"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 marks3, 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, if we apply modern notions of patronage to the subject; for in what manner could the king * Life prefixed to Urry's Edit. sig. d. C.

'About two hundred pounds of our money. C.

• 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