Read Ebook: Chaucer's Official Life by Hulbert James R James Root

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 149 lines and 28819 words, and 3 pages

INTRODUCTION: Statement of the problem THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING'S HOUSEHOLD: Their Families Appointment Classification Services Rewards Marriage Careers of the Esquires of 1368 THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE THE CUSTOMS SIR JOHN DE BURLEY SIR EDWARD DE BERKELEY SIR THOMAS DE PERCY SIR WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP RICHARD FORESTER HENRY SCOGAN OTO DE GRAUNSON BUKTON CHAUCER'S CAREER AND HIS RELATION TO JOHN OF GAUNT CHAUCER'S RELATION TO RICHARD II SOME GENERAL POINTS

INTRODUCTION

The researches of Sir Harris Nicolas, Dr. Furnivall, Mr. Selby and others have provided us with a considerable mass of detailed information regarding the life and career of Geoffrey Chaucer. Since the publication of Nicolas's biography of the poet prefixed to the Aldine edition of Chaucer's works in 1845, the old traditional biography of conjecture and inference, based often on mere probability or the contents of works erroneously ascribed to Chaucer, has disappeared and in its place has been developed an accurate biography based on facts. In the sixty-five years since Nicolas's time, however, a second tradition--connected in some way with fact, to be sure--has slowly grown up. Writers on Chaucer's life have not been content merely to state the facts revealed in the records, but, in their eagerness to get closer to Chaucer, have drawn many questionable inferences from those facts. Uncertain as to the exact significance of the various appointments which Chaucer held, his engagement in diplomatic missions and his annuities, biographers have thought it necessary to find an explanation for what they suppose to be remarkable favors, and have assumed--cautiously in the case of careful scholars but boldly in that of popular writers--that Chaucer owed every enhancement of his fortune to his "great patron" John of Gaunt. In greater or less degree this conception appears in every biography since Nicolas. Professor Minto in his Encyclopedia Britannica article says with regard to the year 1386: "that was an unfortunate year for him; his patron, John of Gaunt, lost his ascendancy at court, and a commission which sat to inquire into the abuses of the preceding administration superseded Chaucer in his two comptrollerships. The return of Lancaster to power in 1389 again brightened his prospects; he was appointed clerk of the King's works," etc.

Similarly, Dr. Ward in his life of Chaucer, after mentioning that Chaucer and John of Gaunt were of approximately the same age, writes: "Nothing could, accordingly, be more natural than that a more or less intimate relationship should have formed itself between them. This relation, there is reason to believe, afterwards ripened on Chaucer's part into one of distinct political partisanship." With regard to the loss of the controllerships Dr. Ward writes: "The new administration had as usual demanded its victims--and among their number was Chaucer.... The explanation usually given is that he fell as an adherent of John of Gaunt; perhaps a safer way of putting the matter would be to say that John of Gaunt was no longer in England to protect him." A little further on occurs the suggestion that Chaucer may have been removed because of "his previous official connection with Sir Nicholas Brembre, who, besides being hated in the city, had been accused of seeking to compass the deaths of the Duke and of some of his adherents." Later, in connection with a discussion of Chaucer's probable attitude toward Wiclif, Dr. Ward writes: "Moreover, as has been seen, his long connexion with John of Gaunt is a well-established fact; and it has thence been concluded that Chaucer fully shared the opinions and tendencies represented by his patron."

Dr. Ward's treatment is cautious and careful compared to that of Prof. Henry Morley in his "English Writers." For example, the latter writes: "Lionel lived till 1368, but we shall find that in and after 1358 Chaucer's relations are with John of Gaunt, and the entries in the household of the Countess Elizabeth might imply no more than that Chaucer, page to John of Gaunt, was detached for service of the Countess upon her coming to London." A few pages further on in the same volume occurs a paragraph on the life of John of Gaunt glossed "Chaucer's Patron." With regard to the grants of a pitcher of wine daily, and the two controllerships, Professor Morley writes: "These successive gifts Chaucer owed to John of Gaunt, who, in this last period of his father's reign, took active part in the administration." And again, "John of Gaunt had administered affairs of government. It was he, therefore, who had so freely used the power of the crown to bestow marks of favour upon Chaucer." "It was his patron the Duke, therefore, who, towards the end of 1376, joined Chaucer with Sir John Burley, in some secret service of which the nature is not known."

Finally, after mentioning Chaucer's being "discharged" from his controllerships, Morley writes: "During all this time Chaucer's patron John of Gaunt was away with an army in Portugal."

Such absolute certainty and boldness of statement as Professor Morley's is scarcely found again in reputable writers on Chaucer. Professor Lounsbury in his life of Chaucer implies rather cautiously that Chaucer lost his places in the Customs because of John of Gaunt's absence from the country, and as the result of an investigation of the customs. Mr. Jusserand in his Literary History of England writes: "For having remained faithful to his protectors, the King and John of Gaunt, Chaucer, was looked upon with ill favour by the men then in power, of whom Gloucester was the head, lost his places and fell into want." F. J. Snell in his Age of Chaucer has similar statements, almost as bold as those of Professor Morley. "John of Gaunt was the poet's life-long friend and patron." "Chaucer was now an established favourite of John of Gaunt, through whose influence apparently he was accorded this desirable post" Most remarkable of all: "Outwardly, much depended on the ascendancy of John of Lancaster. If the Duke of Lancaster prospered, Chaucer prospered with him. When the Duke of Gloucester was uppermost, the poet's sky was over cast, and he had hard work to keep himself afloat."

The last quotations which I shall give on this point are from Skeat's life of Chaucer prefixed to the single volume edition of the poet's works in the Oxford series: "As the duke of Gloucester was ill disposed towards his brother John, it is probable that we can thus account for the fact that, in December of this year, Chaucer was dismissed from both his offices, of Comptroller of Wool and Comptroller of Petty Customs, others being appointed in his place. This sudden and great loss reduced the poet from comparative wealth to poverty; he was compelled to raise money upon his pensions, which were assigned to John Scalby on May 1, 1388." On the same page: "1389. On May 3, Richard II suddenly took the government into his own hands. John of Gaunt returned to England soon afterwards, and effected an outward reconciliation between the King and the Duke of Gloucester. The Lancastrian party was now once more in power, and Chaucer was appointed Clerk of the King's Works," etc.

THE ESQUIRES OF THE KING'S HOUSEHOLD

THEIR FAMILIES

We have the names of the esquires of the king's household in two lists of 1368 and 1369, printed in the Chaucer Life Records . In the study of the careers of these esquires the most difficult problem is to determine the families from which they were derived. Had they come from great families, of course, it would not have been hard to trace their pedigrees. But a long search through county histories and books of genealogy, has revealed the families of only a few, and those few in every case come from an unimportant line. It is clear then that they never were representatives of highly important families. A statement of the antecedents of such esquires as I have been able to trace, the names arranged in alphabetical order, follows.

John Beauchamp was almost certainly either that John Beauchamp of Holt who was executed in 1386, or his son. In either case he was descended from a younger branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick.

Patrick Byker, who was King's "artillier" in the tower of London, was the son of John de Byker who had held the same office before him. William Byker, probably a relative, is mentioned from about 1370 on as holding that office . I have been able to learn nothing further about the family.

Roger Clebury. In Westcote's Devonshire occurs an account of a family named Cloberry, of Bradston. In the course of his statement, which is devoid of dates or mention of lands other than Bradston, Westcote refers to two Rogers.

Several men of the name of William de Clopton are mentioned in the county histories. Unfortunately no facts appear in the records to connect any one of them with the esquire of that name. At any rate from the accounts given in Gage and Morant the following pedigree is clear:

Robert de Corby was son of Robert and Joan de Corby . His father had been yeoman in the King's court and had received a number of grants from the King .

The younger branch of the family had assumed the name of Felbrigge from a town of that name in Norfolk. As will be seen, George Felbrigge came from the younger branch of a younger branch of the family, and his ancestors seem to have been neither influential nor wealthy.

Robert de Ferrer's pedigree was as follows:

Since his brother died only a year before the date of the first of the lists, it is very likely that Robert became a member of the King's household, while still a younger son. His father, Robert, second baron Ferrers, was one of the Knights of the King's Chamber. He fought in the campaigns in France and Flanders.

John de Herlyng, who was usher of the King's chamber and the most important of the esquires in Chaucer's time, came of a family settled in Norfolk. Blomefield gives a pedigree of the family beginning with this John de Herlyng , but, is unable to trace his ancestry definitely. He finds mention of a certain Odo de Herlyng, but is forced to the conclusion that the family was an unimportant one before the time of John de Herlyng.

With regard to Rauf de Knyveton very little information is forthcoming. Glover's Derby gives the pedigree of a family of Knivetons who possessed the manor of Bradley and says that there was a younger branch of the family which lived at Mercaston. Ralph, though not specifically mentioned, may have been a younger son of one of these branches.

Although Helmyng Leget was an important man in his own time-sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire in 1401 and 1408 , and Justice of the Peace in Suffolk --Morant is able to give no information about his family. Perhaps his position in the society of the county was due in part to the fact that he married an heiress, Alice, daughter of Sir Thomas Mandeville.

John de Romesey comes of an eminent Southampton family of the town of Romsey which can be traced back as far as 1228, when Walter of Romsey was sheriff of Hampshire. His pedigree is given as follows by Hoare:

Gilbert Talbot was second, son of Sir John Talbot of Richard's Castle in Herefordshire.

Hugh Wake may be the Hugh Wake who married Joan de Wolverton and whom Lipscombe connects with the lordly family of Wake of Buckinghamshire.

From what I have been able to find out about the families of some of these men, from the character of the names, and from the fact that the families of the great bulk of the esquires cannot be traced, it is clear that the esquires of the king's household were chiefly recruited either from the younger sons of knightly families, or from quite undistinguished stock. In three cases--those of John Legge, Thomas Hauteyn and Thomas Frowyk--it seems probable that they came--as Chaucer did--from merchants' families in London.

APPOINTMENT

We can scarcely expect any outright statement of the reasons in general or in particular for the appointment of esquires. Nevertheless I find two circumstances which may indicate the conditions of appointment; first, some previous connection of their fathers with the king's court, and second, some previous connection on their own part with the household of one of the king's children. Of those whose fathers or relatives had been in the court, may be mentioned John Beauchamp, Patrick Byker, Nicholas Careu, Robert Corby, Collard Dabriohecourt, Robert de Ferrers, and William Burele . Of course John Legge's father--as mayor of London--must have been known at court, and one of Thomas Hauteyn's progenitors had been receiver of king's customs at London.

CLASSIFICATION

The two lists in the household books classify the members of the household in different ways--one list according to function and the other, apparently, according to length of service. The first is the system according to which the schedule of names conjecturally dated December 1368 was made, and the latter is the system governing the list of September 1, 1369 A glance at the second of these and comparison with the first will show how it was made up. It classifies the esquires in two groups--"esquiers de greindre estat" and "esquiers de meindre degree." Looking at the names of the "esquiers de greindre estat" we notice that the first thirteen are names which appear in the group of "esquiers" of 1368, that the next ten are identical--even in the order of occurrence--with the list of "sergeantz des armes" of 1368, that the following seven are the first seven in the list of "sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon" of 1368 , that then Andrew Tyndale who in 1368 was an "esquier ma dame" appears, and is followed by the rest of, the "sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures," etc., that the next six were in 1368 "esquiers ma dame," and that finally occur ten names not found in the lists of 1368. From this comparison it is clear that the list of 1369 was made up from a series of lists of different departments in the king's household.

The list of "esquiers de meindre degree" of 1369 was doubtless made in the same way, although the evidence is not so conclusive. The first twenty-two names correspond to names in the list of esquiers of 1368; the next eleven occur in the list of "esquiers survenantz" of 1368; the following five appear among the "esquiers ma dame" of 1368; the next thirteen do not occur in the lists of 1368; but the following eight correspond even in order to the list of "esquiers fauconers" of 1368. It is therefore clear that we have here a cross division. That the list of 1368 gives a division according to function is clear from the titles of all groups except one. The esquires classified as "fauconers" "survenantz," "ma dame," etc., performed the functions suggested by those titles--a fact which can be demonstrated by many references to the function of these men in other documents. In the case of the one exception, the "sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon," it is clear that they performed duties similar to those of the "esquiers survenantz." For example, Richard des Armes was valet of the king's arms; William Blacomore was one of the king's buyers, subordinate to the purveyor of fresh and salt fish John de Conyngsby was likewise a buyer of victuals for the household , John Goderik and John Gosedene were cooks in the household ; Richard Leche was king's surgeon , Thomas de Stanes was sub-purveyor of the poultry ; William Strete was the king's butler ; Edmond de Tettesworth was the king's baker , etc. Hence it is clear that all these performed duties which in the main were of a menial character.

On the other hand, the division into two groups in the list of 1369 seems to indicate not the function of the esquires, but their rank in the household. Their rank, in turn, appears to be determined by various considerations--function , length of service, and to some extent considerations which are not manifest. That length of service played some part in the division seems clear from a study and comparison of the careers of the various men. Since we are interested in knowing particularly the significance of the classification of Chaucer who appeared in 1368 as an esquier, I shall confine myself to a consideration of the "esquiers" of that year. The names of the esquires of greater degree with the date at which they are first mentioned in connection with the household follow:

The "esquiers de meindre degree" follow:

A comparison of the two sections shows that the first contains the names of two men whose service goes back as far as 1343, 1344, and that it contains the name of no one who was not by 1364 associated with the court. The second section, on the other hand, contains but one name of a date earlier than 1353 and several which do not occur in the records before the time of this document, or in fact until a year or two later. The fact however that in a number of cases the second section contains names of men who entered the household years before others whose names occur in the first section makes it seem probable that special circumstances might influence the classification of a given esquire.

Linked with this problem of classification is one of nomenclature--the use of the terms "vallettus" and "esquier" . Chaucer scholars have generally assumed that the term "esquier" represents a rank higher than "vallettus." But they give no evidence in support, of this distinction, and we are interested in knowing whether it is correct or not. A first glance at the list of 1369, to be sure, and the observation that cooks and falconers, a shoe-smith and a larderer , and the "esquiers survenantz" of 1368 are not called esquires in the list of 1368, the Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, Issue Rolls or Fine Rolls. William de Risceby and Thomas Spigurnell are the only clear exceptions to this rule. Of the "esquiers survenantz" I have noted eighteen references with mention of title, in seventeen of which the man named is called "vallettus" or "serviens." Of the "sergeantz des offices," Richard des Armes is called "vallettus" or "serviens" in twelve different entries, never "esquier." I have noted thirty-five other references to men in the same classification with the title "vallettus." It is clear then that although the usage is not strict these men were really of the rank of "vallettus," and that this rank was lower than that of "esquier." Possibly the household books used the term "esquier" in this loose way out of courtesy, but the other documents--which were strictly official--for the most part used it more exactly in accordance with a man's actual rank.

SERVICES

With regard to the services which the Household Books prescribe for the esquires, I shall say nothing. In the public records, however, I have found special services to which the individual esquires were assigned. In the first place certain of these men--even those who appear in the list of 1368 as "esquiers," and in that of 1369 as "esquiers de greindre estat," or "esquiers de meindre degree"--performed special functions of a character which makes it seem unlikely that they ever did the service which the Household Books required of an esquire of the king's household. In the list of 1368, for example, Esmon Rose was custodian of the great horses of the king , Hugh Lyngeyn was a buyer of the household , Nicholas Prage was first king's minstrel, and later serjeant at arms, Simond de Bokenham was chief serjeant of the larder , and John Legge was serjeant at arms .

Secondly, certain of the esquires held special offices in the king's chamber. John Herlyng and Walter Walsh were ushers of the king's chamber . John de Beauchamp was keeper of the king's jewels or receiver of the king's chamber for some years up to 11 Richard II ; then for a short time he was Seneschall of the king's household .

REWARDS

The regular pay of an esquire of the household was seven pence halfpenny a day. The pay of a King's sergeant at arms was twelve pence a day--a sum usually granted for life. It is to be observed, however, that the sergeants-at-arms received very few other grants. The esquires, on the other hand, received extremely valuable grants in great numbers. In particular they were given annuities, grants of land, grants of office, custody of lands belonging to heirs under age, usually with marriage of the heir, and corrodies at monasteries.

Taking up the first of these I shall confine myself to the "esquiers" of 1368, since-from Chaucer's position in the lists in that year and in 1369--they would seem to be the men with whom Chaucer is to be associated. In stating the amounts of the annuities I shall give the total sum which each man received. The names follow in the order of the lists of 1368.

Johan de Herlyng, L40, + L20 + L13,10s. 1d. + L12, 10s. Wauter Whithors, L40. Thomas Cheyne, L20. Johan de Beverle, L40; 8s. 9d. Johan de Romesey, L20. Wauter Walssh, L20. 7s Hugh Wake, L40. Roger Clebury, L10. Piers de Cornewaill, L40. Robert de Ferers, no annuity found. Elmyn Leget, 20m. Robert de Corby, L10. Collard Dabrichecourt, L10. Thomas Hauteyn, L10. Hugh Cheyne, 10m. Thomas Foxle--no information whatever. Geffrey Chaucer. Geffrey Stuele, L20. Simond de Burgh, L10 + 10m. Johan Tichemerssh--no information whatever. Robert la Souche, L10. Esmon Rose 40m. Laurence Hauberk--no certain information as esquire. Griffith de la Chambre, L 20. Johan de Thorp, 10 m. 4, Raulyn Erchedeakne--no information whatever. Rauf de Knyveton, 10 m. Thomas Hertfordyngbury, L10. Hugh Strelley, 40 m. Hugh Lyngeyn, L20. Nicholas Prage, 10m. Richard Torperle, 12d. daily. Richard Wirle, no annuity. Johan Northrugge, 10m. Hanyn Narrett, L10. Simond de Bokenham, L10. Johan Legge, 12d. daily 14

In only two cases in which we find other information about an esquire do we find no annuity. In a few cases, I have been able to find out nothing at all about the men. In all others, annuities ranging from ten marks up to L86 are found. Apparently then the receipt of an annuity was absolutely a normal feature of the career of an esquire.

None of the other forms of grants was given so systematically and uniformly as that of annuities, but all of the others were very common. The nature and extent of the grants of land, and of guardianships, will appear in the accounts of the careers of individual esquires. They are so irregular in their character, are changed so frequently and are given on such varying 'conditions, that an accurate list could scarcely be made.

The matter of grants of offices, particularly in the customs, is, however, more easy to handle. At the time when Chaucer was given his controllership, offices in the customs seem to have been used regularly as sinecures for the esquires. In 1353 Griffith de la Chambre was granted the office of gauging of wine in the towns of Lenn and Great Yarmouth. At the same time Roger Clebury received a similar grant. In 1343 William de Clopton had a grant for life of the collectorship of the port of London with wages of L20. Apparently he did not actually exercise the office because certain merchants to whom the king had farmed the customs of the realm were directed to pay him his wages. In 1347 he and John Herlyng--another esquire--were collectors of the petty customs in London. In 1352 and again in 1355 his deputy is specifically mentioned. In 1346 John de Herlyng was granted the office of controller of customs in Boston . In 1348 he was granted the office of controller of wools, hides and wool-fells, wines and all other merchandise at Newcastle-upon-Tyne with this added provision, "furthermore because he stays continually in the King's company by his order, he may substitute for himself a deputy, in the said office," etc. In 1352 he was controller of the customs in the port of Boston and likewise in that of Lenne--with provision in the same terms as those above for a deputy in the latter office--and collector of the petty custom in London--with deputy. In 1359 he surrendered the office of controller of customs at Boston for an annuity of ten marks. At one time he was also controller in the port of St. Botolph. From the fact that the records show Herlyng was constantly in the King's court, it is clear that he exercised all these offices by deputy.

Grants of wine are scarcely so common as the other kinds of grants and, so far as I have found, they are not usually given to prominent esquires. John Roos had a grant of two tuns of wine yearly; William Risceby of "one dolium" or two pipes of Gascon wine; William Strete and William Archebald each of one tun of Gascon wine yearly; John De Beverle and Thomas Cheyne each of two dolia of Gascon wine yearly; and Hugh Lyngeyn of one tun of red wine of Gascony yearly. One feature of the form of royal grants remains to be mentioned. Writers on Chaucer have frequently called attention to the fact that his grants contain a statement that they are made for good service done. This is merely a regular part of the form of a grant. Any enrollments of grants--such as those noted on the preceding page--will give examples of the use of this phrase. Further, the form of grant practically always includes a characterization of the grantee as "dilectus vallettus," "dilectus serviens," "dilectus armiger," etc.

MARRIAGE

The wives of the esquires came chiefly from two classes--first, the "domicellae" of the queen's retinue, and second, the daughters and heiresses of country gentlemen. Esquires who married wives from the second class frequently owed a great part of their importance in the county to the estates which their wives brought. So, frequently in the county histories occurs an account of some esquire whose family and antecedents the writer has been, unable to trace, but who was prominent in the county--sheriff perhaps or Knight of the Shire--as a result of the lands he held in right of his wife. An example of this is Helmyng Leget, who was member of Parliament for Essex in 7 and 9 Henry IV, and sheriff in 1401 and 1408. He had married Alice, daughter and coheir of Sir Thomas Mandeville and received the estates of Stapleford-Taney, Bromfield, Chatham Hall in Great Waltham and Eastwick in Hertfordshire. Similarly John de Salesbury, who had received from the King a grant of the custody of the estates of John de Hastang defunct, and of the marriage of the latter's daughter and heir Johanna, married the lady himself and held in her right extensive lands.

John Beauchamp married Joan, daughter and heir of Robert le Fitzwyth. Simond de Bokenham married Matilda Gerounde, who brought him the only land he possessed at his death. Hugh Cheyne married Joan, daughter and heir of John de Wodeford. Robert Corby married Alice, daughter and heir of Sir John Gousall. Collard Dabrichecourt married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Sibilla, daughter of Thomas de Saye, and held in her right Strathfield-Saye. George Felbrig married Margaret, daughter of Elizabeth dame de Aspall, and received with her certain lands in Norfolk and Suffolk. Robert Ferrers married Elizabeth Boteler, daughter and heir of William Boteler of Wemme. John Legge married Agnes de Northwode, coheir of the manour of Ertindon in Surrey. Hugh Wake married Joan de Wolverton and received lands with her. Walter Walssh married Joan Duylle, widow of John Fletcher, called "bel," and received with her the house of Gravebury, which she and her former husband had held. Walter Whithors married Mabel, daughter and coheir of Philip Niweham

Even more interesting--because of their analogy with Chaucer's marriage--are the instances of marriage with the queen's damsels. In one case, at least, this kind of alliance was considered a meritorious action on the part of the esquire concerned, for not only did he receive an annuity therefor, but ever afterwards when a payment was made on the annuity, the circumstances were given in full. "To Edmund Rose, valletus, to whom the King has given ten pounds per annum to be received at the Exchequer, for good service rendered to the King and because he has married Agnes Archer formerly damsel to Queen Philippa." Similarly Roger Archer married Alexandra de la Mote damsel to Isabella. It is curious that in both these cases the maiden name of the wife is given in the Issue Rolls for years after the grant of the annuities. In the other cases only the surname of the husband is given. These cases are: Walter Wyght and Margaret Wyght, Thomas and Katherine Spigurnell, John and Almicia de Beverle, John and Stephanetta Olney, Robert and Joan Louth, Piers and Alice Preston, Hugh and Agatha Lyngeyn and John and Margaret Romsey.

THE CAREERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ESQUIRES

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet