What then is the bearing of all this upon Chaucer's career? Let us take up the matter point by point. In the first place it is clear that although in a few cases the esquires were connected with important families, in none did any come from a major branch of an important family and in most the derivation is from ordinary stock. Chaucer was then associated with a group of men who came from much the same class as himself. [Footnote: Cf., pp. 6-11 above.] Secondly it appears that the esquires were frequently the sons of men connected in some way with the court. [Footnote: p. 12.] In this respect also Chaucer, was like his associates, for his father, in 1338 at least was in the King's service. [Footnote: L. R. No. 13, p. 145 Intro. p. XI.] Further many of the esquires had served in the household of one of the King's children before becoming members of the King's household. In this respect also Chaucer with his service in the Duke of Clarence's house was like a number of his fellows.

The exact nature of Chaucer's position in the household it is difficult to discover. Dr. Furnivall supposed from an entry of May 25, 1368, the second half yearly payment of Chaucer's annuity, that he was first a "vallettus" of the King's chamber. [Footnote: L. R. No. 50, p. 161.] But it is by no means certain that this is correct. Chaucer is called "vallettus" of the King's chamber only once; in all other early references he is described, if at all, as "vallectus hospicii Regis." There is, I believe, a difference between these two. As I have already pointed out, [Footnote: p. 17 above.] a certain confusion with regard to the use of such phrases undoubtedly exists in the records. As evidence of this confusion we find men called "vallettus" after they have been called "armiger," and sometimes men who are normally called "vallettus camere Regis" named as "vallettus hospicii Regis." Yet if we look up the entries with regard to the men called "valletz de la chambre du Roi" in the list of 1368, [Footnote: L. R., p. 167. 'In many cases, of course, they are called merely "vallettus noster," "dileatus vallettus" or "dileatus servitor."] we find that in such records as the Patent Rolls where DEFINITELY characterized, they are generally referred to as "vallettus camere nostre." For example, William Gambon is so titled seven times and never as "vallettus hospicii nostri." [Footnote: Pat. Roll 285, mem. 2, idem 274, mem. 37, 257, mem. 25. Cal. Pat. Roll 1377, p. 79. Issues, P. 228, mem. 17. C. R. 207, mem. 12. Pat. Roll 295, mem. 26.] Reginald Neuport is called six times "vallettus camere Regis." [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 139. Issues, P. 237, mem. 17. P. 249, mem. 3. P. 251, mem. Pat. Roll 288, mem. 21, etc.] John Tipet is called the same at least five times, and never by any other title. [Footnote: Issues A 169, mem. 35. P. 228, mem. 17. P. 228, mem. 38. P. 235, mem. 20, etc.] Thomas Cheyne is called "vallettus camere Regis" five times. [Footnote: Pat. Roll 262, mem. 23, 254, mem. 4, 255, mem. 25. Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon. p. 174. Abb. Rot. Orig. II, 222.] Thomas Loveden alone is called "vallettus hospicii Regis" twice and "vallettus camere" once. [Footnote: Issues, P. 287, mem. 8. p. 250, mem. 1. Pat. Roll 266, mem. 5.] Under the circumstances, if Chaucer ever was a "vallettus camerae Regis," we should expect him to have been so called more than once. It seems rather more likely that his proper position was that of "vallettus hospicii Regis" [Footnote: The household books, published in the Chaucer Records, recognize no such classification as "vallettus hospicii Regis," pet the records certainly point to the existence of such a classification.] and later of course, "armiger" or "scutifer." This view is of course supported by the fact that in the household lists his name does not appear in 1368 as a "vallet de la chambre du Roi" or in 1369 even near the names of men who had been "valletti" of the King's chamber. Further that Chaucer's position by 1363 was distinctly honourable appears from the fact that his name appears as Esquier among a group of men who were not engaged in menial occupations of any kind—as distinguished from the cooks and farriers of the groups called "esquiers survenantz" and "sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon."

With regard to Chaucer's employment as an envoy abroad, it is clear that he was, when so engaged, performing a customary service, that indeed he was one of several who were constantly used in minor missions abroad and that his rank and duties were similar to those of a King's messenger today. [Footnote: Cf. pp. 19, 20 above.] Likewise the rewards which Chaucer received were not extraordinary. Practically every esquire of Chaucer's rank who remained for any considerable time in the court received an annuity; evidently such pensions were part of the perquisites of the office. A few esquires received a smaller annuity than Chaucer's, many received about the same amount, and, many received more. [Footnote: Cf. p. 21 ff.] Similarly the special offices which Chaucer held, particularly his controllerships, were not evidences of remarkable favour: other esquires received the same kind of offices and indeed they were apparently regular sinecures for the members of the King's household. [Footnote: Cf. p. 22 ff.] So also the grant of wardships and forfeited goods can be paralleled in many cases. In two respects Chaucer received rather less than the other esquires—he was given no corrody and no grant of land.

In one more respect can Chaucer's career be paralleled by that of other "esquires"—in that of his marriage. Marriages between the esquires of the King and the damsels of the queen were decidedly frequent. [Footnote: Cf. p. 25 ff.]

Indeed, it is clear from the study of the careers of the other esquires that, so far as we know, Chaucer received no exceptional favours, and that his career was in practically every respect a typical esquire's career.

In all this then there is no evidence that Chaucer enjoyed the favour of any particular patron. Aside from the fact that, like Chaucer, some of the esquires had served in the household of one of the King's children before entering the King's, I have been able in no case to find evidence of connection between them and any patron. Since Chaucer received no more favours than did the average esquire, there is no particular reason to suppose that he had any patron.

Now let us examine the evidence in favour of his close connection with John of Gaunt. We have two pieces of definite evidence of a connection between Chaucer and John of Gaunt; Chaucer's writing (probably shortly after 1369) of the Book of the Duchess, and John of Gaunt's grant of an annuity of ten pounds in June 1374. The former does not prove anything with regard to a definite relation; such complimentary poems were commonly written for nobles who were not special patrons of the poets; and Chaucer in his Parlement of Foules possibly complimented Richard II in much the same way. In regard to the latter piece of evidence—John of Gaunt's grant of an annuity—two things are to be noted, first that John of Gaunt had previously given an annuity to Philippa Chaucer (in 1372) and, second, that in the grant he gives the cause of making it to Chaucer as services rendered by Chaucer to the Duke and by Chaucer's wife to Queen Philippa and the Duke's Consort. In the grant to Philippa on the other hand no mention is made of Geoffrey. This greater particularity in the statement of Philippa's services in Geoffrey's grant, the fact that Philippa was in the duke's household (evidenced by the Christmas gifts of silver cups to her) and the fact that nothing else connects Chaucer definitely with John of Gaunt, make it seem almost certain that the grant of an annuity to Chaucer was made merely in order to increase the sum given to Philippa. Grants of this time which mention the services of both husband and wife are usually made out to both, and undoubtedly in this case the real purpose was to give it to Philippa and her husband.

On the other hand, if John of Gaunt really was "Chaucer's great patron," why did he not give the poet employment in his own household? Anyone who will run thru the Lancashire Registers of this time will be struck with the immensity of the duke's income and the regal scale of his household. [Footnote: Cf. Abstracts and Indexes I f. 13'7 dorso. Warrant to deliver to a damsel for the queen (i.e. John of Gaunt's Spanish wife) 1708 pearls of the largest, 2000 of the second sort. Warrant to bring him at the Savoy all the Rolls of Accounts of all his Recevors General and of his Treasurers of War and of the Household and other officers of the Household, there to be deposited and safely kept. Next page-long list of jewels.] Surely had he wished to patronize the poet, he could have done so most easily and most surely by giving him some honorable post in his own control. Why should he have taken the difficult method of procuring him precarious offices under the King!

Since the assertions with regard to John of Gaunt's ascendancy over Chaucer's career have been so common, however, we ought to take up the matter point by point. We have no reason to connect John of Gaunt with Chaucer's start in the world—his employment in the household of the Countess of Clarence. We know that Chaucer's father had relations with the court and, although merely a merchant, he may very likely have secured Chaucer's appointment to the place in the Countess's household, as the fathers of Simon de Burley (not a merchant, but a man of no rank), Michael de la Pole, (a merchant), John Legge, Thomas Frowyk and Thomas Hauteyn obtained appointments for their children in the households of the Prince of Wales and of the King. This was an age when the merchant class was obtaining unusual power and privileges. Richard II, it will be remembered, was called the "Londoner's King." It has been shown that John of Gaunt visited the Countess of Clarence at Christmas 1357, and it has been suggested that he may have met Chaucer then and taken a liking to him. Of actual meeting, however, we have no proof. Chaucer was in the service of the Duke of Clarence in October 1860. [Footnote: See Modern Lang. Notes March 1912 article of Dr. Samuel Moore on The New Chaucer Item.]; the Duchess of Clarence died in 1363; and we learn of him next in the King's household in 1367. The transition from the household of the wife of one of the King's sons to that of the King himself is one which can be paralleled in many cases; we have no need to suppose patronage on the part of the Duke of Lancaster to account for it. As a matter of fact we have no reason to suppose that John of Gaunt knew anything of Chaucer at this time.

The diplomatic missions, and the grants of annuities and offices were not, as I have shown, evidences of special favour; they were a regular thing in the King's court. We have no reason to suppose that John of Gaunt's influence in favour of Chaucer was a cause for any of them. Further John of Gaunt's influence would have been worthless in helping Chaucer to become Justice of the Peace in Kent in 1385. This appointment must have been made by the Chancellor—Michael de la Pole—possibly at the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County or the Custos Rotulorum. Whether there was a Lord Lieutenant of Kent or not, I do not know. At any rate the constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports (at this time Simon de Burley) held powers in Kent similar to those of a lord lieutenant, and he occupies the position of the lord lieutenant in the list of Justices of the Peace—at the top. Both de la Pole and de Burley were enemies of John of Gaunt. Even if the appointment was not due to them, we cannot ascribe it to John of Gaunt, for I have been able to find no evidence that John of Gaunt had influence in Kent, or that he controlled any of the other Justices.

Furthermore that Chaucer did not owe his place in the customs to the influence of John of Gaunt is clear from the fact that the collectorships of customs in London, at any rate, were controlled by the duke's enemies. If they had sufficient power with the king to gain control of those offices, it hardly seems likely that the King would appoint a member of the faction opposed to them to serve with them. It is to be noted also that Chaucer on account of the business connections of his family—his father was a vintner and another relative evidently a pepperer—would be more likely to sympathize with the party of Brembre than with that of Northampton.

Now we come to a point where nearly all writers on Chaucer make inferences in regard to John of Gaunt's influence—Chaucer's separation from the office of controller of the customs. Most writers have said more or less directly that Chaucer lost the office because John of Gaunt had left England earlier in the same year. The facts themselves show indubitably that Chaucer's leaving office was in no respect due to John of Gaunt's departure. Before discussing this matter, I must say a word about the political situation before 1386 and in that year. At the very end of Edward III's reign John of Gaunt, who had been the real power since the death of the Black Prince, became extremely unpopular because of his bad administration of the government and his quarrels with the Condoners. This unpopularity continued both in the court and without. Under the new King the great duke had little influence; he was not even included in the great council appointed to control the government during the King's minority. Further a group of young men, connected with the King, gradually assumed charge of affairs—Michael de la Pole, Robert de Vere and others. These men were outright enemies of John of Gaunt; according to the stories of the time they even made plots to poison and to stab him. He himself retired from active political life and, apparently, largely because he saw no chance for gaining great power in England, turned his attention to his Spanish projects; [Footnote: Trevelyan's view.] and in 1386 he left England for Spain. Others of the great lords, however, were not content to play a passive role; the brother of John of Gaunt, Gloucester, as leader, and the Earl of Arundel and Warwick, most prominent followers, were particularly violent in their attacks on the King and his friends. To revert now to Chaucer's case: these are the significant facts in their order:

End of March, 1386 [Footnote: Or July 7 according to Oman.] John of
Gaunt leaves England.

October 24, 1386 Gloucester, Arundel et al. succeed in ousting
Michael de la Pole and the King's other cabinet officers.

December, 1386 Adam Yardley and Henry Gisors are appointed to
Chaucer's places in the customs.

These dates speak for themselves; they show indubitably that Chaucer was not removed from office shortly after John of Gaunt's departure; that he was not removed from office (if at all) until the friends of John of Gaunt, the men who represented his interests, [Footnote: In the following year his son and heir, the Earl of Derby, was one of the "lord appellants"] had in some measure at least gained the government of the Kingdom.

A similar condition of affairs appears when Chaucer was appointed to his next office in 1389.

May, 1389 The King regained power—dismissed Gloucester's
friends from office and appointed his own.

July 12, 1389 He made Chaucer clerk of his works at Westminster.

August, 1389 He seems to have asked John of Gaunt to return to
England.

November, 1389 John of Gaunt actually returned.

Richard II then appointed Chaucer to that place a little over a month after he had regained his authority, and four months before John of Gaunt appeared in England.

Finally we cannot connect John of Gaunt in any way with Chaucer's departure from the office of Clerk of the Works in June, 1391. From John of Gaunt's return to England in 1389 until 1395 he seems to have been influential with the King. In 1390 he was made Duke of Aquitaine for life. In 1392 he was ambassador to France, in 1393 he aided in putting down a revolt in Chester. He was in England, apparently, most of this time.

Certainly the analysis of Chaucer's life does not confirm the theory that John of Gaunt exercised a ruling influence over his destiny. Nor does a study of the connections of his associates indicate his dependency on John of Gaunt. His friend William de Beauchamp was at a later date certainly a member of the Gloucester—Warwick faction. But in 1378 and 1380, when Chaucer was apparently connected with him, Beauchamp was a member of the King's household (from 1379 on chamberlain of the household), evidently in favour with the King and not a partisan of the Lancaster-Gloucester faction. Further we know that Chaucer associated in a business way at least with Brembre, Philipot and Walworth, that he probably knew Thomas Usk, that the latter admired him, and that in the King's household he was connected with some men like John de Beauchamp and John de Salesbury who were not friends to John of Gaunt. Yet toward the end of Richard II's reign we find Chaucer connected in some way with John of Gaunt's son, and when a few years later that son ascended the throne as Henry IV, Chaucer received new annuities and aids. The fact then that Chaucer was friendly with prominent men in both factions makes it incredible that his fortunes were dependent on those of John of Gaunt.

One other suggestion-was John of Gaunt likely to have had enough interest in poetry to patronize a poet? I have found no evidence that he did patronize other poets or artists of any kind, and the impression of his character which a careful scholar like Mr. Trevelyan has gained from a study of his career, is not that he was such a man as would be interested in the arts.

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.