What then is the bearing of all this upon Chaucer's career? Let us take
up the matter point by point. In the first place it is clear that
although in a few cases the esquires were connected with important
families, in none did any come from a major branch of an important
family and in most the derivation is from ordinary stock. Chaucer was
then associated with a group of men who came from much the same class as
himself. [Footnote: Cf., pp. 6-11 above.] Secondly it appears that the
esquires were frequently the sons of men connected in some way with the
court. [Footnote: p. 12.] In this respect also Chaucer, was like his
associates, for his father, in 1338 at least was in the King's service.
[Footnote: L. R. No. 13, p. 145 Intro. p. XI.] Further many of the
esquires had served in the household of one of the King's children
before becoming members of the King's household. In this respect also
Chaucer with his service in the Duke of Clarence's house was like a
number of his fellows.
The exact nature of Chaucer's position in the household it is difficult
to discover. Dr. Furnivall supposed from an entry of May 25, 1368, the
second half yearly payment of Chaucer's annuity, that he was first a
"vallettus" of the King's chamber. [Footnote: L. R. No. 50, p. 161.] But
it is by no means certain that this is correct. Chaucer is called
"vallettus" of the King's chamber only once; in all other early
references he is described, if at all, as "vallectus hospicii Regis."
There is, I believe, a difference between these two. As I have already
pointed out, [Footnote: p. 17 above.] a certain confusion with regard to
the use of such phrases undoubtedly exists in the records. As evidence
of this confusion we find men called "vallettus" after they have been
called "armiger," and sometimes men who are normally called "vallettus
camere Regis" named as "vallettus hospicii Regis." Yet if we look up the
entries with regard to the men called "valletz de la chambre du Roi" in
the list of 1368, [Footnote: L. R., p. 167. 'In many cases, of course,
they are called merely "vallettus noster," "dileatus vallettus" or
"dileatus servitor."] we find that in such records as the Patent Rolls
where _DEFINITELY_ characterized, they are generally referred to as
"vallettus camere nostre." For example, William Gambon is so titled
seven times and never as "vallettus hospicii nostri." [Footnote: Pat.
Roll 285, mem. 2, idem 274, mem. 37, 257, mem. 25. Cal. Pat. Roll 1377,
p. 79. Issues, P. 228, mem. 17. C. R. 207, mem. 12. Pat. Roll 295, mem.
26.] Reginald Neuport is called six times "vallettus camere Regis."
[Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 139. Issues, P. 237, mem. 17. P. 249,
mem. 3. P. 251, mem. Pat. Roll 288, mem. 21, etc.] John Tipet is called
the same at least five times, and never by any other title. [Footnote:
Issues A 169, mem. 35. P. 228, mem. 17. P. 228, mem. 38. P. 235, mem.
20, etc.] Thomas Cheyne is called "vallettus camere Regis" five times.
[Footnote: Pat. Roll 262, mem. 23, 254, mem. 4, 255, mem. 25. Cal. Rot.
Pat. Turr. Lon. p. 174. Abb. Rot. Orig. II, 222.] Thomas Loveden alone
is called "vallettus hospicii Regis" twice and "vallettus camere" once.
[Footnote: Issues, P. 287, mem. 8. p. 250, mem. 1. Pat. Roll 266, mem.
5.] Under the circumstances, if Chaucer ever was a "vallettus camerae
Regis," we should expect him to have been so called more than once. It
seems rather more likely that his proper position was that of "vallettus
hospicii Regis" [Footnote: The household books, published in the Chaucer
Records, recognize no such classification as "vallettus hospicii Regis,"
pet the records certainly point to the existence of such a
classification.] and later of course, "armiger" or "scutifer." This view
is of course supported by the fact that in the household lists his name
does not appear in 1368 as a "vallet de la chambre du Roi" or in 1369
even near the names of men who had been "valletti" of the King's
chamber. Further that Chaucer's position by 1363 was distinctly
honourable appears from the fact that his name appears as Esquier among
a group of men who were not engaged in menial occupations of any
kind--as distinguished from the cooks and farriers of the groups called
"esquiers survenantz" and "sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a
chaperon."
With regard to Chaucer's employment as an envoy abroad, it is clear that
he was, when so engaged, performing a customary service, that indeed he
was one of several who were constantly used in minor missions abroad and
that his rank and duties were similar to those of a King's messenger
today. [Footnote: Cf. pp. 19, 20 above.] Likewise the rewards which
Chaucer received were not extraordinary. Practically every esquire of
Chaucer's rank who remained for any considerable time in the court
received an annuity; evidently such pensions were part of the
perquisites of the office. A few esquires received a smaller annuity
than Chaucer's, many received about the same amount, and, many received
more. [Footnote: Cf. p. 21 ff.] Similarly the special offices which
Chaucer held, particularly his controllerships, were not evidences of
remarkable favour: other esquires received the same kind of offices and
indeed they were apparently regular sinecures for the members of the
King's household. [Footnote: Cf. p. 22 ff.] So also the grant of
wardships and forfeited goods can be paralleled in many cases. In two
respects Chaucer received rather less than the other esquires--he was
given no corrody and no grant of land.
In one more respect can Chaucer's career be paralleled by that of other
"esquires"--in that of his marriage. Marriages between the esquires of
the King and the damsels of the queen were decidedly frequent.
[Footnote: Cf. p. 25 ff.]
Indeed, it is clear from the study of the careers of the other esquires
that, so far as we know, Chaucer received no exceptional favours, and
that his career was in practically every respect a typical esquire's
career.
In all this then there is no evidence that Chaucer enjoyed the favour of
any particular patron. Aside from the fact that, like Chaucer, some of
the esquires had served in the household of one of the King's children
before entering the King's, I have been able in no case to find evidence
of connection between them and any patron. Since Chaucer received no
more favours than did the average esquire, there is no particular reason
to suppose that he had any patron.
Now let us examine the evidence in favour of his close connection with
John of Gaunt. We have two pieces of definite evidence of a connection
between Chaucer and John of Gaunt; Chaucer's writing (probably shortly
after 1369) of the Book of the Duchess, and John of Gaunt's grant of an
annuity of ten pounds in June 1374. The former does not prove anything
with regard to a definite relation; such complimentary poems were
commonly written for nobles who were not special patrons of the poets;
and Chaucer in his Parlement of Foules possibly complimented Richard II
in much the same way. In regard to the latter piece of evidence--John of
Gaunt's grant of an annuity--two things are to be noted, first that John
of Gaunt had previously given an annuity to Philippa Chaucer (in 1372)
and, second, that in the grant he gives the cause of making it to
Chaucer as services rendered by Chaucer to the Duke and by Chaucer's
wife to Queen Philippa and the Duke's Consort. In the grant to Philippa
on the other hand no mention is made of Geoffrey. This greater
particularity in the statement of Philippa's services in Geoffrey's
grant, the fact that Philippa was in the duke's household (evidenced by
the Christmas gifts of silver cups to her) and the fact that nothing
else connects Chaucer definitely with John of Gaunt, make it seem almost
certain that the grant of an annuity to Chaucer was made merely in order
to increase the sum given to Philippa. Grants of this time which mention
the services of both husband and wife are usually made out to both, and
undoubtedly in this case the real purpose was to give it to Philippa and
her husband.
On the other hand, if John of Gaunt really was "Chaucer's great patron,"
why did he not give the poet employment in his own household? Anyone who
will run thru the Lancashire Registers of this time will be struck with
the immensity of the duke's income and the regal scale of his household.
[Footnote: Cf. Abstracts and Indexes I f. 13'7 dorso. Warrant to deliver
to a damsel for the queen (i.e. John of Gaunt's Spanish wife) 1708
pearls of the largest, 2000 of the second sort. Warrant to bring him at
the Savoy all the Rolls of Accounts of all his Recevors General and of
his Treasurers of War and of the Household and other officers of the
Household, there to be deposited and safely kept. Next page-long list of
jewels.] Surely had he wished to patronize the poet, he could have done
so most easily and most surely by giving him some honorable post in his
own control. Why should he have taken the difficult method of procuring
him precarious offices under the King!
Since the assertions with regard to John of Gaunt's ascendancy over
Chaucer's career have been so common, however, we ought to take up the
matter point by point. We have no reason to connect John of Gaunt with
Chaucer's start in the world--his employment in the household of the
Countess of Clarence. We know that Chaucer's father had relations with
the court and, although merely a merchant, he may very likely have
secured Chaucer's appointment to the place in the Countess's household,
as the fathers of Simon de Burley (not a merchant, but a man of no
rank), Michael de la Pole, (a merchant), John Legge, Thomas Frowyk and
Thomas Hauteyn obtained appointments for their children in the
households of the Prince of Wales and of the King. This was an age when
the merchant class was obtaining unusual power and privileges. Richard
II, it will be remembered, was called the "Londoner's King." It has been
shown that John of Gaunt visited the Countess of Clarence at Christmas
1357, and it has been suggested that he may have met Chaucer then and
taken a liking to him. Of actual meeting, however, we have no proof.
Chaucer was in the service of the Duke of Clarence in October 1860.
[Footnote: See Modern Lang. Notes March 1912 article of Dr. Samuel Moore
on The New Chaucer Item.]; the Duchess of Clarence died in 1363; and we
learn of him next in the King's household in 1367. The transition from
the household of the wife of one of the King's sons to that of the King
himself is one which can be paralleled in many cases; we have no need to
suppose patronage on the part of the Duke of Lancaster to account for
it. As a matter of fact we have no reason to suppose that John of Gaunt
knew anything of Chaucer at this time.
The diplomatic missions, and the grants of annuities and offices were
not, as I have shown, evidences of special favour; they were a regular
thing in the King's court. We have no reason to suppose that John of
Gaunt's influence in favour of Chaucer was a cause for any of them.
Further John of Gaunt's influence would have been worthless in helping
Chaucer to become Justice of the Peace in Kent in 1385. This appointment
must have been made by the Chancellor--Michael de la Pole--possibly at
the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County or the Custos
Rotulorum. Whether there was a Lord Lieutenant of Kent or not, I do not
know. At any rate the constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque
Ports (at this time Simon de Burley) held powers in Kent similar to
those of a lord lieutenant, and he occupies the position of the lord
lieutenant in the list of Justices of the Peace--at the top. Both de la
Pole and de Burley were enemies of John of Gaunt. Even if the
appointment was not due to them, we cannot ascribe it to John of Gaunt,
for I have been able to find no evidence that John of Gaunt had
influence in Kent, or that he controlled any of the other Justices.
Furthermore that Chaucer did not owe his place in the customs to the
influence of John of Gaunt is clear from the fact that the
collectorships of customs in London, at any rate, were controlled by the
duke's enemies. If they had sufficient power with the king to gain
control of those offices, it hardly seems likely that the King would
appoint a member of the faction opposed to them to serve with them. It
is to be noted also that Chaucer on account of the business connections
of his family--his father was a vintner and another relative evidently a
pepperer--would be more likely to sympathize with the party of Brembre
than with that of Northampton.
Now we come to a point where nearly all writers on Chaucer make
inferences in regard to John of Gaunt's influence--Chaucer's separation
from the office of controller of the customs. Most writers have said
more or less directly that Chaucer lost the office because John of Gaunt
had left England earlier in the same year. The facts themselves show
indubitably that Chaucer's leaving office was in no respect due to John
of Gaunt's departure. Before discussing this matter, I must say a word
about the political situation before 1386 and in that year. At the very
end of Edward III's reign John of Gaunt, who had been the real power
since the death of the Black Prince, became extremely unpopular because
of his bad administration of the government and his quarrels with the
Condoners. This unpopularity continued both in the court and without.
Under the new King the great duke had little influence; he was not even
included in the great council appointed to control the government during
the King's minority. Further a group of young men, connected with the
King, gradually assumed charge of affairs--Michael de la Pole, Robert de
Vere and others. These men were outright enemies of John of Gaunt;
according to the stories of the time they even made plots to poison and
to stab him. He himself retired from active political life and,
apparently, largely because he saw no chance for gaining great power in
England, turned his attention to his Spanish projects; [Footnote:
Trevelyan's view.] and in 1386 he left England for Spain. Others of the
great lords, however, were not content to play a passive role; the
brother of John of Gaunt, Gloucester, as leader, and the Earl of Arundel
and Warwick, most prominent followers, were particularly violent in
their attacks on the King and his friends. To revert now to Chaucer's
case: these are the significant facts in their order:
End of March, 1386 [Footnote: Or July 7 according to Oman.] John of
Gaunt leaves England.
October 24, 1386 Gloucester, Arundel et al. succeed in ousting
Michael de la Pole and the King's other cabinet officers.
December, 1386 Adam Yardley and Henry Gisors are appointed to
Chaucer's places in the customs.
These dates speak for themselves; they show indubitably that Chaucer was
not removed from office shortly after John of Gaunt's departure; that he
was not removed from office (if at all) until the friends of John of
Gaunt, the men who represented his interests, [Footnote: In the
following year his son and heir, the Earl of Derby, was one of the "lord
appellants"] had in some measure at least gained the government of the
Kingdom.
A similar condition of affairs appears when Chaucer was appointed to
his next office in 1389.
May, 1389 The King regained power--dismissed Gloucester's
friends from office and appointed his own.
July 12, 1389 He made Chaucer clerk of his works at Westminster.
August, 1389 He seems to have asked John of Gaunt to return to
England.
November, 1389 John of Gaunt actually returned.
Richard II then appointed Chaucer to that place a little over a month
after he had regained his authority, and four months before John of
Gaunt appeared in England.
Finally we cannot connect John of Gaunt in any way with Chaucer's
departure from the office of Clerk of the Works in June, 1391. From John
of Gaunt's return to England in 1389 until 1395 he seems to have been
influential with the King. In 1390 he was made Duke of Aquitaine for
life. In 1392 he was ambassador to France, in 1393 he aided in putting
down a revolt in Chester. He was in England, apparently, most of this
time.
Certainly the analysis of Chaucer's life does not confirm the theory
that John of Gaunt exercised a ruling influence over his destiny. Nor
does a study of the connections of his associates indicate his
dependency on John of Gaunt. His friend William de Beauchamp was at a
later date certainly a member of the Gloucester--Warwick faction. But in
1378 and 1380, when Chaucer was apparently connected with him, Beauchamp
was a member of the King's household (from 1379 on chamberlain of the
household), evidently in favour with the King and not a partisan of the
Lancaster-Gloucester faction. Further we know that Chaucer associated in
a business way at least with Brembre, Philipot and Walworth, that he
probably knew Thomas Usk, that the latter admired him, and that in the
King's household he was connected with some men like John de Beauchamp
and John de Salesbury who were not friends to John of Gaunt. Yet toward
the end of Richard II's reign we find Chaucer connected in some way with
John of Gaunt's son, and when a few years later that son ascended the
throne as Henry IV, Chaucer received new annuities and aids. The fact
then that Chaucer was friendly with prominent men in both factions makes
it incredible that his fortunes were dependent on those of John of
Gaunt.
One other suggestion-was John of Gaunt likely to have had enough
interest in poetry to patronize a poet? I have found no evidence that he
did patronize other poets or artists of any kind, and the impression of
his character which a careful scholar like Mr. Trevelyan has gained from
a study of his career, is not that he was such a man as would be
interested in the arts.
From all these facts, I do not see how it can be maintained that John of
Gaunt was Chaucer's "great patron." The evidence, so far as I can make
out at present, leads one to the conclusion that Chaucer must have
received his offices and royal annuities from the King rather than from
John of Gaunt, at times when John of Gaunt's influence would have been
harmful rather than beneficial, or when John of Gaunt was not in England
to exercise it.