CHAUCER, Geoffrey, who has been styled the Father of English poetry, has had many biographers, but much of his history is involved in considerable obscurity. The year 1328 has been usually assigned as the date of his birth, upon the authority of an inscription on his tombstone, in which he is said to have died in 1400, aged seventy-two. This inscription, however, was not placed on his tomb till the middle of the sixteenth century; and some doubt of its correctness has been expressed in consequence of Chaucer’s deposition as a witness in October 1386, in which he states himself then to have been “forty years and upwards,” and which, if strictly correct, would place his birth about 1345. We are certain, however, from his own words, that he was born in London; but with regard to his descent and parentage there is absolutely nothing known. Leland says he was nobili loco natus ; but Spcght, in 1598, informs us, that “in the opinion of some heralds, bee descended not of any great house, which they gather by bis armes.” This, as an old writer observes, “is a slender conjecture,” yet not more so than Speght’s supposition that his father was Richard Chaucer, a vintner, who died in 1348; while Pitts says that he was the son of a knight. It may also be noticed that there was a Robert Chaucer connected with the royal household of Edward II. who perhaps may have stood in that relationship. (, Roi. Scot.) Leland, who lived in the reign of Henry VIII., asserts that he studied at Oxford; while his signature “Phi-logenet of Cambridge, Clerk,” affixed to one of his early pieces, has been brought forward as more direct proof that he received his education at the latter university. Some of his biographers very gravely assure us that he was first at Cambridge, and then completed his studies at Oxford; after which they say lie went on his travels through France and the Netherlands. The next statement is, that he was a member of the Inner Temple, and that whilst there he was fined “two shillings for beating a Franciscane frier in Fleet Street.”

Without stopping to consider the probability of these several points, we may observe, that frequent mention of Chaucer, during the more advanced period of his life, occurs in various public instruments; most of which are printed in the Appendix to Mr Godwin’s life of the poet. The first direct information we possess regarding his history is, that, in the autumn of 1359, he was in the army with which Edward III. invaded France. This fact we learn from his own deposition, which further states that he was made prisoner by the French near the town of Retters during that expedition; but we are not informed at what time he was ransomed and returned to England, although we may conclude that he never resumed the profession of arms. The next notice that has been discovered shows that he had attracted the regard of the English monarch, and that he was an attendant on the king’s person. It is a patent in 1367, by which Edward the Third grants Chaucer an annuity of twenty marks, by the title of i dilectus vallettus noster,’ our valet or yeoman, in consideration of his former and expected services. According to Tyrwhitt, this designation was the intermediate rank between sqιιier and grome ; and this annuity may be reckoned in our present money at two hundred pounds. In his poem of the Dream, or the Complaint of the Black Knight, written before this time, the poet is supposed to allude to the nuptials of his munificent patron John of Gaunt, with Blanche, heiress of Lancaster. The same poem contains an allusion to the lady whom Chaucer himself afterwards married, although the time of his marriage is somewhat uncertain; but it is admitted that by this alliance he became eventually related to his illustrious patron.

In June 1370, it appears that Chaucer was abroad in the king’s service; and on the 12th November 1372, being at that time one of the king’s esquires, “scutifer noster,” he was joined in a commission with two citizens of Genoa, to treat with the Duke and Duchess of Genoa, for the purpose of fixing upon some place on the coast of England where the Genoese might form a commercial establishment. It was at this time he enjoyed the opportunity of visiting Petrarch, if his visit to that illustrious poet ever took place, which, however pleasing to the imagination, is somewhat doubtful; as the passage in his Canterbury Tales, upon which his supposed conference with the “worthy clerk of Padua” is founded, is susceptible of a different interpretation. The next notice of Chauccr is, that on the 23d of April 1374, he obtained a grant for life of a pitcher of wine daily, to be received from the hands of the king’s butler in the port of London. On the 8th June 1374 he was appointed comptroller of the customs, and subsidy of wools, &c. in the port of London, during the king’s pleasure; but the patent contains the following injunction, “so that the said Geoffrey 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 person, and not by substitute.” The reason of such an express injunction is not known, and it is possible that his majesty may have been insensible of his poetical talents, although this attendance on his official duties seems to have had no prejudicial effect on his genius, as the composition of his House of Fame is assigned to the same period. In November 1375, the wardship of Edmond, son and heir of Edmond Staplegate of Kent, was granted to Chaucer, for which he received L. 104; and in the following year, another grant, to the value of L. 71. 4s. 6d. connected with his office of comptroller of f⅛e customs. In February 1377 Chaucer was joined with Sir Guichard d’ Angle, afterwards Earl of Huntingdon, and Sir Richard Sturry, to negotiate a secret treaty respecting the marriage of Richard, prince of Wales, with Mary, daughter of the king of France. His employment in foreign missions shows that Chaucer had established a personal and political character of some importance; and the emoluments which he received enabled him to live in a state of dignity and hospitality that was in accordance with his natural sociality of disposition.

The reign of his successor was, on the whole, not so propitious to the poet. On the accession of Richard the [7:6:337]Second, the annuity of twenty marks was indeed confirmed to him, and his grant of wine was replaced by an equivalent annuity of other twenty marks. He also retained the situation of comptroller of the customs and subsidies, which Edward the Third bestowed on him; but he was doomed to experience a reverse of fortune, in some measure connected with the decline of John of Gaunt’s influence at court. The immediate cause of this reverse is said to have been his connection with a political party, in some disputes between the court and the city of London, in the year 1384. This party was headed by John of Northampton, an opulent merchant, who had been mayor, and was attached to the religious tenets of Wykliffe, and to the political interests of John of Gaunt. The result was, that Chaucer was compelled to fly the kingdom; and he retired first to Hainault, then to France, and finally to Zealand. How long he remained abroad is uncertain; but we find that Chaucer was elected a knight of the shire for the county of Kent in the parliament which met on the 1st October 1386. Whilst attending his parliamentary duties, he was examined at Westminster, on the 15th of October, as a witness “in the court of chivalry,” in the great cause between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir Robert Grosvenor, when he made the deposition to which we have already alluded, the substance of which, in as far as relates to himself, is as follows; “Geoffrey Chaucer, Esquire, of the age of forty and upwards, armed twenty-seven years, being asked whether the arms, azure, a bend or, belonged to Sir Richard Šcrope, said Yes; for he saw him so armed in France before the town of Retters, and Sir Henry Scrope armed in the same arms with a white label, and with banner; and the said Richard armed in the entire arms, and so during the whole expedition, untill the said Geoffrey was taken.”

Whatever maybe the date of Chaucer’s return to England, we have his own testimony that he fled to avoid being examined in relation to certain disturbances; and that after his return he was arrested and confined to the Tower of London. That he was deprived of his comptrollership is also evident, as other persons are named as holding them in December 1386. During his imprisonment he commenced his Testament of Love, an allegorical prose composition, in imitation of Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophice, in which he feelingly laments his own situation, “berafte out of dignitie of office, in which he had made a gatheringe of worldly goodes and “enduring penance in this dark prison, caitifned from frendship and acquaintance, and forsaken of al that any word dare speak.” As the price of his release, it is said, he was obliged to make a confession respecting the conspiracy in which he had been implicated. In May 1388 lie found it necessary to apply for permission to surrender his two grants of twenty marks each in favour of one John Scalby. After this he is said to have retired, to Woodstock, and employed himself in revising and correcting his writings, and enjoying the calm pleasures of rural contemplation, amidst the scenes which inspired his youthful genius. The composition of his Canterbury Tales is usually assigned to this period; when, though long past the prime of life, his mental powers must have been in their fullest vigour.

In 1389 the Duke of Lancaster having returned from Spain, and resumed his influence at court, it was probably through his influence that, on the 12th July 1390, Chaucer was appointed to the office of clerk of the king’s works, the duties of which he was permitted to execute by deputy, with a salary of two shillings per diem. In this office, however, he seems to have been superseded in the course of the following year; but, on the 28th of February 1394, he obtained a grant of twenty pounds yearly for life. On the 4th May 1398, letters of protection were granted him for the space of two years. On the 13th October in the same year he obtained another grant of wine, being one tun yearly during his life.

Henry the Fourth, the son of his great patron the Duke of Lancaster, ascended the throne in 1399; and from him Chaucer had his annuity of twenty pounds confirmed, with the additional sum of forty marks yearly. The last record of Chaucer that has been discovered is a lease of a tenement in the garden of the chapel of the thessed Mary of Westminster, dated on Christmas eve 1399. But the poet was not privileged to benefit long by these grants, as his death is said to have occurred at London on the 25th October 1400, at the age of seventy-two. The chief evidence on which the date of his decease rests is the inscription on his tomb, which was erected in the year 1556, by Nicholas Brigham, a gentleman of Oxford, an ardent admirer of the great English poct, and who no doubt had sufficient grounds, either from a previous inscription, or other information, for fixing the date. Chaucer lies interred in the south cross aisle of Westminster Abbey, in a place consecrated to the poetical genius of England.

Such is a brief abstract of nearly every fact relating to Chaucer that has been discovered; and upon which, aided by ample conjectural inferences, Mr Godwin constructed a life of the poet, which extends to two large volumes in 4to, and was reprinted in four vols. 8vo. Besides the Memoir by Sir Harris Nicoas, contained in his valuable historical and genealogical notes to the Scrope and Grosvenor Roll, recently ptinted, the curious reader is referred to the Reverend Mr Todd’s “Illustrations of the Lives and Writings of Gower and Chauccr.” Lond. 1810, 8vo.

Chaucer’s works have been preserved in a variety of early manuscripts, which attest their continued popularity, and have been very frequently printed. One of the earlier productions of Caxton’s press is an edition of the Canterbury Tales, without date, but printed about 1475. He also published a second edition, six years after the first, on being informed of the imperfections of that edition. It may be worthy of mention, in proof of Chaucer’s popularity in Scotland, that one of the earliest specimens of the Scotish press was an edition of his Complaynt of the Black Knight, which was printed at Edinburgh, by Chep-man and Myllar, in 1508, under the title of“The Maying or Disport of Chaucer.” The first collected edition of his works was edited by William Thynne, and printed by Godfrey in 1532. They passed through several subsequent editions during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, besides later republications. The edition of the Canterbury Tales edited by Thomas Tyrwhitt, one of the most learned and accomplished of scholars, whose attention had been directed to old English literature during the last century, is worthy of the highest commendation for accuracy and critical acumen. It was printed at London 1775, in 5 vols. 8vo, and reprinted at Oxford 1798, in 2 vols. 4to, and also more recently in London in its original form. A complete edition of Chaucer’s works, from a collation of the earlier MSS. would be a most important addition to old English literature.

Chaucer’s merits as a poet are of no ordinary kind; but in considering his poetical character, it is necessary to attend to the age in which he lived, in order to ascertain to what extent he may be said to have improved our language and versification. Chaucer himself, while he exposes the absurdity of his countrymen, like Gower, writing in a foreign language, seems to have entertained no very exalted idea of the vernacular tongue. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there had been several English poets whose remains are interesting chiefly for their antiquity; but it remained as a distinction for the reign of Edward the Third to produce works which tended[7:6:338] to exalt and fix the standard of our present language. In our veneration for Chaucer, however, too much influence in this respect has been attributed exclusively to his writings. It was the policy of the English monarch, rather than the poetical genius of Chaucer, which gave importance and dignity to the language, by causing it to be spoken at court, and to be substituted in all public and judicial proceedings, instead of the Norman-French, which had been introduced at the Conquest in 1066, and which had continued to be employed for nearly three centuries. Among the eminent men who adorned the reign of Edward the Third, the first in priority of date is Langland, the reputed author of the Visions of Piers Plowman. In his Visions, which are written in very obscure alliterative language, the author’s object was to expose the abuses which then prevailed, and to bring about a reform in the morals both of the clergy and aristocracy. To accomplish this, with striking originality in his character as a moral satirist he depicts the various orders of society, and inveighs with great boldness against the depraved conduct of the clergy, and the corruptions of the papal government. The composition of this work has been fixed to the year 1362; and although the satire is considerably affected by the general personification in which the author indulged, there can be little doubt that the Visions contributed to improve the moral feelings of his contemporaries; and if his work had no beneficial effect upon the literature of the time, it at least remains as a monument of true poetical genius.

Another poet of distinction, contemporary with Chaucer, was John Gower. He is generally 1 allowed to have been a man of extensive learning, but not of much natural genius. In fact his claims as an English poet are considerably lessened, as his French ballads are among his best productions; and one of his great works, the Vox Clamantis, is in Latin. Neither is Laurence Minot, who wrote various narrative ballads on the subject of the Wars of Edward the Third, entitled to any very marked distinction as an original writer.

Chaucer may have been known as a poet at the time Langland’s Visions were written; but his greatest work is at least twenty years later in date. His chief merit in regard to versification consisted in rendering it more natural, regular, and comprehensive, by discarding alliteration, and by reducing the irregular Alexandrine metre to the heroic measure in an uniform and equal number of syllables. This adoption of the decasyllabic couplet has been used by nearly every great English poet from Spenser to Byron, who declared it to be “the best adapted measure to our language.” In the structure of his verse generally, when compared with some previous writers, or with the numerous class of English metrical romances, there will not be found any essential distinction. But in contributing to the improvement of the English language, perhaps no author ought to be put into competition with the illustrious reformer Wyklifte. In addressing the different classes of society, he was obliged to use the vernacular dialect; and he inveighed against the corruptions of the time, not under the veil of cold allegorical personification, but in a bold and open manner, which must have been productive of important consequences in exciting the intellectual energies of the people. The extent and variety of knowledge he displayed far exceeded that of most of his contemporaries; and, being persuaded that the surest mode of enlightening the people would be the perusal of the Scriptures in their own tongue (although at the time it was affirmed by illiterate ecclesiastics to be heresy to speak of the Holy Scriptures in English), he accomplished a translation, which of itself, in a literary point of view, is sufficient to have immortalized his name.

Chaucer’s writings partake much of his own personal character and spirit, as influenced by his intercourse with the world and his employment in public affairs. If his writings had not much influence upon the moral feelings of his contemporaries, they had at least a most important influence upon the literature of his country. But while his more immediate followers imitated the peculiarities of his “ornate” style and manner, they suffered his spirit and grace to evaporate; their chief object being an accumulation of ornament and an exuberance of diction to which every thing else was subservient. It is sufficiently remarkable, that during the greater part of Chaucer’s poetical career, he contented himself with transferring into our language the most popular works of contemporary French and Italian writers, but in a manner which gives them the character of original productions rather than that of translations. In these earlier works there is elegance of fancy and picturesqueness of description; but all the grace and beauty of his allegorical compositions fall infinitely short of his power of delineating living character, as displayed in his immortal work the Canterbury Tales.

In this work, the idea of which was no doubt derived from Boccaccio, he brings together a motley crew of“syn-dry folke,” who “in felowshyp” are travelling together on a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Thomas of Becket, to Canterbury; and, as the means of affording instruction and amusement, they agree, each of them in their turn, to relate a story, the details of which, with the incidents that happen, and, above all, the description of the character and manners of the persons themselves who are thus assembled, form a picture of life and manners altogether unrivalled. Nothing can exceed the skill shown in the general prologue, in which the habits of life and peculiarities of disposition of the different pilgrims are so singularly and so strikingly contrasted, with a rich vein of humour, and great discrimination of human nature.

We cannot do better than conclude with an extract from the work of an eminent contemporary, who has shown himself to be in every respect a master in the art of poetical criticism.

“Chaucer’s forte,” says Mr Campbell, “is description; much of his moral reflection is superfluous; none of his characteristic painting. His men and women are not mere ladies and gentlemen, like those who furnish apologies for Boccaccio’s stories. They rise before us minutely traced; profusely varied, and strongly discriminated. Their features and casual· manners seem to have an amusing congruity with their moral characters. He notices minute circumstances as if by chance; but every touch has its effect to our conception so distinctly that we seem to live and travel with his personages throughout the journey.

“What an intimate scene of English life in the fourteenth century do we enjoy in those tales, beyond what history displays by glimpses, through the stormy atmosphere of her scenes, or the antiquarian can discover by the cold light of his researches! Our ancestors are restored to us, not as phantoms from the field of battle, or the scaffold, but in the full enjoyment of their social existence. After four hundred years have closed over the mirthful features which formed the living originals of the poet’s descriptions, his pages impress the fancy with the momentary credence that they are still alive; as if Time had rebuilt his ruins, and were rc-acting the lost scenes of existence.” Specimens of the British Poets, vol. ii. p. 21. (c. c. c.)