ed to him a new annuity of 201. [ap. R.] (4);—in the 21 his protection for two years [ibid.]—and in the 22 a pipe of wine annually [ibid.] In the next year, the IH. IV. his two grants of the annuity of 20 l. and of the pipe of wine, were confirmed to him [mff. Rymer, H. IV. vol. i. n. 27,] and at the same time he had an additional grant of an annuity of 40 marks, {ibid. n. 15.] He died, according to the inscription on his tombstone, in the beginning of the 2 H. IV. on the 25th of Oct. 1400.

Thefe I think are the principal facts in Chaucer's life which are attefted by authentick evidences (?).

(A) If Chaucer was ever poffeffed of Dunnington-Castle in Berkshire, (as his biographers fuppofe he was) he must have purchased it about this time, for it appears to have been in the poffefsion of Sir Richard Adderbury in the 16th year of Rich. II. Monaft. Aug. ii. 474. We have no proof of any fuch purchase, and the situation of his affairs makes it highly improbable. The tradition which Mr. Evelyn mentions in his Sylva, of an oak in Dunnington-park called Chaucer's cak, may be sufficiently accounted for without fuppofing that it was planted by Chaucer himself, as theCaftle was undoubtedly in the hands of Thomas Chaucer for many years.

(1) It appears further from the Exitus, Pafch. 4R. II [mff. Rymer, R. II. vol. ii. n. 3,] that Chaucer, on the 24 May 1381, received at the Exchequer a half year's payment of his own two annuities of 20 marks each, and alfo a half year's payment of an annuity of 10 marks, granted by E. III. and confirmed by R. II. to his wife Philippa," nuper uni domicellarum Phi

lippæ, nuper Reginæ Angliæ." The title given to her of domicella proves that the was unmarried at the time of her being in the Queen's fervice. There is a patent in Rymer, 43 E. III. by which the King, about four months after Queen Fhilippa's Volume 1.

G

We learn from himself, in his Treatife on the Aftrolabe, that he had a fon called Lowis, who was ter

death, grants annuities to nine of her domicelle, viz. to four of them ro marks, to two 5 pounds, and to three 5 marks. One of them is called Philippa Pykard, and might very well be fuppofed to be the lady whom Chaucer afterwards married, it it were not for two objections, 1. that the annuity granted to her is only 5 pounds, whereas Chaucer's wife appears by this record to have had one of 10 marks; and, 2. that the hiftorians, though they own themfelves totally ignorant of the Chriflian name of Chaucer's wife, are all agreed that her furname was Rouet, the fame with that of her father and eideft fifter Catharine Swynford. The first objection might be got over by fuppofing that her annuity, though at firft only 5 pounds, was increafed (perhaps upon her marriage with Chaucer) to 10 marks. As to the other point, it is not impoffible that the father and the eldest filter, who was his heirefs, [Sce pat. 13. H. IV. p. I. m. 35, apud Rymer] might bear the name of de Rouet (or de Roelt, as it is in the pat. 13 H. IV. juft quoted) from fome eftate in their poffeffion, and yet the younger lifter might be called by the family-name of Pykard.- If the records of payments at the Exchequer for the eleven years preceding 1381 are it'll in being they may enable us to clear up thefe doubts, and alfo perhaps to afcertain very nearly the time of Chaucer's mariage, as they will probably thew when he began to receive his wife's annuity. If this laft point were aseertained we thould know better what to think of the relation of Thomas Chaucer to our Author. Mr. Speght informs us" that fome held opinion that Thomas Chaucer was not the fonne "of Geffrey ;" and there are certainly many circumftances which might inchine us to that opinion. I was in hopes of meeting with fome light upon this fubje&t in a poem which Lydgate is said to have written, entitled " A Complaint upon the "departure of Thomas Chaucer into France upon the Kynge's "Ambaffate." A poem with this title is extant in mf Harle 367, 33, in the handwriting of J. Stowe, but upon inspection I found it to be a mere love-ballad, without the leaft imagi nable reference to Thomas Chaucer

years of age in 139t. It is the only circumstance, as I recollect, relating to his family of which he has informed us. A few other hiftorical particulars relating to himself, which may be collected from his writings, have been taken notice of already; and perhaps a more attentive examination of his Works might furnish a few more. We must be cautious however, in fuch an examination, of fuppofing allufions which Chaucer never intended, or of arguing from pieces which he never wrote as if they were his. We muit not infer, from his repeated commendations of the daisy-flower, that he was specially favoured by Margaret Countess of Pembroke (m); and fill lefs fhould

(m) I can find no other foundation for this notion; Mr. Speght, who first farted it, says that "it may appeare in di *vers treatises by him written, as in the Prologue of the

Legend of Good Women under the name of the Dayfie, and "likewife in a ballad beginning, In the feafon of Feverier.” The ballad is among the additions made by J. Stowe to Chaucer's Works in 1561, and, like the greatest part of thofe add tions, is of very dubious authority, to use the gentleft terms: but fuppofing it genuine, there is nothing in it to make us believe that it had any reference to the Courtess of Pembroke. That its commendations of the daify ought not to weigh with us is very plain from the other piece cited by Mr. Speght; for The Legende of Good Women, in which he imagines the Lady Margaret to be honoured under the name of the Daify, was certainly not written till at least twelve years after that lady's death. [See The Difcourse, &c. n. 3, for the date of The Legende. The Countess Margaret muft have died not later than 1370, as the earl's fon by his fecond wife Anne was zbout nineteen years of age when he was killed in a tourna

we fet him down as a follover of Alain Chartier (»), becaufe his editors have falfely afcribed to him a tranflation of one of Alain's poems.

ment in 1391. Hollinfred, p. 471.] It is poffible that le dit de la fleur de lis et de la Marguerite, by Guillaume de Machaur, [Acad, des infe. t. xx. p. 381,] and the Dittie de la flour de la Margherite by Froissart, [ibid. t. x. p. 669,] (neither of which had the leaft relation to the Countess of Pembroke) might furnith us with the true key to those mystical compliments which our poet has paid to the daisy-flower.

(2) Leland was the first author of this ftory, which is totally inconfiftent with chronology. The time of Alain's birth has not been fettled with precifion, but he was certainly living near 40 years after Chaucer's death, which makes it morally impoffible that the latter fhould have followed him in his attempts to polish his native language. Instead therefore of fuppofing, from the translation of La belle Dame fans Mercie, that Chaucer imitated Alain Chartier, we thould rather conclude that he was not the author of that translation, which indeed in mf. Harl. 372 is expressly attributed to a Sir Richard Ros. I will just take notice of another opinion, (which has been propagated upon as little foundation) that Chaucer imitated the Provencal poets. Mr. Rymer, who I believe first made the difcovery, speaks only of his having borrowed from their language, [View of Trag. p. 70,] but Mr. Dryden found out that he composed after their manner, particularly his tale of The Flower and the Leaf, [Pref. to Fables.] Mr. Warton alfo thinks that The House of Fame was originally a Provencal compofition, Hift. of Eng. Po. p. 389, 458.-How far Chaucer's language was borrowed has been considered already in the Effay, c. part i. I will only add here that I have not obferved in any of his writings a single phrase or word which has the leaft appearance of having been fetched by him from the fouth of the Loire. With respect to the manner and matter of his compofitions, till fome clear inftance of imitation be produced I thall be flow to believe that in either he ever copied the poets of Provence, with whose works I apprehend he had very little if any acquaintance.

To Mr. Tyrwhitt's edition of The Canterbury Tales. THE first object of this publication was to give the text of The Canterbury Tales as correct as the mif. within the reach of the editor would enable him to make it.

The account of former editions in the Appendix to this Preface (A) will fhew that this object had hitherto been either entirely neglected, or at least very imperfectly pursued: the editor therefore has proceeded as if his Author had never been published before: he has formed the text throughout from the mf and has paid little regard to the readings of any edition except the two by Caston, each of which may now be confidered as a manufcript. A lift of the mf. collated or confulted upon this occafion is fubjoined (B).

In order to make the proper ufe of these mff. to unravel the confufions of their orthography, and to judge between a great number of various readings, it was neceffary to inquire into the state of our language and verification at the time when Chaucer wrote, and alfo, as much as was poffible, into the peculiarities of his ftyle and manner of compofition; nor was it lefs neceffary to examine with fome attention the work now intended to be republished, to draw a line between the imperfections which may be fuppofed to have been left in it by the Author, and thofe which have crept into it fince, to diftinguish the parts where the Author appears as an inventor from thofe where he is merely a tranflator or imitator, and throughout the whole to trace his allufions to a variety of forgotten books and obfolete cuftoms.