There was also a Reue, and a Millere
A sumpneure, and a Pardoner
A manciple and my selfe there was no mo.
All whiche make xxx persons with Chaucer: wherefore yf there had byn anye moore, he wolde also haue recyted them in those verses, whereunto I answere, that in the prologes he lefte oute some of those whiche tolde their tales; as the chanons yomane, because he came after that they were passed out of theyre Inne, and did overtake them, as in lyke sorte this pilgrime did or mighte doo, and so afterwardes be one of their companye, as was that chanons yeomane, althoughe Chaucer talke no moore of this pilgrime in his prologe then he doothe of the chanons yeomane; whiche I dobte not wolde fullye appere, yf the pilgrimes prologe and tale mighte be restored to his former light they being nowe looste, as manye other of Chaucers tales were before that, as I am induced to thinke by manye reasons.
How William Thynne’s collection of Chaucer’s MS. was dispersed abroad. But to leave this, I must saye that in those many written Bookes of Chaucer, whiche came to my fathers hands, there were manye false copyes, whiche Chaucer shewethe in writinge of Adam Scriuener, (as you have noted) of whiche written copies there came to me after my fathers deathe some fyve and twentye; whereof some had moore and some fewer tales, and some but two and some three. whiche bookes beinge by me (as one nothinge dobting of this whiche is nowe donne for Chaucer) partly dispersed aboute xxvj years agoo, and partlye stoolen out of my howse at Popler: I gave divers of them to Stephen Batemanne person of Newington, and to divers other, whiche beinge copies unperfecte and some of them corrected by my fathers hande yt maye happen soome of them to coome to some of your frendes handes, whiche I knowe yf I see agayne: and yf by anye suche written copies you have corrected Chaucer, you maye as well offende as seme to do good. But I judge the beste, for in dobtes I will not resolve with a settled judgement, althoughe you may iudge this tediouse discourse of my father a needlesse thinge in setting forthe his diligence in breaking the yce, and givinge lighte to others, who may moore easely perfecte then begyne any thinge, for facilius est addere quam Invenire, and so to other matters.
He differeth from Master Speight on Chaucer’s family. Under the tytle of chaucers countaye,[4] you seme to make yt probable that Richarde Chaucer vinetener of Londone, was Geffrye Chaucers father, But I holde that no moore then that Johne Chaucer of Londone, was father to Richarde; of whiche Johne I fynde in the recordes in Dorso Rotulor. patent. memb. 24 de anno 30. Ed. 1. in the towre. that kinge Edwarde the firste had herde the compleinte of Johne chaucer of London, who was beaten and hurte, to the domage of one thousand pownde (that some amountinge at this daye to thre thowsande pownde;) for whiche a comissione went forthe to enquire thereof. wherbye yt semethe that he was of some Reconynge. But as I cannott saye that Johne was father to Richarde, or hee to Geffroye: So yet this muche I will deliuer in settinge downe the antiquytye of the name of chaucer, that his anncesters (as you well coniecture) were strangers, as the etymon of his name (beinge frenche in Englishe synyfyinge one who shueth or hooseth a manne) dothe prove, Chausier, one who hoseth or shueth a man. for that dothe the Etymon of this worde chausier presente unto us, of whiche name I have founde (besides the former recyted Johne) on Elias chauseryr lyvinge in the tyme of Henrye the thirde and of Edwarde the firste, of whome the record of pellis exitus in the receyte of the Exchequier in the firste yere of Edwarde ye firste hathe thus noted: “Edwardus dei gratia &c. Liberate de thesauro Nostro Elie chauseryr decem solidos super arreragia trium obulorum diurnorum quos ad vitam suam per litteras domini. H. Regis patris nostri, percepit ad scaccarium nostrum. datum per manum Walteri Merton cancellarii nostri apud West minsterium 24 Julii anno regni nostri primo.” with whiche carractres ys Geffry Chausyer written in the Recordes in the tyme of Edwarde the thirde and Richarde the seconde. So that yt was a name of office or occupatione, whiche after came to be the surname of a famelye, as did Smythe, Baker, Porter, Bruer, Skynner, Cooke, Butler, and suche lyke, and that yt was a name of office apperethe in the recordes of the towre, where yt is named Le Chaucer, beinge more annciente then anye other of those recordes; for in Dorso clause of 10: H. 3 ys this: Reginaldus mirifirs et alicia uxor eius attornaverunt Radulfum le Chausier contra Johannem Le furber et matildem uxorem eius de uno messuagio in London. This chaucer lyvinge also in the time of kinge John. And thus this muche for the Antiquytye and synificatione of Chaucer, whiche I canne prove in the tyme of Edward the 4 to signyfye also, in oure Englishe tonge, bootes or highe shoes to the calfe of the legge: for thus hathe the Antique recordes of Domus Regni Anglie, ca. 53 for the messengers of the kinges howse to doo the kings comanndementes: that they shalbe allowed for their Chauses yerely iiijs viijd: But what shall wee stande uppon the Antiquyte and gentry of Chaucer, when the rolle of Battle Abbeye affirmeth hym to come in with the Conquerer. Chaucer his arms injustly undervalued. Under the title of Chaucers countrye, yow sett downe that some Heraldes are of opyny-one that he did not discende of any great howse; whiche they gather by his armes. This ys a slender coniecture, for as honorable howses and of as greate Antiquytye haue borne as meane armes as Chaucer, and yet Chaucers armes are not so meane eyther for coolor, chardge or particione as some will make them. And where you saye, yt semethe lykelye, Chaucers skill in Geometrye considered, that he tooke the groundes and reasons of his armes oute of seuen twentye and eight and twentye propositiones of Euclide’s first booke, that ys no inference that his armes were newe or fyrst assumed by hym oute of Geometricall proportions, because he was skyllfull in Geometrye: for so you maye saye of all the auncient armes of England whiche consyste not of anymalls or vegitalls. for all other armes whiche are not Anymalls and vegitalls, as Cheuerons, pales, Bendes, Checkes, and suche lyke, stande uppon geometricall proportiones. And therfore howe greate so euer their skyll bee, which attribute that choyce of armes to Chaucer [they] had no moore skyle in armes then they needed.
Philippa of Henault came not over with Prince Edward. In the same title also, you sett downe Quene Isabell, &c. and her sonne prince Edwarde withe his newe maried wyfe retourned oute of Henalte. In whiche are two unperfections. the first whereof ys, that his wyfe came oute of Henalte with the prince, but that is not soo, for the prince maryed her not before he came into England, since the prince was onlye slenderly contracted and not maryed to her before his arryvall in Englande, beinge two yeres and moore after that contracte, (betwene the erle of henalt and his mother,) about the latter ende of the seconde yere of his reigne, thoughe others haue the firste, the solempnytye of that mariage beinge donne at Yorke. besides she came not ouer with Quene Isabell and the prince, but the prince sent for her afterwardes, and so I suppose sayeth Hardinge in his cronicle, yf I do not mysconceve yt, not havinge the historye now in my handes. But whether he saye so or no, yt ys not materiall, because the recordes be playne, that he sent for her into Henalte in the seconde yere of his reigne in october, and she came to the kinge the 23 of Januarye followinge, whiche was aboute one daye before he beganne the thirde yere of his reigne, wherunto he entred the 25 of Januarye. and for prooffe of the tyme when and whoome the Kinge sente, and what they were allowed therefore, the pellis exitus of the Exchequier remayninge in master warders office hathe thus sett downe to the forthe daye of februarye Bartholomew de Burgersh sent for Philippa of Henault. “Bartholomeo de Burgershe nuper misso ad partes Douor ad obuiandum filiæ comitis Hannoniæ consorti ipsius Regis &c.” but this recorde followinge is most pleyne, shewing bothe who went for her, the day when they tooke their yourneye towardes henalte, with the daye when and where they presented her to the kinge after their retorne into Englande, and the daye one whiche they wer payed their charges, beinge the forthe of marche one whiche daye yt is thus entred in the records of pellis exitus, Michaell. 2. ed. 3. “Rogero couentry &c Lichefeld episcopo nuper misso in nuntium domini Regis ad partes Hannoniæ pro matrimonio inter dominum Regem et filiam comitis Hannoniæ contrahendo, ab octavo die octobris proxime preterito, quo die reessit de Notingham ipso domino Rege ibidem existente, arripiendo iter suum predictum, versus partes predictas, usque vicesimum tertium diem Januarii proxime sequentem, quo die rediit ad ipsum Regem predictum apud Eborum in comitatiua filiæ comitis Hannoniæ predictæ utroque die computato pro cviij diebus percipiendo per diem iij.li vj.s viij.d pro expensis suis.” Thus muche the recorde, whiche confirmethe that whiche I go aboute to prove, that she came not into Englande with prince Edwarde, and that he was not maryed at that tyme, no, not contracted, but only by agremente betwene the erle and his mother. The conjecture that Chaucer’s ancestors were merchants, of no valydytye. [Next] you seme to implye by a coniecturall argumente, that Chaucers auncesters sholde be merchants, for that in place where they haue dwelled the armes of the marchantes of the staple haue bin seene in the glasse windowes. This ys a mere coniecture, and of no valydytye. For the marchantes of the staple had not any armes granted to them (as I haue bin enformed) vntill longe after the deathe of Chaucers parentes, whiche was aboute the 10 or 12 of Edwarde the thirde; and those merchantes had no armes before the tyme of Henrye the sixte, or muchewhat thereaboutes, as I dobt not but wilbe well proued, yf I be not mysenformed. But admytte the staplers had then armes, yt ys no argumente that chaucers auncesters were merchantes because those armes were in the wyndowes, as you shall well perceave, yf you drawe yt into a syllogisme, and therefore you did well to conclude, that yt was not materiall whether they were merchants or noo.
Master Speight misquoteth Gower. In the title of Chaucer’s educatione, you saye that Gower in his booke entituled confessio amantis termethe Chaucer a worthye poet, and maketh hym as yt were the iudge of his woorkes; in whiche Booke, to my knowledge, Gower dothe not terme hym a worthye poet, (althoughe I confesse he well deserueth that name, and that the same may be gathered oute of Gower comendynge hym,) nether doth he after a sorte (for any thinge I canne yet see) make hym iudge of his workes, (whereof I wolde be glad to be enformed,) since these be Gowers woordes, vttered by Venus in that booke of confessio Amantis:
And grete well Chaucer when ye mete,
As my disciple and my poet: