(Vol. vi., p. 603.)
In reference to the question raised by J. N. B., what authority there is
for asserting that Chaucer pursued the study of the law at the Temple, I
send you the following extract from a sketch of his life by one of his
latest biographers, Sir Harris Nicolas:
"It has been said that Chaucer was originally intended for the law, and
that, from some cause which has not reached us, and on which it would
be idle to speculate, the design was abandoned. The acquaintance he
possessed with the classics, with divinity, with astronomy, with so
much as was then known of chemistry, and indeed with every other branch
of the scholastic learning of the age, proves that his education had
been particularly attended to; and his attainments render it impossible
to believe that he quitted college at the early period at which persons
destined for a military life usually began their career. It was not
then the custom for men to pursue learning for its own sake; and the
most rational manner of accounting for the extent of Chaucer's
acquirements, is to suppose that he was educated for a learned
profession. The knowledge he displays of divinity would make it more
likely that he was intended for the church than for the bar, were it
not that the writings of the Fathers were generally read by all classes
of students. One writer says that Chaucer was a member of the Inner
Temple, and that while there he was fined two shillings for beating a
Franciscan friar in Fleet Street[3]; and another (Leland) observes,
that after he had travelled in France, 'collegia leguleiorum
frequentavit.' Nothing, however, is positively known of Chaucer until
the autumn of 1359, when he himself says he was in the army with which
Edward III. invaded France, and that he served for the first time on
that occasion."
The following remarks are from the _Life of Chaucer_, by William Godwin,
Lond. 1803, vol. i. p. 357.:
"The authority which of late has been principally relied upon with
respect to Chaucer's legal education is that of Mr. Speght, who, in his
_Life of Chaucer_, says, 'Not many yeeres since, Master Buckley did see
a record in the same house [the Inner Temple], where Geoffrey Chaucer
was fined two shillings for beating a Franciscane fryar in
Fleet-streete.' This certainly {70} would be excellent evidence, were
it not for the dark and ambiguous manner in which it is produced. I
should have been glad that Mr. Speght had himself seen the record,
instead of Master Buckley, of whom I suppose no one knows who he is:
why did he not? I should have been better satisfied if the authority
had not been introduced with so hesitating and questionable a phrase as
'not many yeeres since;' and I also think that it would have been
better if Master Buckley had given us the date annexed to the record;
as we should then at least have had the satisfaction of knowing whether
it did not belong to some period before our author was born, or after
he had been committed to the grave. Much stress, therefore, cannot be
laid upon the supposition of Chaucer having belonged to the Society of
the Inner Temple."