No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The purpose of this paper is to present certain facts relating to the historical and political conditions during a definite period of Chaucer's life, to demonstrate his intimate connection with events during this time, and to endeavor on the basis of these to fix the occasion of the contemporary allusions in the allegory of the Parlement of Foules.
1 On the subject of earlier interpretations see Hammond, Bibliography, p. 389 f.
2 Koch, Engl. Stud. i, 288; trans. in Ch. Soc. Essays, pp. 406 ff. Cf. Engl. Stud. xv, 399 ff.
3 Emerson, Mod. Phil. viii, 45–62.
4 Professor Samuel Moore gave further reasons for rejecting William of Bavaria. (Mod. Lang. Notes xxvi, 8–12.)
5 Manly, Festschrift für Lorenz Morsbach. (Stud. zur Englischen Phil., l, 278 ff.)
6 Emerson, Jour. Eng. & Gmc. Phil. xiii, 578 ff.
7 Emerson, JEGP, xiii, 570. Cf. J. N. Douglas, MLN xliii, 380.
8 Emerson, JEGP xiii, 573 f.
9 Lange, Anglia xl, 395 f.
10 Koch also shifts repeatedly in his date for the poem. In 1877 he favored 1381; in 1880 he preferred 1380, emending west north west; 1381 was again chosen in 1903; and finally in 1921 he selected April, 1382. (Cf. Brusendorff, The Chaucer Tradition p. 389, n. 3.)
11 Douglas suggests that to tell of the outcome of Richard and Anne's marriage would be contrary to the rules of the type. (MLN xliii, 380.) But it would not be contrary to the facts of the case. The Richard-Anne relation fails to explain the “formel's” decision, and we should desire a more reasonable interpretation.
12 Manly, Festschrift für Morsbach p. 287 f.
13 Famham, PMLA xxxii, 492–518.
14 Rickert, Mod. Phil. xviii, 1 ff. As the new theory put forward by Miss Rickert has not met acceptance, it is not discussed here.
15 In this historical discussion I have relied for the most part on the following authorities. Paulin-Paris, Les Grands Chroniques de France vi, 346 ff; Petitot, Les Mémoires de Du Guesclin 156 ff; E. Cosneau, Les Grands Traités de la Guerre de Cent Ans 69 ff.
16 G. Clement-Simon, La Rupture du Traité de Bretigny 90 ff. Cf. Barante, Hist. des Ducs. de Bourg. pp. 144–45.
17 H. Moranville, Chron. Reg. Franc. p. 360 ff.
18 L. Gilliodts-Van Severen, Le Cotton Manuscrit Galba B. I. “Annexes, 3 F.,” p. 518 ff. (Acad. Roy. des Sciences de Belg. 1896.)
19 Gilliodts-Van Severen, op. cit., p. 488 f. Cf. Buchon, Les Chron. de J. Froissart vi, 101. Cf. Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes lx, 177–214, “Les Ambassades Anglaises,” Nos. cclxxviii, ccclxxxvi, ccclxxv.
20 Skeat erroneously suggested the marriage proposal originated with the French. (Intro., Minor Poems, xxix f.) Cf. Delachenal, Chron. des regnes de Jean II et de Charles V, iii, 207
21 Life Records, No. 98.
22 Life-Records, No. 143. But cf. Hulbert, Chaucer's Official Life, p. 48. Cf. Rymer, Foedera, Rec. ed., iv, 60.
23 Cal. of Pat. Rolls 1374–1377, 51 Edw III Memb. 14 p. 462. Cf. S. Moore, Mod. Phil. xviii, 497 f.
24 Life-Records, No. 103.
25 Life-Records, No. 101.
26 Life-Records, Nos. 99–101.
27 Bibl. de l'Ecole des Chartes lx, 196, No. ccxci. In this place Mirot and Deprez have published other excerpts from the Exchequer Accounts. Several of these have been copied for me from the originals now in the British Museum. Space hardly permits my introducing this material in the present article, but I may say that it corroborates the evidence presented here.
28 S. Luce, Chroniques de Froissart, viii, 225–226.
29 Cf. Skeat, Intro. Minor Poems, p. xxix ff. Cf. W. Longman, Edward III and His Times, pp. 271–272.
30 Rymer, Foedera iii, pt. ii, 1073, and 1076. Cf. W. Longman, op. cit., pp. 271–272. Cf. J. A. Buchon, Les Chron, de Froissart, vi, 101 ff. and notes.
31 Simonde de Sismondi, Hist. des Français xi, 224 f.
32 Clement-Simon, La Rupture du Traité de Bretigny, pp. 91–92.
33 Clement-Simon, ibid. p. 89.
34 Deschamps' La Fiction de l'Aigle is a satire of the court of Charles VI. (Cf. Rickert, MP xviii, 4.) Machault used bird-allegory in the celebration of a love match in Le Dit de L'Alerion. (Cf. Hoepffner's ed., Soc. de Anc. Textes Franc. ii, 239 ff.) Froissart's Le Temple d'Amour is accorded a similar historical interpretation. (Cf. Brusendorff, The Chaucer Tradition, 158–62.
35 Cf. Farnham, PMLA, xxxii, 492–518; also PMLA, xxxv, 247–323; as well as Univ. of Wis. Studies in Lang. and Lit., No. 2, 341 ff.
36 Devillers, Cartulaire des Comtes de Hainaut vi, pt. i, 393 ff. Cf. L. Lalanne, Œuvres de Brantome, viii, 53.
37 Farnham, PMLA, xxxii, 492–518.
38 Douglas has remarked that the suit of the latter two lovers was flattering whether they existed as historical figures or not. (MLN, lxiii, 382.)
39 A letter of Charles V, dated May 30, 1377, indicates that Marie died toward the end of this month. Cf. Delisle, Mandements et Actes Divers de Charles V No. 1377, p. 708 (Coll. de Doc. inédits 1874). The statement of Froissart (Buchon, Les Chron. de Froissart, vi, 105) that the death of Marie occurred shortly after that of Edward III is therefore erroneous.
40 Les Mémoires de Du Guesclin p. 157. Cf. Clement-Simon, La Rupture du Traité de Bretigny p. 92.
41 Cf. Skeat's account of Rymer's evidence. (Intro., Minor Poems, xxvii ff.)
42 Ward suggested Marie. (Chaucer, p. 77, in English Men of Letters.) Coulton distinguishes the daughter as “one of poor little Marie's sisters.” Marie, however, died before 1378; Catherine was not born until February 4, 1378, and Isabel remained the only daughter to receive a proposal in January, 1378. Cf. Anselme, Hist. généalogique i, 110d. Delisle, Le Cab. des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat. iii, 337 ff. Delachenal, Chron. des reg. de Jean II et de Charles V, ii, pp. 258, 272, 282, and notes.
43 Skeat, Intro. Minor Poems xxvii ff. But cf. Kervyn de Lettenhove, Œuvres de Froissart ix, 582, and notes.
44 Barante, Hist. des Ducs. de Bourg., i, 70. Secousse, Hist. de Charles le Mauvais, i, pt. ii, 177. Anquetil, Hist. de France, v, 48 S. Luce, Chron. des Quatre Premiers Valois, p. 265 f. (Soc. de l'Hist. de Fr. 1862.)
45 There is no means of knowing what occurred at this meeting, but it obviously ended without producing results. Cf. Rymer, Foedera, Rec. ed., iv, 60.
46 According to the “Table des Nativités” as quoted by L. Delisle (Recherches sur la Librairie de Charles V, i, 268–9), the year of Marie's birth is 1370, but this is Old Style reckoning. In this paper I have given the dates uniformly according to the New Style. Anselme (Hist. genealogigue i, 110 D) erroneously gives the date as “le 27 fèrrier.”
47 Froissart: “Environ le quareme.” In 1377 the first day in Lent was February 11, Buchon dates Froissart's account as the middle of February.
48 Cf. Parlement of Foules, ll. 109–102, 167–168.
49 S. Moore, MLN xxvi, 11.
50 Koch, Chronology, p. 37 f. Cf. Manly, Festschrift für Morsbach, p. 289 f.
51 Venus is never visible technically NNW. The planet appears in several other years as evening star between 1372 and 1384, but would not be visible in the correct position in the northern hemisphere.
52 These computations were undertaken for me by Dr. Harlow Shapley and Miss Jennie Mohr, of the Harvard College Observatory. I wish to acknowledge also a like indebtedness to Professor P. H. Graham, of New York University.
Those skilled in mathematics may find it convenient to consult “Astronomical Papers,” vi, pt. iii, pp. 271–382. (Washington, 1895).