DIRECTIONS TO THE BINDER... In doing into fets BELL's Poets of G. Brit, from Chaucer to Churchill. 1. Chaucer, b. 1328, d. 1400, ag. 72, 14 vols. VOLS. 1-14 11.5 22 23+25 M26, 27 128-31 32-34 35 36-39 404-42 10. Rofcommon, b. baf. 1640, U. r684, ag. ab. 48, I do. 43 11. Buckingham, b. 1649, d. 1721, ag! 72, I do. 12. King, b. ab. 1663, d. 1912, ag. 49, 2 do. 13. Prior, b. 1664, d. 1721, ag. 57, 3 do. 14. Lansdown, b. ab. 1667,di 1735, ag. 68, I do. 15. Pomfret, b.ab. 1667, d. 1702 or 1703, ag. 36, 1 do. -16. Swift, b.. 1667, d. 1745, ag. 78, 4 do. 17. Congreve, b. ab. 1671, d. 1729, ag. 58, I do. 18. Addijon, b. 1672, 1. 1719, ag. 47, 1 do. 19. Rowe, b. 1673, d. 1718, ag. 47, I do. 20. Watts, b. 1614, d. 1748, ag. 74, 7 do. S 21. Philips, John b. 1676, d. 1708, ag. 32, 1 do. d. 1710, 22. Smith, d. 1719, 1 do. } 25. Hughes, b. 1667, d. 1720, ag. 43, 2 do. 26. Fenton, 27. Tickell, b. 1686, d. 1740, ag. 54. I do. 29. Pope, b. 1688, d. d. 1742, 2 do. 1744, ag. 56, 4 do. 1732, ag. 44, 3 do. d. 1745, I do. 044 45, 46 47-49 52-55 56 32. Young, b. 1697, d. 1765, ag. 68, 4 do. "} I do. 97 98 99, 100 ΙΟΙ 102 -d. 1763, 2 do. I do. 46. Gray, b. 1716, d. 1771, ag. 55, 47. We, Richard b. 1716, d. 1742, ag. 26, 48. Akende, b. 1721, d. 1770, ag. 49, 2 do. 49. Cunningham, b. ab, 1728, 1 do. And fo on to the end of the 109 volumes. Geddes Fanuty. 4-29-32 n THE LIFE OF GEOFFREY CHAUCER. GEOFFREY CHAUCER,the Father of our Englishpoets, and the first great improver and reformer of our language, flourished in the 14th century, and as he justly obtained the highest admiration amongst his contemporaries, fo his memory has ever fince been highly honoured. One would imagine from this that every historical circumstance relating to him, or at least those of the greatest moment, fhould be well preserved, and be perfectly clear, which however is fo far from being the cafe that nothing can hitherto be certainly deter1 mined concerning his defcent, or so much as who was his father. Leland fays that he was of a noble stock, Pitts that he was the fon of a knight, Speght that his father was a vintner, Hearne that he was a merchant, and the fifth and last opinion, which is the best, is, that nothing can be faid with any tolerable affurance of his family at all, but that there is somewhat more probability of his being the son of a gentleman rather than of a tradefman*. • Rather than of a tradesman.] It is a point well agreed amongst our ancient authors that the French firname of this family, which was variously written, as for inftance Chaucier, Chaucierris,Chauffier, Chaufir, c. fignified a thoemaker; but notwithstanding this it is very well known that the founder of this family in England was a Norman chief that came over with William the Conquefour, as appears by the roll of Battle-Abbey; and in fucceeding times there were feveral perfons of note The place of his birth is as much disputed, but however may be determined with greater appear of this name mentioned in our records. In the reign of King John there was one le Chaufir, as appears by the records in The Tower; and in the reign of Henry III. one Elias Chaucefir, who in the reign following, viz. Edward I. had a grant of ten Millings from the Treafury; there was alfo one John Chaucer, of whom King Edward I heard a complaint for a thousand pounds: but all this gives us no kind of certainty in refpect to our Author's family at all. Lelani contents himself with hinting that he was of a genteel extraction, nobili loco natus, are his words; and it is faid that he is faithfully copied by Baleg but this is to be understood of the later editions of his book, for in the first he calls him Sir Geoffrey Chaucer Knight, and fays nothing of his family at all, afterwards he met with Leland's book, and abridged his account of him. John Pitts is very clear that he was of an exceeding good family, and not only a knight himself but his father a knight before him; but his authority goes for little, more especially with thofe that know him beft. Mr. Speght is of opinion that one Richard Chaucer was his fa ther, who was a vintner at the corner of Kirton-Lane, and dying in 1348 left his house, tavern, and ftock, to the church of St. Mary Aldermały, where he was buried; 'This paffed currently with Fuller, and perhaps the better because it furnished him with a very filly jeft; "His father," fays he, was a vint"ner in London, and I have heard his arms quarrelled at being argent and gules,trangely contrived,and hard to be blazoned: "fome more wits have made it the dathing of white and red "wine (the parents of our ordinary claret) as nicking his fa"ther's profeffion." Against this opinion, however, their lie two exceptions that folider heads than his have not been able to get over; the first is that there was fomething very unnatural in this vintner's leaving all his eftate to the church while his fon was at the univerfity; and the fecond that Chaucer thould never complain of this, or, for any thing that we can discover, feel the effects of it, fince it is evident enough that in his youth he lived at a rate that could not have been supported without ance of truth, for though Bale fays he was a Berkshire man, and Pitts would entitle Oxfordshire to his birth, yet if we may rely upon what he tells us himself (Teft. of Love) it is much more likely that he drew his first breath in the city of London; and that he had a great interest amongst its inhabitants is a thing as certain as that it drew upon him many misfortunes, a fortune. The induftrious Mr. Hearne thinks it probable his father was a merchant of London; but the laft writer of his life thinking that father not good enough for him hath found him out a better, one Sir John Chaucer, for which he has no other evidence than that such a man lived at a time when our poet might poffibly have been his fon. I must confefs I think he was of a good family, and that for various reasons, which because I do not know they have been taken notice of before I will mention as briefly as I can. Firft then, his education Ipeaks him a gentleman bred at both the Univerfities, travelled through feveral countries, and at last a student in the Temple, where it is reported that he was fined two thillings for beating a friar in Fleetftreet. Next, his poft at court thews him to have been a gentleman, for birth was much ftood upon in those days, and young men of the best quality were the King's pages. Thirdly, this is confirmed by his marriage, which so proud a man as John of Gaunt would not have admitted if he had been of a mean defcent, much lefs have recommended him to his wife, and thereby made him the uncle-in-law of his own children. Fourthly, his writings thew him a gentleman, for they ase all written with such freedom and spirit as must have ex.pofed him to great envy if he had not been a gentleman, and which he would probably have appeased by some reasonable apology. Laftly, the company he kept, and the respect that was conftantly paid him, seem the cleareft teftimonies of this, which with the reft I fubmit to the decifion of the intelligent reader. |