From all these facts, I do not see how it can be maintained that John of Gaunt was Chaucer's "great patron." The evidence, so far as I can make out at present, leads one to the conclusion that Chaucer must have received his offices and royal annuities from the King rather than from John of Gaunt, at times when John of Gaunt's influence would have been harmful rather than beneficial, or when John of Gaunt was not in England to exercise it.
CHAUCER'S RELATION TO RICHARD II
Certain recent investigations have suggested that Richard II and his consort Anne may have been patrons of Chaucer. For this theory the most definite evidence is derived from references to Queen Anne in several of the poems. The most obvious of these references is that in Prologue to L. G. W., version F. 11. 496, 7; another is the one implied in Koch's explanation for the writing of P. F.; and Professor Lowes finds two more in his interpretations of a line in K. T. (M. L. N. XIX, 240.242) and of one in the Troilus. (2 p. M. L. A. 32; 285 ff) Since this investigation has to do wholly with external evidences as to Chaucer's life, it is not my business to deal with these references. I would merely point out that they can derive no active support from the facts which we know about Chaucer's life, for there is no exceptional feature of his career as an esquire which points toward patronage by anyone. We have no right from the circumstances of his rewards and appointments to suppose that Richard even knew that he was a poet, certainly none to suppose that Richard enjoyed his poetry and patronized him because of it.
To be sure we have certain evidences of Richard II's interest in literature, especially the well known stories of his suggestion to Gower that the poet write the Confessio Amantis, his gift to Froissart for the latter's book of poems, and the payment entered in 1380 on the Issue Roll of twenty-eight pounds for the Bible written in French, [Footnote: Devon's translation, p. 213, is incorrect; the phrase in the document is "lingua gallica." Issues P. 301, mem. 16.] the Romance of the Rose and the Romances of Percevale and Gawayn. But those are all; a careful reading of the Issue Roll for all the years of Richard's reign has failed to turn up another entry which would indicate an interest in literature. It is to be noted further that in the entire body of poems left to us by Chaucer but a few unmistakable references to the queen occur, and none to the King. If Chaucer is compared in this respect with his successors Hoccleve and Lydgate a marked difference appears. In a single volume of Hoccleve before me [Footnote: Hoccleve's works I, E. E. T. S. 1892.] occur three "balades" to Henry V, one to the Duke of York, one to the Duke of Bedford, and one to the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the striking contrast between this and Chaucer's practice is due to different notions as to the function of poetry, perhaps to some other cause, but it exists, and it causes one to feel that, in comparison with Hoccleve at least, the internal evidences of patronage in Chaucer's poems are slight indeed. Finally the fact that Chaucer was treated favourably by the government of Henry IV would suggest that his personal relations with Richard II had not been very close.
SOME GENERAL POINTS
Although I have objected to some of the inferences drawn by others, nevertheless it seems to me that from the facts viewed in their new relations, some legitimate inferences may be drawn. In the first place it seems almost certain that by 1386 Chaucer held considerable land in Kent. Every other man on the list of Justices of the Peace (with the single possible exception of Topclyff) held fairly extensive lands in the county; all except de Burley, Topclyff and Chaucer were of old Kentish families. De Burley's importance as Constable of Dover (indeed he undoubtedly held the office of Justice ex officio) and Topclyffs position as steward of the Archbishop of Canterbury counterbalanced the fact that they were not of Kentish stock. What then of Chaucer? He surely must have held a manor and lands of considerable value or he could never have been high enough in the estimation of the landed proprietors to gain the Justiceship and even the membership to Parliament. Now, he apparently did not receive this land by royal grant; consequently it would appear that he must have had it by grant of some great noble or by purchase. In any case we have no record to indicate what land he held or by what tenure he held it.
Again we do not know what Chaucer's income as controller of the customs amounted to. It is apparent, however, that the returns from the office of controller of the greater custom must have been very considerable. If the collectorship of the customs was not a profitable office, it is impossible to see why such men as Walworth, Philipot, and Brembre should have cared to hold it. That the twenty pounds which was their nominal salary was anything like all that they received is unbelievable. To suppose that a man who could fit out a fleet at his own expense and successfully campaign with it against a powerful pirate, should allow himself to be annoyed by so paltry an office is absurd. Yet the office was apparently not farmed, and so it seems likely that the income from fees was large and attractive. [Footnote: The View of W. D. Chester: Chronicles of the Custom's Dept., p. 30.] To how great an extent Chaucer, aside from the ten pounds yearly that he received, shared in the profits, we do not know. From the fact that the King in giving the collectors and the controller extra rewards seems to have rated the latter at about a third of the importance of the former, we might get some hint of the proportion in which he would share in the fees.
Chaucerian scholars have laid great stress upon the grant of permission to Chaucer in 1385 to appoint a permanent deputy in his office in the greater customs. They have even assumed that the L. G. W. was dedicated to the queen out of gratitude for her supposed intercession with the king, and the consequent permission, and have used these suppositions as evidence for dating L. G. W. Surely too much has been made of this matter. Not only have we no evidence whatever to connect Queen Anne with the granting of the deputyship; we do not have to assume any intercession with the king. [Footnote: See forthcoming article: Chaucer and the Earl of Oxford, in Modern Philology.] We know that esquires who were granted offices in the customs frequently did have deputies in their offices; [Footnote: Of. cases of John de Herlyng, Helming Leget, John Hermesthorpe et al.] probably leave to have a deputy could be had almost for the asking.
Moreover, the office of controller, if we can judge from the records of Chaucer's time (cf. Mr. Kirk's print in the Chaucer Society—not yet issued) could not have been a very burdensome one. Yet even the provision that Chaucer write the records with his own hand was not—in the opinion of the officials of the Record Office—held to even as early as 1381. The reason for this judgment is that the preserved records are written in a decidedly good Chancery hand, a style of writing which only a professional Chancery clerk is supposed to have been master of. [Footnote: See Tales of the Canterbury Pilgrims, Stokes & Co., Intro., by Furnivall, p. X note.] Consequently either Chaucer must have been a regular Chancery clerk, or he employed a clerk to write up the records. If he did the latter—as seems most likely—it is hard to see what work of importance can have been left to himself. Why then should he care for a permanent deputy? If we look at the circumstances of his life in 1385, we may discover a possible reason. In that year, he first appears prominently in connection with Kent. The sequence of events is:
February, 1385—deputy appointed.
October, 1385-Justice of the Peace in Kent.
June, 1386—Justice of the Peace in Kent.
August, 1386—Member of Parliament for Kent.