CHAUCER.
(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 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."
Tyro.
Dublin.
Footnote 3:[(return)]
"Speght, who states that a Mr. Buckley had seen a record of the Inner Temple to that effect."—Note by Sir H. N.