prehensive, yet it is credible enough they represent some actual expressions of regret. Possibly the poet's fixing his last abode where he did, so close to the Abbey of Westminster-I do not forget it was also near one of the royal palaces may suggest that some ascetic tendency or turn. marked his declining years. Such things have happened both before and since. Men's judgments have decayed, and they have formed a morbid estimate of their life and works. Certainly Chaucer on his deathbed might, if his mind were healthy, look back to much good service done for 'truth and honour, freedom and curtesy.' The world was the better for him while he lived, and has been the better for him ever since he was laid in 'the corner' that was to be called 'the Poets'.' But probably enough in those last hours he remembered only, and even exaggerated, his errors, and in his humility could not then perceive that his not professedly religious writings did yet in their way, with whatever defects, make for virtue and goodness even more effectively than those written in the name of religion. Whatever view is taken of this psychological problem, I do not think Gascoigne's evidence on the filial question is to be rejected because of his attitude towards it. Thus, if there was always fair reason for believing Thomas was Geoffrey's son, surely this relationship may now be taken as proved. But the exact details of it are not absolutely ascertained. Assuredly difficulties yet remain. Speght tells us that in his day, temp. Elizabeth, 'some held opinion that Thomas Chaucer was not the son of Geoffrey;' and, says Tyrwhitt, 'there are certainly many circumstances that might incline us to that opinion.' Mr Edward Walford, in an interesting paper on 'Ewelme and the Chaucer Tombs, lately contributed to the Gentleman's Magazine, assures us that it is now the general opinion of historians and genealogists that this Thomas Chaucer was in reality a son of John of Gaunt by a sister of Catherine Swinford, the same who afterwards married Geoffrey Chaucer; and if this supposition is true, then Thomas Chaucer was the illegitimate son of Geoffrey Chaucer's wife, and therefore not the poet's son, but his stepson, after a fashion.' Now, on what facts is this opinion founded? Is it founded on any? Or is it merely an hypothesis? As an hypothesis it would undoubtedly solve many difficulties; but it would in their place create a difficulty yet more perplexing with regard to Chaucer's character. To suppose that the poet married a cast-off mistress of his patron's, or, still worse, that after his marriage Philippa continued to be, or became his patron's mistress, are obviously not suppositions easy to reconcile with personal respect and admiration. For the present at least Chaucer's married life is involved in obscurity. That it was not a success there are many indications; but the causes of its unhappiness have not hitherto been discovered-are, perhaps, undiscoverable. I will just add that it seems extremely probable that the Elizabeth Chaucer, for whose novitiate in the Abbey of Barking John of Gaunt paid 517. 8s. 2d. in 1381, was a daughter of Geoffrey. H IX THE 'CONFESSIO AMANTIS (From The Athenæum for Dec. 24, 1881) ‘O say nothing of the interest of the question as it relates to Gower himself, the date of the Confessio Amantis has a special importance for Chaucerian students. As there are several stories that are told by both poets, the settlement of this date may decide, if there seem to be obligations, which is the obliged person. And as the following lines in Gower are often quoted in connexion with the controversy as to the time of Chaucer's birth, it is obviously of some moment to ascertain the date of the work containing them : Gower represents Venus speaking to him in this wise: And grete wel Chaucer, when ye mete, As my disciple and my poete; For in the floures of his youthe Above alle other I am most holde. Forthy now in his dayes olde Thou shalt him telle this message: ate. To sette an end of al his werke, As he whiche is myn owne clerke And yet the statements current in most books dealing with the subject are for the most part careless and inaccurOften it is said that the second version or edition of the Confessio-it is well known there were two editions -was not presented to Henry of Lancaster till he became king-that is, was not presented before 1399. It is generally taken for granted in discussing Chaucer's birth-year that the above-quoted lines of Gower belong to the year 1393, whereas, as I hope to show, they were probably written nine or ten years earlier. The omission of those lines in the second edition is sometimes explained, by those who are unwilling to allow that the friendship of the two poets was ever disturbed, as due to the fact that Chaucer was in extreme old age, beyond the power of dictating any 'Testament' for Venus, or any testament but his own, if, indeed, he was equal to that, when the revised version appeared. But the revised version was certainly finished, in 1393. These and other like errors are still widely prevalent, although years ago-nearly a quarter of a century ago— Dr. Pauli pointed out that 1392-3 is the date of the second version, and that the first must have been written some years earlier. This view of Dr. Pauli's, to be found in the introduction to his edition of the Confessio Amantis, published in 1857, I propose now not only to call attention to, but to enforce and support with fresh illustrations. Let it, then, be carefully observed that Gower himself tells us that the version dedicated to Henry of Lancaster was completed in the sixteenth year of Richard II., and that the lines containing Venus's message to Chaucer, as well as the passages that express loyalty to the reigning sovereign, are not found in it. These lines are found only in the other version, which the very slightest consideration of the facts. of the case will show to be the earlier-the earlier by several years: six or seven as Dr. Pauli thinks, but perhaps, as I incline to think, by nine or ten. (1.) Let us, then, first consider the date of the first version of the Confessio Amantis. This is Gower's account of its suggestion and origin : In our Englishe I thenke make Which causeth every king to regne, And he goes on to describe how one day, as he was rowing, or being rowed, along the Thames, 'under the town of New Troy' that is, by London-his liege lord met him and called him into his barge, and, amongst other things then said, bade him 'book some new thing to his high worthiness'-i.e., compose some new writing and dedicate it to his Majesty. Gower was eager to act on the royal bidding. He had 'sickness on hand,' and long had had, he tells us ; but, fervent royalist as he was, he determined to 'travail' in the king's service, and so he set to work To make a boke after his heste |