was imposed, after Mr. Urry's death. The strange licence, in which Mr. Urry appears to have indulged himself, of lengthening and shortening Chaucer's words according to his own fancy, and of even adding words of his own, without giving his readers the least notice, has made the text of Chaucer in his edition by far the worst that was ever published. Since this there has been no complete Edition of the Canterbury Tales. A volume in 8vo containing the Prologue and the Knightes Tale, with large explanatory notes, &c. was published in 1737, by a Gentleman, (as I am informed,) who has since distinguished himself by many other learned and useful publications. He appears to have set out upon the only rational plan of publishing Chaucer, by collating the best MSS. and selecting from them the genuine readings; and accordingly his edition, as far as it goes, is infinitely preferable to any of those which preceded it. (B) A LIST OF MSS, COLLATED, OR CONSULTED, WITH THE ABBREVIATIONS BY WHICH THEY ARE CITED. Ask. 1. 2. Two MSS. lent to me by the late Dr. Askew. The second has in it the Arms of Henry Ch. N. Two MSS. described in the Pref. to Ed. Urr. the one as belonging to Charles Cholmondeley, readings serves only to correct the arbitrary innovations, which Mr. Urry had introduced into the text. He has einployed himself to better purpose upon the Glossary, where he has made many emendations and additions, which may be of considerable use, if ever a new Glossary to Chaucer shall be compiled. Of these MSS. the most credit is certainly due to the five following, viz. A C. 1. Ask. 1. 2. and HA. The four last exhibit the Tales in exactly the same order in which they are printed in this edition; and so does A. except that it wants the Cokes Tale [See the Discourse, &c. §. xiii.] and has the Nonnes Tale inserted between the Sompnoures and the Clerkes. It is also unluckily very imperfect; beginning only at ver. 1204. and ending (with several intermediate breaks) at ver. 12610. in the Pardoner's Tale. N.B. The Editt. of Chaucer by Caxton and Pynson are cited by these abbreviations; Ca. 1. 2. Pyns. 1. 2.-Sp. and Urr. are put for the Editt. by Speght and Urry.-M. stands for the Edit. of the Prologue and Knight's Tale in 1737.—The other Editt. are cited by their respective dates. If no date is mentioned, the reference is to the Edit. of 1542 by John Reyne. (c) AN ABSTRACT OF THE HISTORICAL PASSAGES OF THE life THE birth of Chaucer in 1328 has been settled, I suppose, from some inscription on his tomb-stone, signifying that he died in 1400, at the age of 72. Of his birth itself we have no memorial, any more than of his parents. He calls himself a Londenois, or Londoner, in the Testament of Love; B. i. fol. 325. and in another passage, fol. 321. speaks of the city of London as the place of his engendrure. We are more in the dark about the place of his education. In his Court of Lore, ver. 912. he speaks of himself under the name and character of "Philogenet-of Cambridge, Clerk." This is by no means a decisive proof that he was really educated at Cambridge; but it may be admitted, I think, as a strong argument that he was not educated at Oxford; as Leland has supposed, without the shadow of a proof. The Biographers however, instead of weighing one of these accounts against the other, have adopted both; and tell us very gravely, that he was first at Cambridge, and afterwards removed from thence to complete his studies at Oxford. It were to be wished that Mr. Speght had given us the date of that Record in the Inner Temple, (which he says, a Mr. Buckley had seen,) where " Geffrey Chaucer was fined two shillings for beating a Franciscane frier in Fleet-street." Leland has also told us, that our a Mr. Speght has referred to several Records in which the name of Chaucer occurs. There is mention in the Monast. Áng. vol. iii. p. 326. of a Johannes le Chauser, civis Londoniensis, an. 1299. who may possibly have been our Poet's Grandfather. Though Leland says, that he was nobili loco natus, Mr. Speght informs us, that "in the opinion of some heralds he descended not of any great house, which they gather by his Armes." I am inclined to believe the Heralds, rather than Leland. The name of Chaucer is explained [Life of Ch. Urr.] to signify a shoe-maker; but it rather means un faiseur de chausses ou culottiers. Dict. de Lacombe, v. Chaucier. According to what is said to be the old spelling of it, Chaucesir, it might be not improbably derived from Chaufecire, an office, which still subsists under the title of Chafewax. ↳ The single circumstance, by which Leland has endeavoured to strengthen his supposition that Chaucer was educated at Oxford, is another supposition that he was born in Oxfordshire or Berkshire. The latter has been shewn above to be false. < Though this be but a blind story, it rather inclines me to believe that Chaucer was of the Inner Temple in the early part of his life, before he went into the service of Edward III. The circumstance recorded is plainly a youthful Bally. On the contrary, Leland supposes his principal residence in the Inns of Court to have been after he had flourished in France, about the last years of Richard II.; which is totally incredible. Indeed Leland, through his whole account of our author, seems to have considered him as living at least twenty years later than he really did. author "collegia Leguleiorum frequentavit after his travels in France, and perhaps before." I must observe, that these travels in France rest entirely upon the authority of Leland, whose account is full of inconsistencies. The first authentic memorial, which we have of Chaucer, is the Patent in Rymer, 41 E. III. by which that King grants to him an annuity of 20 marks, by the title of Valettus noster. He was then in the 39th year of his age. How long he had served the King in that, or any other, station, and what particular merits were rewarded by this royal bounty', are points equally unknown. He takes no notice of the best authenticated circumstances of Chaucer's life in the time of Edward III. and he represents him as highly esteemed by Henry IV. and HIS SON, qui de Gallis triumphavit. Henry V. was scarcely twelve years of age, when Chaucer died. d Our Yeoman. Mr. Speght, who omits this grant, mentions one of the same purport in the 45 E. III. in which Chaucer is styled Valettus Hospitii, which he translates-Grome of the Pallace. By this he sinks our author as much too low as another writer has raised him too high, by translating the same words-Gentleman of the King's Privy Chamber [Life of Ch. Urr.]. Valet, or Yeoman, was the intermediate rank between. Squier and Grome. See the note on ver. 101. See also the Will of Edward Duke of York, ap. Rymer, an. 1415. where his legacies to his menial servants are thus arranged-a un Escuier L. s. a [un] vadlet xx s. a un gare [on . . .] & a un page vi s. vIII d. Valettus is probably a corruption of Vassalettus, the diminutive of Vassallus. Hence this title was also given, not as a name of service, to young men of the highest quality, before they were knighted. Il ot un fiz de sa mulier Ki neit pas uncore chivaler, Vallet esteit et beaus et gent.-Roman d'Ipomedon. So that if Edward III. as Mr. Speght says, "did entitle Laurence Hastings, Lord of Aburganey,-Valectum nostrum," I should guess, that the said Lord was not "the King's grome, page, or servant," as he supposes, or his yeoman, as Chaucer was, but his Ward. e I should have been glad to have met with any ground for supposing, that this mark of Royal favour was a reward of our author's poetical merits. That Chaucer had before this time distinguished himself by his poetical performances, is almost certain. I have mentioned a suspicion [n. on ver. 1920.] that the Assemblee of Foules alludes to the Courtship of Blanche of Lancaster by John of Gaunt, who married her in 1359, the 33d year of E. III. And perhaps the Com plaint of the Blacke Knight might be written for John of Gaunt during the same Courtship. It is still more probable that his Translation of the Roman de la Rose and his Troilus were both composed before 1367, the æra of which we are speaking. But I think, if the King had really patronised Chaucer as a Poet, we must have found some clear evidence of such a connection. If the one had been fond of verses, the other would certainly have given him some; especially as he might have exerted his genius in the praise of so illustrious a Patron without any necessity of flattering. If we consider further, that, a few years after, the King appointed him to be Comptroller of the Custom of Wool, &c. in the Port of London, with the following injunction in his Patent,-" So that the said Geffrey write with his own hand his rolls touching the said office, and continually reside there, and do and execute all things pertaining to the said office in his own proper person and not by his substitute,”—we shall probably be of opinion, 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. It should seem that Edward, though adorned with many Royal and Heroic virtues, had not the gift of discerning and patronising a great Poet; a gift, which, like that of genuine Poetry, if we may believe one, who perhaps spoke feelingly upon the subject, is only bestowed on the chosen few by the peculiar favour of heaven: -neque enim, NISI CARUS AB ORTU DIIS SUPERIS, poterit MAGNO favisse POETÆ. Milton's MANSUS. I observe however, that, notwithstanding 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. I gather this from B. ii. ver. 144. where the Eagle says to him, For when thy labour al done is, In stede of rest and of newe thynges Thou goest home to thyne house anone, &c. From this time we find frequent mention of him in various public instruments'. In the 46 E. III. [ap. Rymer.] the King appoints him Envoy, with two others, to Genoa, by the title of Scutifer noster". In the 48 E. III. he has a grant for life of a pitcher of wine daily [ap. Rymer.]; and in the same year a grant, during pleasure, of the offices of Comptroller of the custom of wools, and Comptroller of the parva custuma vinorum, &c. in the Port of London. Ibid. In the 49 E. III. the King grants to him the Wardship of Sir Edmund Staplegate's Heir [MSS. Rymmer, E. III. vol. xi. n. 12.], for which he received 1047. [Ibid. R. II. vol. i. n. 16.]; and in the next year some forfeited wool to the value of 711. 4s. 6d. [Life of Ch. Urr.] In the last year of Ed. III. he was sent to France, with Sir Guichard D'Angle and Richard Stan, or Sturry, to treat of a marriage between the Prince of Wales, Richard, and a daughter of the French King. Froissart, v. i. ch. 325. In the next year, 1 R. II. his annuity of 20 marks was confirmed to him, and another annuity of 20 marks was granted to him in lieu of the pitcher of wine daily. See the Licence to surrender these grants in the Life of Ch. Urr. It is probable too that he was confirmed in his Office of Comptroller, though the instrument has not been produced". In the 11th of R. II. he had the King's Licence to surrender his two grants of 20 marks each in favour of John Scalby'. In the 13th R. II. he appears to have been Clerk of the works at Westminster &c. and in the following year at Windsor. In the 17th R. II. the King granted to him a new f In the 44 E. III. Galf. Ch. in obsequium R. ad partes transmarinas profecturus hab. lit. R. de protectione, 20. Jun. [MS. Harl. 6960. fol. 205.] * Our Squier; so that in the course of these five years our author had been promoted from the rank of Yeoman, to that of Squier, attendant upon the King. Scutifer and Armiger, LAT. are synonymous terms for the French Escuier. The Biographers thinking, I suppose, the title of Squier too vulgar, have changed it into Shield-bearer, as if Chaucer had the special office of carrying the King's shield. Some observations have been made upon this appointment of Chaucer, as Envoy to Genoa, in the Discourse, &c. n. 20. This is probable, I think, because Chaucer, in his Testament of Love, frequently alludes to his loss of Office, as one of the greatest misfortunes brought upon him by his meddling in those disturbances which happened in the City of London in the 7th of R. II. When he fled, to avoid being examined in relation to those disturbances (as he says, Test. of L. fol. 329. b.), he was probably superseded in his office. In the Editor's MS. additions the following grants, and the dates of them, are thus specified: 1 R. IL. New grant of Comptroller of Wools, 22 Jan. MS. Harl. 6961. fol. 2. 5 R. II. New grant of Comptroller of parva Custuma vinorum, 20 Apr. Ibid. fol. 51. 8 R. II. Grant to execute the office of Comptroller by a deputy, 17 Feb. Ibid. fol. 74. I This Licence, reciting the two grants, is printed in the Life of Ch. Urr. and the author of that life has observed, that this surrender was probably occasioned by our Author's distressed circumstances. Either he despaired of procuring payment of his pensions, or perhaps wanted to raise a sum of ready money. The same writer has extracted from the Testament of Love almost all that is now to be known of the history of this distress, which he ascribes very truly to Chaucer's unfortunate engagements with that party in the city of London, of which John of Northampton was at the head. What the real designs of that party were, and how a trifling City-riot, as it seems to have been, came to be treated as a rebellion, are points of great obscurity. There is good ground to believe that Northampton was connected with the Duke of Lancaster. At his trial, in August 1384, he contended, "that he ought not to be tried in the absence of his lord the Duke :" quo verbo (says Walsingham, p. 310.) suscitavit suspicionem sinistram tam vulgi quam procerum contra Ducem. He was condemned however to perpetual imprisonment; in which he remained till July 1320, when (according to the Monk of Evesham, p. 122.) ad instantiam Ducis Lancastrie Johannes Northampton -et socii sui nuper de Londoniis banniti, restituti sunt ad pristinas libertates. The Judgement against him was reversed in Parliament the next year, Rot. Parl. 14 R. II. n. 36. and he was restored to his lands, &c. the year following, Rot. Parl. 15 R. II. n. 33. This connexion of Northampton with the Duke of Lancaster will account for the part which Chaucer appears to have taken in this unhappy affair. He was very early attached to that Duke, and was at this time married to a sister of Catherine Swinford, the Duke's mistress; and it is observable, that the first mark of royal favour, which he received after his distresses, was bestowed upon him at the same time that Northampton received his pardon, and probably through the same mediation. See Tanner's Bib. Brit. v. CHAUCER, n. e. It may justly be doubted whether these two offices together indemnified annuity of twenty pounds [ap. Rymer.]';—in the 21st, his Protection for two years [Ibid.] ;— and in the 22d, a pipe of wine annually. Ibid. In the next year, the 1st H. IV. his two grants, of the annuity of 201. and of the pipe of wine, were confirmed to him [MSS. Rymer, H. IV. vol. i. n. 27.], and at the same time he had an additional grant of an annuity of 40 marks. Ibid. n. 15. He died, according to the inscription on his tomb-stone, in the beginning of the 2 H. IV. on the 25th of October, 1400. These, I think, are the principal facts in Chaucer's life, which are attested by authentic evidences. We learn from himself, in his Treatise on the Astrolabe, that he had a son, called Louis, who was ten years of age in 1391. It is the only circumstance, as I recollect, relating to his family, of which he has informed us. A few other historical particulars relating to himself, which may be collected from his writings, have been taken notice of already; and perhaps a more attentive examination of his works might furnish a few more. We must be cautious however, in such an examination, of supposing allusions which Chaucer never intended, or of arguing from pieces which he never wrote, as if they were his. We must not infer from his repeated commendations of the Daysie-flower, that he was specially favoured by Margaret, Countess of Pembroke"; and still less should we set him down as a follower of our author for the loss of his former office in the Customs. That was probably a very lucrative one. He complains of "being berafte out of dignitie of Office, in which he made a gatheringe of worldly godes;" and in another place he speaks of himself as "once glorious in worldly welefulnesse, and having suche godes in welthe as maken men riche." Test. of L. fol. 326. a. b. But that he should ever have been possessed of "lands and revenues to the yearly value almost of a thousand pounds," according to the tradition repeated by Mr. Speght, is quite incredible. 1 If Chaucer was ever possessed of Dunnington-castle in Berkshire, as his Biographers suppose he was, he must have purchased it about this time; for it appears to have been in the possession of Sir Richard Abberbury in the 16th year of R. IL. Monast. Ang. ii. 474. We have no proof of any such purchase, and the situation of his affairs makes it highly improbable. The tradition, which Mr. Evelyn mentions in his Sylva, of an oak in Dunnington-park called Chaucer's oak, may be sufficiently accounted for without supposing that it was planted by Chaucer himself, as the Castle was undoubtedly in the hands of Thomas Chaucer for many years. m It appears further from the Exitus, Pasch. 4 R. II. [MSS. Rymer, R. II. vol. ii. n. 3.] that Chaucer, on the 24 May, 1381, received at the Exchequer a half-year's payment of his own two annuities of 20 marks each, and also a half-year's payment of an annuity of 10 marks, granted by E. III. and confirmed by R. II. to his wife Philippa, nuper uni domicellarum Philippæ, nuper Reginæ Angliæ. The title given to her of domicella proves that she was unmarried at the time of her being in the Queen's service. There is a patent in Rymer, 43 E. III. by which the King, about four months after Queen Philippa's death, grants annuities to nine of her Domicellæ, viz. to four of them 10 marks, to two 5 pounds, and to three 5 marks. One of them is called Philippa Pykard, and might very well be supposed to be the lady whom Chaucer afterwards married, if it were not for two objections, 1. that the annuity granted to her is only 5 pounds, whereas Chaucer's wife appears by this record to have had one of 10 marks; and 2. that the Historians, though they own themselves totally ignorant of the Christian name of Chaucer's wife, are all agreed that her surname was Rouct, the same with that of her father and eldest sister, Catherine Swynford. The first objection might be got over by supposing that her annuity, though at first only 5 pounds, was encreased, perhaps upon her marriage with Chaucer, to 10 marks. As to the other point, it is not impossible that the father, and the eldest sister, who was his heiress [See Pat. 13 H. IV. p. 1. m. 35. ap. Rymer.], might bear the name of de Rouet, (or de Roelt, as it is in the Pat. 13 H. IV. just quoted,) from some estate in their possession, and yet the younger Sister might be called by the familyname of Pykard. If the records of payments at the Exchequer for the eleven years preceding 1381 are still in being, they may enable us to clear up these doubts, and also, perhaps, to ascertain very nearly the time of Chaucer's marriage, as they will probably shew when he began to receive his wife's annuity. If this last point were ascertained, we should know better what to think of the relation of Thomas Chaucer to our author. Mr. Speght informs us, "that some held opinion, that Thomas C. was not the sonne of Geffrey," and there are certainly many circumstances which might incline us to that opinion. I was in hopes of meeting with some light upon this subject in a Poem which Lydgate is said to have written, entitled, " A Complaint upon the departure of Thomas Chaucer into France, upon the Kynges Ambassate." A Poem, with this title, is extant in MS. Harl. 367. 33. in the hand-writing of J. Stowe; but upon inspection I found it to be a mere love-ballad, without the least imaginable reference to Thomas Chaucer. n I can find no other foundation for this notion. Mr. Speght, who first started it, says, that "it may appeare in divers treatises by him written: as in the Prologue of the Legend of good Women under the name of the Daysie; and |