r

is known; and it would be idle to repeat the speculations that have been raised upon several persons of his name1 who lived in the early part of the fourteenth century. Leland asserts that he was of noble family; Speght thinks that he was the son of a certain vintner who lived at the corner of Kirton-lane, and left all his property to the church; Pitt says that he was the son of a knight; Hearne, that he was a merchant; and Urry conjectures that he was the son of one John Chaucer, who attended Edward III. to Flanders and Cologne. It is certain that he received the education of a gentleman; and it is no less certain that his family were neither noble nor distinguished, although there is sufficient reason to conclude that they were wealthy and respectable.

It has been inferred from an allusion in The Canterbury Tales that he was educated at Cambridge. Leland says he was of Oxford, and that he finished his studies at Paris." Other biographers reconcile these statements by supposing

but there can be no doubt that, whatever it means, it does not mean a confession of circumstantial personal details, and that the most conclusive evidence against the inferences drawn from The Testament of Love is fur nished by The Testament of Love itself. [This treatise is not Chaucer's, bu written by an admirer (probably a pupil) of his. The passage in which he is so highly praised seems to imply that he was still alive.-W. W.S.]

1 Urry says that the name (variously given as Chaucier, Chaucieris Chaussier, Chausir, &c.) is originally French, and signifies a shoemaker Tyrwhitt says that it rather means un faiseur de chausses ou culottiers and that, according to the old spelling, Chaucessir, it might be derived from Chaufecire, an office which still exists under the title of chafewaz. [It is now known that his father John Chaucer was a vintner in Thames Street; that his mother's name was Agnes; that his grandfather's was Richard, and his grandmother's Maria. This Maria was twice married, her first husband being named Heroun or Heyroun, whose will is dated April 7, 1349, his executor being his half-brother John Chaucer, the poet's father.-W. W. S.]

Tyrwhitt is hardly just to Leland in saying that he assigns Chaucer's education to Oxford 'without a shadow of proof.' He may have had grounds for the supposition, and probably had, although he did not state them. Godwin discovers, in the dedication of Troilus and Creseide to Gower and Strode, both supposed to have been educated at Oxford, a reason for believing that Chaucer became acquainted with them there, the poem being one of his juvenile works. If Leland is to be credited, however, he made Gower's acquaintance, not at Oxford, but in the Inns of Court. Loland's story of Chaucer's travels into France to complete his education is entirely rejected by Tyrwhitt.

that Chancer was of both universities; but Sir Harris Nicolas observes that there is no proof, however likely it may be, that he belonged to either.'

Under whatever auspices, or in whatever place, Chaucer studied, the extent of his acquirements is abundantly testified by his works and the evidence of his contemporaries. He was well acquainted with divinity and philosophy and the scholastic learning of his age, and displays in numerous passages an intimate knowledge of astronomy and of most of the sciences as far as they were then known or cultivated. He is said to have originally selected the law as his profession, and to have been a member of the Inner Temple, where upon one occasion he was fined two shillings for beating a Franciscan friar in Fleet-street.1 The statement, however, should be received with caution, as there is reason to believe that lawyers were not admitted to the Temple till long after Chaucer had devoted himself to other employments.❜

Although it is impossible to trace the chronology of Chaucer's poems with any approach to certainty, there cannot be much hesitation in assuming the Troilus and Creseide to have been among his earliest productions. It is placed first in the enumeration of his works by Lydgate, who expressly assigns it to his youth; a statement better entitled to credit than the announcement by the same authority that it was translated from 'a booke which is called Trophe,' or

1 This anecdote is related by Speght on the authority of Mr. Buckley, who, he says, had seen the record of it in the Inner Temple. Leland corroborates the fact of Chaucer having studied in the colleges of the lawyers,' but, as usual, with a singular confusion of dates, assigning the period to the latter end of the reign of Richard II., when Chaucer was not only an old man, but otherwise provided for, and extremely unlikely to begin the study of the law.

2 Thynne, who compiled the first complete edition of Chaucer's works, says that 'the lawyers were not of the Temple till the latter parte of the reygne of Edward III., at which time Chaucer was a grave manne, holden in greate credyt, and employed in embassye.' When Edward III. died, Chaucer was forty-nine years of age, assuming that he was born in 1328. Mr. Singer observes that if it could be proved that Chaucer was a member of the Inner Temple, 'it would be sufficient evidence of his birth and fortune, for only young men of noble and opulent families could support the expense of this Inn.'

VOL. I.

than Chaucer's own singular declaration that his original was a Latin author called Lollius.' No such book or author has ever been discovered to have existed; and the substance of the poem, which Chaucer amplified and altered, is to be found in the Filostrato of Boccaccio.1

The date of The Assembly of Fowls, or, as it is elsewhere called, The Parliament of Birds, may be referred to the year 1358, upon the supposition, which appears to be generally admitted, that it was composed with reference to the intended marriage between John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster, which took place in 1359, and which the lady is represented in the poem as deferring for a twelvemonth." From this circumstance also we gather the not unimportant fact that at this time Chaucer was on terms of intimacy with John of Gaunt. The poem called Chaucer's Dream was formerly supposed to have been written on the occasion of the nuptials.3

The first authentic notice of Chaucer occurs in 1359, when it appears, upon his own authority, that he served under

1 Tyrwhitt confesses himself unable to explain 'how Boccaccio should have acquired the name of Lollius, and the Filostrato the title of Trophe;' but Godwin sees no difficulty in the case, and thinks it ‘absurd to dispute the existence' of Lollius, of whom he avowedly knows nothing himself.

[After all, the simplest solution of these riddles is to cut the knot by the supposition that they have no real answer. Like all other Middle-English writers, Chaucer adduces his authorities in the vaguest manner, merely citing the names of authors who were supposed to have written on the subject. The statement of Lydgate is borrowed from the words 'seith Trophee' in Chaucer's Monkes Tale, Hercules, st. 3 (see vol. ii. p. 191). Of this apocryphal author nothing is known beyond the remark 'ille vates Chaldeorum Tropheus,' in the margin of the Ellesmere MS.; and he probably never existed. As to Lollius, the right solution is doubtless that of Dr. Latham, viz. that a misconception of the sense of Horace's line•Trojani belli scriptorem, maxime Lolli' (Epist. i. 2. 1)-led to the notion that Lollius was a writer on the Trojan war! And the mere notion was quite enough to cause him to be cited accordingly.—W. W. S.]

2 The female eagle wooed by the three tercels' is made to ask for a year's respite. See the poem, vol. ii. p. 385:

unto this yere be done

I aske respite for to avisen mee;

And after that to have my choice al free.'

* [It is certain that the poem called The Dream is not Chaucer's, but is of later date. The mistake arose from confusion with The Book of the Duchess. See vol. iii. p. 437, &t seg.-W. W. S.)

1

Edward L. in the expedition against France, upon which occasion he was made prisoner. At this period he is described as being 'of a fair and beautiful complexion, his lips full and red, his size of a just medium, and his port and air graceful and majestic." It is curious that in this year, 1359, when Chaucer was a prisoner in France, Godwin confidently assumes that he was residing at Woodstock; and cites, in support of this opinion, some descriptive passages which, he thinks, 'sufficiently answer to the geography of Woodstock-park." Whether Chaucer ever resided at Woodstock, as most of his biographers assert, cannot be determined, for there is no proof of the fact; but it is evident that he could not have resided there in 1359.3

1 This description is given by Urry from a portrait of Chaucer, painted at the age of thirty, and then (1721) in the possession of George Greenwood, of Chasleton, in Gloucestershire, Esq. The portrait is also mentioned by Grainger. Sir Harris Nicolas has collected an account of all the known authentic portraits. That, by Occleve, already alluded to, is the best yet discovered. It represents Chaucer with his grey beard bi-forked, in a dark-coloured dress and hood, a black case, containing a knife or pen-case, in his vest, his right hand extended, and a string of beads in his left. The portrait, also previously mentioned, in Occleve's poems, is a full-length, in black vest, hood, stockings, and pointed boots. A third portrait, in The Canterbury Tales, Lansd. MS. 851, dating within twenty years of the poet's death, is a small full-length inserted in the initial letter of the volume, in a long grey gown, red stockings, and black shoes fastened with sandals. Here the head is bare, and the hair closely cut. Sir Harris Nicolas refers to other portraits; but these appear to be the most authentic.

• Endless discussions might be raised on such passages as Godwin cites, leaving the question in the end exactly where it was in the beginning. More consideration is due to the authentic statement that a house, still denominated in deeds and legal instruments as 'Chaucer's house,' adjoins the principal entrance of Woodstock-park. But even the speculation which this fact would seem to warrant is set aside by Sir Harris Nicolas, who observes that this house was more probably the house of Thomas Chaucer, to whom the Manor of Woodstock was granted by Henry the Fourth, ten years after the poet's death.' This is the earliest evidence extant of any connection of the name of Chaucer with Woodstock. It is possible, no doubt, that the poet at some time resided at Woodstock, and that, consequently, it might have been selected as a gift to the son; but this kind of inference, whatever show of probability it may carry, cannot be allowed to possess any historical weight. Speght tells us that the square stone house near the park gate called Chaucer's house, was passed under

At what time Chaucer returned to England has not been ascertained. It is probable that he was ransomed on the conclusion of the peace of Chartres in 1360, as there is ground for supposing that his marriage took place in that year. Amongst the persons brought over to England in her retinue by Queen Philippa in 1328 was Sir Payne Roet, a native of Hainault, and Guienne King of Arms. This gentleman had two daughters: Katherine, who entered the service of the Duchess Blanche, the first consort of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; and a younger daughter, Philippa, who was taken into the royal household as one of the maids of honour. To this lady (who has been confounded by some writers with Philippa Picard, also one of the maids of honour) Chaucer was married; an alliance that subsequently brought him into the most intimate relations with John of Gaunt. In September, 1366, the Queen granted an annual pension of ten marks to Philippa Chaucer, which was continued to her by the King after her Majesty's death in 1369; when, being no longer in the royal household, she became attached to the person of the Duchess Constance, the second consort of John of Gaunt. In the interval her sister Katherine, having married Sir Hugh Swynford, a Lincolnshire knight, and become a widow, had returned to the Duke's service in the capacity of governess to the children of his former Duchess. While she was in this situation, Katherine Swynford is supposed to have yielded to the soli

that name by Queen Elizabeth to the tenant who then held it; and we learn from Urry that in his time there was a printed copy of Chaucer's works, with a Latin inscription on the first page, chained in the parlour.

1 This is the date given by Tyrwhitt, but without reference to any authority. Sir Harris Nicolas shows that the marriage must have taken place at least before September, 1366.

2 The name of Philippa was at that time much used in Hainault, ‘in regard,' as one of the old biographers says, ' of its being the Queen's name.' Sir Harris Nicolas thinks it not unlikely that this lady's baptismal name was given to her from being the Queen's god-daughter. H eaks of her as being older than her sister Katherine. The early mographers, with greater probability, describe her as being younger.