in the earlier case he may have received some other office or employment the record of which has not come down to us. From November 1386 until November 1387 we know that Richard II was scouring the Midlands trying to gather a force with which to oppose Gloucester; he may have employed Chaucer as a secret messenger throughout that year. As to the annuity, Chaucer may have surrendered it because he could get a good price for it and wanted a large sum of money for some purpose, perhaps to buy land or improve it. Or his surrender of the annuity may have been made by arrangement with the King, who may have wished to give an annuity to a comparatively new esquire, and who may have recompensed Chaucer in some other way.
Every fact that we have would fit into the theory that Chaucer led a prosperous and important life (in a business and financial way) from 1374 to the end of his life. Certainly he must have received a large amount of money in that time; we have no evidence of his having lost any; we know of nothing in his character which would lead us to suppose him a spendthrift or inefficient in financial affairs.
I do not wish to maintain that he was always prosperous, but only that the facts do not warrant us in assuming that he was constantly on the verge of ruin in the years when, so far as we know, he held no office.
In connection with the Piers Plowman controversy, I have been struck with Mr. Jusserand's insistence that Chaucer did not touch upon social or political matters in his poems. That was, as Mr. Manly has indicated, very probably due to a theory of the proper subject matter of poetry-an idea current in his time and enunciated by Alan Cliartier most distinctly. But back of that may have been in Chaucer's case certain peculiar traits of character. Chaucer was in direct connection with the court and with the city at the time when political enmity between two main factions was very bitter-so bitter that in 1386 it led to the killing of Simon de Burley and Sir Nicholas Brembre as well as less-known men like Beauchamp and Salesbury and Berners, and to the flight of men like Michael de la Pole and Robert de Vere, and again in 1392 led to the execution of the Earl of Arundel, the murder of Gloucester, and almost to the murder of the Earl of Warwick. Chaucer was in daily contact with men connected with one faction or the other. What was his attitude? What party did he follow? I have tried to suppose that he was a member of the Gloucester or Lancaster faction but I have found facts such as his retention by Richard as controller of the customs from 1383-4 on, and his subsequent appointment to the clerkship of the works, that could scarcely have been brought about by Lancastrian influence. Then I have tried to use as a hypothesis the conception that he was a partisan of the King. But I have not been able to reconcile with that idea the fact that he had the grant of the annuity from John of Gaunt, that Henry IV in the year of his accession granted him an extra annuity of 40 marks in addition to the L20 which he confirmed to him, and that in 1395 or 1396 he seems to have been in the employment of either John of Gaunt or Henry, his son. Consequently it seems to me that Chaucer can not have been active in politics. At the very time when factional strife was waging about him he must have kept practically free from both parties. He seems to have had friends in both camps, though by far the greater number were in that of the King: Oto de Graunson-a member of John, of Gaunt's household-and in later years apparently Henry of Derby, represent the Lancastrian side; on the other hand, Louis Clifford, John Clanvowe, John Burley—men apparently attached to the Black Prince, his wife and his son,—Brembre and Philipot with whom he must have been on fairly good terms, and probably even Thomas Usk, were men strongly opposed to John Of Gaunt. Too many things connect Chaucer with both parties to make his identification with either possible. The reasons why Chaucer did not dabble pronouncedly in politics may have been various—a clear perception that such was the only safe course for him—an entire indifference and lack of understanding of politics—or what you will. At any rate his connection with both parties is certainly in consonance with the exclusion from his poetry of political matter of the kind which appears for example in Cower.
INDEX OF NAMES
Almannia, Henricus, (Almaigne),
Archebald, William,
Archer, Agnes,
Archer, Roger,
Alexandra de la Mote, wife of,
Armes, Richard des. See, Careswell, Richard de,
Barbour, Reynold (le),
Bardolf, Robert,
Bealknap, Robert,
Beauchamp, John,
Joan, wife of,
Beauchamp, Sir William de,
Berkeley, Sir Edward de,
Bernes, John de,
Beverle, John de,
Ahnicia, wife of,
Blacomore, William,
Bokenham, Simond de,
See Bukenham,
Matilda Gerounde, wife of,
Bonyngton, Roger,
Brembre, Nicholas,
Brenchesley, William,
Brokhill, Thomas,
Bukenham, Simon,
Bukton,
Burele, William de, (Burley),
Burgh, Simon,
Burley, Sir John de,
Burley, Simon de,
Byker, Patrick,
John,
William,
Cambridge,
See Edmund, Count of,
Careswell, Richard,
Careu, Nicholas, the elder,
the younger,
Cat, John,
Chambre, Griffith de la,
Cheyne, Hugh,
Joan, wife of,
Roger,
Thomas,
John,
William,
Chippenham, Walter,
Clanvowe, Sir John, (or Clanbrowe),
Clarence, see Lionel,
Countess of,
See Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster.
Clebury, Roger,
Clifford, Lewis de,
Clinton, John,
Clopton, Walter,
Clopton, William,
Cobeham, John de,
Conyngsby, John de,
Corby, Robert de,
Alice, wife of,
Cornewaill, Piers de,
Culpeper, Thomas,
Dabrichecourt, Collard, or, Nicholas,
Elizabeth, wife of,
Devereux, John
Edward, the Black Prince
Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster
Felbrigge, George
Margaret, wife of
Anne, wife of
Ferrers, Robert de
Elizabeth, wife of
Ferrour, Roger,
see Bonyngton, Roger
Fogg, Thomas
Forester, Richard
Foxle, Thomas
Fremingham, John
Frowick, Thomas
Gambon, William
Girdelere, Robert
Gisors, Henry
Goderik, John
Gosedene, John
Graunson, Oto de
Hannemere, David
Hauberk, Laurence
Hauteyn, Thomas
Herlyng, John de
Hermesthorpe, John
Hertfordyngbury, Thomas
Irlonde, Richard
Isabella, wife of Ingelram de Courcy
Joce, John
John of Gaunt
Knyveton, Rauf de
Lancaster, see John of Gaunt
Larderer, Robert see Maghfeld, Robert.
Leche, Richard see Irlonde, Richard.
Leget, Helmyng Edmund, Count of Cambridge
Alice, wife of
Legge, John Erchedeakne, Raulyn
Agnes, wife of
Lionel, duke of Clarence
Loath, Robert
Joan, wife of
Loveden, Thomas
Lyngeyn, Hugh
Agatha, wife of
Maghfeld, Robert
Mareschall, Roger
Markham, Richard
Narrett, Hanyn
Neuport, Reginald
Northbury, Richard
Northrilgg, John
Olney, John
Stephanetta, wife of
Organ, John
Padbury, John
Pekham, James de
Percy, Thomas de
Philipot, John
Pole, Michael de la
Prage, Nicholas
Preston, Piers
Alice, wife of
Richard II
Rikhill, William
Risceby, William de
Romesey, John de
Margaret, wife of
Romylowe, Stephen
Roos, John
Rose, Esmon
Agnes Archer, wife of
Salesbury, John de
Johanna, wife of
Scalby, John,
Scogan, Henry,
Souch, Robert la, see Zouche,
Spigurnell, Thomas,
Katherine, wife of,
Stanes, Thomas de,
Strelley, Hugh, (Straule),
Strete, William,
Joan wife of
Stucle, Geoffrey, (Styuecle),
Talbot, Gilbert
Tettesworth, Edmond de,
Thorpe, Johan de,
Tichemerssh, Johan, see Tyschemerssh
Mabel, wife of
Tipet, John,
Topclyf, William,
Torperle, Richard,
Margaret, wife of,
Tresihan, Robert,
Tyehemerssh, John de, see Tichemerssh
Tyndale, Andrew,
Ursewyk, Robert,
Usk, Thomas,
Vere, Robert de,
Vynour, Robert,
Waffrer, Richard, see Markham, Richard.
Wake, Hugh,
Joan wife of
Walssh, Wauter,
Walworth,
Warde, John,
Wbifrors, Walter
Wyght, Walter
Yardley, Adam,
Ybernia, Cornelius de,
York, William
Zouche, Robert la, See Souch.
End of Project Gutenberg's Chaucer's Official Life, by James Root Hulbert