Now, however, the King and the realm were in sore straits, and no stone must be left unturned. The Genoese fleet must be paid for; the services of the Doge's brother were sure to come high; and greater sums might possibly be obtained by an application in Florence itself than by an approach through the agencies. At all events, it was worth the effort.17 So Edward may have reasoned, and, so reasoning, may have resorted to a skilful negotiator1s to whom but the silver-tongued, mild-mannered, capable, dexterous young squire, already perhaps possessing some knowledge of Italian, already perhaps a visitor to Italy in the train of Prince Lionel in 1368 ?19 If so, it is explicable why he was sent on the King's secret business-the matter must make no stir, else the chances of success were imperiled; explicable, too, why a person of no greater note was sent; explicable why his ostensible mission, publicly proclaimed, was to Genoa, and that he occupied only the third place in that commission; explicable, finally, why he dispatched those three messengers to the King in succession during his stay in Italy-the matter was too important to brook delay until he should return, while yet. it was imperative that he should stay until every expedient was exhausted.

All this, so far as it relates to Chaucer, is conjectural, to be sure; but I can not help thinking that it fits in sufficiently with

17

Some light is thrown upon the relations between Florence and England about this time by the following (Dict. Nat. Biog. 12. 343): 'About this time [1376] a bull of Gregory XI against the Florentines, with whom the Pope was then at war, was brought into England. Wherever they were, the Florentines were to be pronounced excommunicate, and their effects were to be forfeited. Courtenay published the bull at Paul's Cross. . . . As a constitutional politician, he probably was glad to forward the downfall of the Italian merchants, from whom the King had long derived the money which he wasted in extravagance, and as Bishop of London he was no doubt willing to gratify the citizens, who were jealous of foreign traders. The Londoners pillaged the houses of the Florentines, and made a riot. This caused the interference of the city magistrates, and they sided with the King, who took the foreigners under his protection.'

On Mar. 9, 1373, John Gouche, spicer, a Florentine resident in London from his youth, had the liberties of the city of London conferred upon him (Cal. Pat. Rolls).

1 Cf. Legouis, Chaucer, p. 19.

19 See Trans. Conn. Acad. of Arts and Sciences 21. 6 ff.

the known conditions, and especially the known exigencies of the kingdom and the King.20 Whether he was successful or not, his efforts were certainly appreciated. Pollard has remarked21: 'From the mission to Genoa dates a great advance in Chaucer's prosperity.'22

XI. KATHARINE SWYNFORD

It has often been assumed of late that John of Gaunt's irregular relations with Katharine Swynford began about the year 1372. Armitage-Smith, relying on the Monk of Evesham's statement, 'Quam ut concubinam multo tempore vivente uxore Constancia carnaliter cognovit,' and Froissart's assertion2 that he had kept her in the lifetime of his queen, Constance, that is, within the period 1371-94, and also as well before as after the death of her husband (Nov. 13, 1371), concludes: 'Only the years 1371 and 1372 fit in with this statement.' In fact, any connection which took place between John of Gaunt's marriage to Constance

Cf. Young, Kittredge Anniversary Papers, pp. 415-6, unfortunately overlooked till this paper was in type.

22 Cf. Legouis, p. 12; Skeat, Oxford Chaucer, p. xxv. Kirk (Life-Records IV, p. xxv) thus summarizes his income for the year after his return, 1374: 'Geoffrey was receiving 131. 6s. 8d. yearly from the King, a pitcher of wine daily (of about the same value), 10l. from the Controllership, .. and Iol. from the Duke, while his wife's two pensions amounted to 16l. 13s. 4d; in all, 631. 6s. 8d., or more than 1000l. a year of our money.' Of all this, Chaucer had previously had only the item first mentioned, besides Philippa's two pensions, so that now their joint income was more than doubled. By 1376, as Kirk notes (p. xxvi), two years later, he had received three extra grants, which may have brought him a sum equal in our present currency to about four thousand pounds' (more than $300,000).

No less significant than the increase of Chaucer's income is the fact that towards the close of 1376 he was again employed on the King's secret business, that between Feb. 17 and March 25 of 1377 he was engaged on another secret mission, and between April 20 and June 26 on still another-75 days in all, at his regular wages of 13s. 4d. per day (say $3750, before the recent decline in the value of money). Cf. Froissart, ed. Luce, 8. cxxxix, note 3.

and the death of Sir Hugh Swynford must have been between September, 1371, and November 13 of that year. ArmitageSmith adds: 'The petition to the Pope mentions the adultery in the life of Duchess Constance, not in that of the Duchess Blanche.' Accordingly, he assigns these conjectural dates for the birth of the illegitimate children of the pair: John, 1373(?); Henry, 1375(?); Thomas, 1377(?); Joan, 1379(?). These dates, it will be observed, are purely inferential from the assumed date of the first illicit connection of Catherine and the Duke. Other good authorities do not differ widely from this. Sir Harris Nicolas, arguing from the fact that John, the eldest son, was a knight in 1391, deduces that he 'must have been born at least as early as 1375,' while Lucy Toulmin Smith says that he 'would be about 15o in 1390, when he joined the Barbary crusade.'

It is my purpose, in the next few pages, to adduce some reasons for believing that Armitage-Smith's dates are too late to account for certain indisputable facts.

First, as to John Beaufort.

(1) In 1390 he was closely associated with seasoned knights, and pitted against some of the boldest and most adventurous spirits in Western Europe, for in the spring of that year he belonged to a group of four knights who jousted on the same day at St. Inglevert, 10 near Calais, one of these being his halfbrother, then 24 years old, who nine years later was to become King Henry IV, and who on this occasion gained much distinction for his prowess.11 Another of the same group, also prominent in the tilting, was Robert Ferrers, who had borne

'Armitage-Smith, p. 93.

'Papal Letters 4. 545: While Constance was still alive, he had committed adultery with the said Catherine, an unmarried woman, and had offspring by her.' This does not agree with Froissart's statement that their relations had preceded, as well as followed, the death of Sir Hugh Swynford.

P. 389.

In Samuel Bentley's Excerpta Historica, p. 155; cf. Derby Accounts,

arms as early as 1378 or 137912 (Chaucer, we may remember, is supposed to have first borne arms at the age of 19). Still another Englishman who distinguished himself in the jousting was Lewis Clifford, then about 54 years old.13 If we suppose John Beaufort to have been only 17 years old at this time, how can he have held his own with men so much older and more experienced?

(2) From St. Inglevert a number of Englishmen repaired to the siege of Mehediah (called by the chroniclers Africa), southeast of Tunis. In one band there were 25 men of rank (gentils hommes) and 100 archers, prominent among whom were Lewis Clifford, Thomas Clanvowe,11 and Peter Courtenay.15 At this siege we find John Beaufort as a knight banneret,16 encamped as second in a group of 29 knights at the left of the commander in chief of the expedition, Louis de Bourbon.17

19

(3) While it is uncertain whether he joined Henry of Derby in Germany,18 after the siege of Mehediah was raised, he was certainly in Lithuania in 1394, where he took part in an extensive raid, and was probably at the disastrous battle of Nicopolis on Sept. 25, 1396.20 Is it likely that he was a knight banneret at 17, encamped in so honorable a station; that he served with the Prussian knights at the age of 21 (Henry, who was certainly adventurous enough, did not go thither till after St. Inglevert, when he was 24 years old; Henry of Lancaster, his grandfather, till he was 52; William Ufford, till he was 26; Thomas Beau

12 Froissart 21. 193.

13

Beltz, Memorials, p. 261; cf. Froissart 14. 110-2; Hist. Background, p. 192. Clifford was made a Knight of the Garter in 1377 (Beltz, p. cliii).

15

Cabaret, Chronique du Bon Duc Loys de Bourbon, p. 222 (cf. pp. 238, 248-9; Cabaret misspells Courtenay's name); cf. Le Roulx, La France en Orient 1. 166 ff.; Derby Accounts, p. xxxviii. became Knight of the Garter in 1388 (Beltz, p. cliv).

Courtenay

1 Froissart 14. 225: 'Messire Jehan de Beaufort, fils bastard au duc de Lancastre, à banière.'

Cf. Hist. Background, p. 209; Wylie 3. 261; Derby Accounts, pp. xxxviii, 301; Le Roulx, La France en Orient 1. 176, 242; 2. 14.

champ, till he was 52; nor Hotspur, till he was 2821); and that he was at Nicopolis at the age of 21?

(4) In 1396 John was made a Knight of the Garter22; on Feb. 9, 1397, he, with his brothers and sister, was legitimated by act of Parliament23; and the next day he was created Earl of Somerset, reason for this being found in the exploits he had performed in foreign countries, by which he had shed lustre on the English name.24 Had he probably brought great honor to the King and kingdom by his various campaigns and enterprises in many realms and lands before he was fully 24?

(5) On May 9, 1388, John Beaufort was made Admiral of both the Northern and the Western Fleet,25 whereas, for the most part, each fleet had its own admiral. Of thirteen admirals belonging to that century whose ages can be exactly or approximately ascertained,20 the average was over 40, the range being from 31 to 52. If we assume the lowest of these ages for Beaufort, he would have been born in 1367; but such an assumption must be viewed in the light of other facts, which will be adduced below.

24

For these see Hist. Background, pp. 203, 205, 207.

Beltz, Memorials 1. cliv.

Rymer, Rot. Parl. 3. 343.

"Rot. Parl. 3. 343: 'Le grant honour q'il ad fait par sa persone en diverses journees et travaulx en pluseurs roialmes et terres d'outre meer, a grant honour du roy et de [du?] roialme.' On this occasion the new Earl was led to King Richard by the Earl of Huntingdon, half-brother of the King, and son-in-law to John of Gaunt; and by the Earl Marshal, Mowbray, 'banished Norfolk' that was to be. After being girt with the sword by the King, he was seated between the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Warwick. Among the witnesses were his father and his halfbrother, who in a little more than two years was to be Henry IV.

On Feb. 2, of the Irish Fleet (Nicolas, Hist. Royal Navy 2. 338, 518, 532). Beaufort was appointed under the title Marquis of Dorset, which he bore from Sept. 29, 1397, to Oct. 6, 1399 (Cokayne, Complete Peerage 3. 146). He was also Warden of the Cinque Ports (Cokayne 7. 170;

Beltz, p. 355).

"These are: Thomas Ughtred, 45; Robert Ufford, 39; William Montacute, 36; Robert Morley, 43; Richard Fitzalan II, 33; William Bohun, 41; Henry of Lancaster, 52; Thomas Percy, 34 (37?); Henry Percy, 41; John Holland, 37; Michael de la Pole, 46; William Montacute, 48; Richard Fitzalan III, 31. The general result is only confirmed by Bartholomew Burghersh, who, when he was made Admiral of the Western