THE life of Jeffery, or Geoffrey Chaucer, is involved in much obscurity. The age which succeeded him was not favourable to those researches which could have gratified curiosity by displaying his private history; and if his transactions, as a public character, were more accurately known, they could throw no light on his merit as a poet and a scholar, with which alone we are now concerned. A formal life of Chaucer, as Mr. Tyrwhitt has observed, must now be a very meagre narration, if composed only of facts; and, we may add, a very useless detail, if stuffed with the comments and conjectures by which some of his biographers have endeavoured to supply the want of them. The editor of the Biographia Britannica has collected a very considerable body of evidence on the subject; but a great part of it is of a very suspicious kind, and the whole hangs together so loosely, even when rectified by Mr. Tyrwhitt's more judicious remarks, that too much caution cannot be observed in any attempt to separate matters of fact from those of conjecture. Of his birth and family nothing has been decided. It has been contended on the one hand, that he was of noble origin; on the other, that he descended from persons in trade. Even the meaning of his name in French, chaucier, a shoemaker, has been brought in evidence of a low origin, while the mention of the name Chaucer, in several records, from the time of William the Conqueror to that of Edward I. has been thought sufficient to prove the contrary. Leland says he was nobili loco natus; but Speght, one of his early biographers, informs us that, "in the opinion of some heralds, he descended not of any great house, which they gather by his arms;" and Mr. Tyrwhitt is inclined to believe the heralds rather than Lelend. Speght, however, goes further, and makes his father a vintner, who died in 1348, and left his property to the church of St. Mary Aldermary, where he was buried. This is confirmed by Stowe, who says, "Richard Chaucer, vintner, gave to that church his tenement and tavern, with the appurtenance, in the Royal-streete the corner of Kerion-lane, and was there buried, 1348." neither Stowe nor Speght afford any proof that this Richard Chaucer was the father of our poet. But With respect to the place of his birth, we cannot produce better authority than his own. In his Testament of Love, he calls himself a Londoner, and speaks of the city of London as the place of his "kindly engendrure." In spite of this evidence, however, Leland, who is more than usually incorrect in his account of Chaucer, reports him to have been born in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. The time of his birth is, by general consent, fixed in the second year of Edward III, 1328, and the foundation of this decision seems to have originally been an inscription on his tomb, signifying that he died in 1400 at the age of seventy-two. Collier fixes his death in 1440; but he is so generally accurate, that this may be supposed an errour of the press. Phillips is more unpardonable; for, contrary to all evidence, he instances the reigns of Henry IV, V, and VI, as those in which Chaucer flourished. His biographers have provided him with education both at Oxford and Cambridge, a circumstance which we know occurred in the history of other scholars of that period, and is not therefore improbable. But in his Court of Love, which was composed when he was about eighteen, he speaks of himself under the name of Philogenet of Cambridge, clerk. Mr. Tyrwhitt, while he does not think this a decisive proof that he was really educated at Cambridge, is willing to admit it as a strong argument that he was not educated at Oxford. Wood, in his Annals (Vol. I. Book I, 484) gives a report, or rather tradition, that "when Wickliff was guardian or warden of Canterbury college, he had to his pupil the famous poet called Jeffry Chaucer (father of Thomas Chaucer of Ewelme in Oxfordshire, Esq.) who, following the steps of his master, reflected much upon the corruptions of the clergy." This is something like evidence, if it could be depended on: at least it is preferable to the conjecture of Leland, who supposes Chaucer to have been educated at Oxford merely because he had before supposed that he was born either in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. Those who contend for Cambridge, as the place of his education, fix upon Solere's hall, which he has described in his story of the Miller of Trompington, but Solere's hall is merely a corruption of Soler hall, i. e. a hall with an open gallery, or solere window'. The advocates for Oxford are inclined to place him in Merton college, because his contemporaries Strode and Occleve were of that college. It is equally a matter of conjecture that he was first educated at Cambridge, and afterwards at Oxford. Wherever he studied, we have sufficient proofs of his capacity and proficiency. He appears to have acquired a very great proportion of the learning of his age, and became a master of its philosophy, poetry, and such languages as formed the intercourse between men of learning. Leland says he was “acutus dialecticus, dulcis rhetor, lepidus poeta, gravis philosophus, ingeniosus mathematicus, denique sanctus theologus." It is equally probable that he courted the Muses in those early days, in which he is said to have been encouraged by Gower, although there are some grounds for supposing that his acquaintance with Gower was of a later date. After leaving the university, we are told that he travelled through France and the Netherlands; but the commencement and conclusion of these travels are not specified. On his return, he is said to have entered himself of the Middle Temple, with a view to study the municipal law; but even this fact depends chiefly on a record, without a date, which, Speght informs us, a Mr. Buckley had seen, where Geffrey Chaucer was fined 1 Mr. Warton thinks that Solere-Hall was Aula Solarii, the hall with the upper story, at that time a sufficient circumstance to distinguish and denominate one of the academical hospitia. Hist. of Poetry, vol. i. p. 432, note n. C. "two shillings for beating a Franciscane frier in Fleet Street." Leland speaks of his frequenting the law colleges after his travels in France, and perhaps before. Mr. Tyrwhitt. doubts these travels in France, and has indeed satisfactorily proved that Leland's account of Chaucer is full of inconsistencies. Leland is certainly inconsistent as to dates; but from the evidence Chaucer gave in a case of chivalry, we have full proof of one journey in France, although the precise period cannot be fixed. Whatever time these supposed employments might have occupied, we discover, at length, with tolerable certainty, that Chaucer betook himself to the life of a courtier, and probably with all the accomplishments suited to his advancement in the court of a monarch, who was magnificent in his establishment, and munificent in his patronage of learning and gallantry. At what period of life he obtained a situation here is uncertain. The writer of the life prefixed to Urry's edition supposes he was not more than thirty, because his first employment was in quality of the king's page; but the first authentic memorial, respecting Chaucer at court, is the patent in Rymer, 41 Edward III. by which that king grants him an annuity of twenty marks, by the title of Valettus noster +, our yeoman," and this occurred when Chaucer was in his thirty-ninth year. Several mistakes have arisen respecting these grants, from his biographers not understanding the meaning of the titles given to our poet. Speght mentions a grant from king Edward four years later than the above, in which Chaucer is styled valettus hospitii, which he translates grome of the pallace; sinking our author, Mr. Tyrwhitt observes, as much too low, as his biographer in Urry's edition had raised him too high, by translating the same words gentleman of the king's privy chamber. Valet or yeoman was, according to the same acute scholiast, the intermediate rank between squier and grome. It would be of more consequence to be able to determine what particular merits were rewarded by this royal bounty. Mr. Tyrwhitt can find no proof, and no ground for supposing that it was bestowed on Chaucer for his poetical talents, although it is almost certain that he had distinguished himself, as a poet, before this time. The Assemblee of Foules, the Complaint of the Blacke Knight, and the translation of the Roman de la Rose, were all composed before 1367, the era which we are now considering. What strengthens Mr. Tyrwhitt's opinion of the king's indifference to Chaucer's poetry, is his appointing him, a few years after, to the office of comptroller of the custom of wool, with an injunction that "the said Geffrey write with his own hand his rolls touching the said office in his own proper person, and not by his substitute." The inferences, however, which Mr. Tyrwhitt draws from this fact, viz. " that his majesty was either totally insensible of our author's poetical talents, or at least had no mind to encourage him in the cultivation or exercise of them," savours rather too much of the conjectural spirit which he professes to avoid. He allows that, notwithstanding what he calls "the petrifying quality, with which these custom-house accounts might be expected to operate upon Chaucer's genius," he probably wrote his House of Fame while he was in that office. Still less candid to the memory of Edward, will these inferences appear, apply modern notions of patronage to the subject; for in what manner could the king 2 Life prefixed to Urry's Edit. sig. d. C. About two hundred pounds of our money. C. if we Mr. Ellis observes that this office, "by whatever name we translate it, might be held even by persons of the highest rank, because the only science then in request among the nobility was that of etiquette, the knowledge of which was acquired, together with the habits of chivalry, by passing in gradation through the several menial offices about the court." Ellis's Specimens, vol. i. p. 202. more honourably encourage the genius of a poet, than by a civil employment which rendered him easy in his circumstances, and free from the suspicious obligations of a pension or sinecure? Chaucer's biographers have given some particulars of his life before the office just mentioned was conferred upon him. He is said to have been in constant attendance on his majesty, and when the court was at Woodstock, resided at a square stone house near the park gate, which long retained the name of Chaucer's house; and many of the rural descriptions in his works have been traced to Woodstock park, the favourite scene of his walks and studies. But besides his immediate office near the royal person, he very early attached himself to the service of the celebrated John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and from this connection his public life is to be dated. The author of the life prefixed to Urry's edition observes that the duke's “ ambition requiring all the assistance of learned men, to give it a plausible appearance, induced him to do Chaucer many good offices, in order to engage him in his interest." But although the assistance of learned men to an ambitious statesman is very well understood in modern times, it is somewhat difficult to conceive what advantage could be derived from such assistance before the invention of printing. It is more probable that the duke had a relish for the talents and taste of Chaucer, and became his patron upon the most liberal.grounds, although Chaucer might afterwards repay his favours by exposing the conduct of the clergy, who were particularly obnoxious to the duke by their monopoly of power. One effect of this connection was the marriage of our poet, by which he became eventually related to his illustrious patron. John of Gaunt's duchess, Blanche, entertained in her service one Catharine Rouet, daughter of sir Payne or Pagan Rouet, a native of Hainault, and Guion king at arms for that country. This lady was afterwards married to sir Hugh Swinford, a knight of Lincoln, who died soon after his marriage, and on his decease his lady returned to the duke's family, and was appointed governess of his children. While in this capacity she yielded to the duke's solicitations, and became his mistress. She had a sister, Philippa, who is stated to have been a great favourite with the duke and duchess, and by them, as a mark of their high esteem, recommended to Chaucer for a wife. He accordingly married her about the year 1360, when he was in his thirty-second year, and this step appears to have increased his interest with his patron, who took every opportunity to promote him at court. Besides the instances already given, we are told that he was made shield-bearer to the king, a title at that time of great honour, the shield-bearer being always next the king's person, and generally, upon signal victories, rewarded with military honours. But here again his biographers have mistaken the meaning of the courtly titles of those days. In the 46 Edward III, 1372, the king appointed him envoy, with two others, to Genoa, by the title of scutifer noster, "our squier." Scutifer and armiger, according to Mr. Tyrwhitt, are synonymous terms with the French escurier; but Chaucer's biographers, thinking the title of squier too vulgar, changed it to shield-bearer, as if Chaucer had the special office of carrying the king's shield. With respect to the nature of this embassy to Genoa, biography and history are alike silent, and from that silence, the editor of the Canterbury tales is inclined to doubt whether it ever took place, or whether he had that opportunity of visiting Petrarch, an event which his biographers refer to the same period. But although history is silent as to the object of Chaucer's embassy, his biographers have endeavoured to supply the defect, by conjecturing that it might be for the purpose |