No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Chaucer's “My Maistre Bukton”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
Scholars are not agreed as to the identity of the person addressed by Chaucer in his Envoy a Bukton. Tyrwhitt was the first to suggest that the individual warned in regard to the risks of matrimony was Sir Peter (de) Bukton of Yorkshire. Professor J. S. P. Tatlock in 1907 questioned this identification, suggesting instead a Robert Bukton of Suffolk. Professor J. R. Hulbert, independently of Tatlock, attempted to show that Robert of Suffolk was the more likely person. Inasmuch as considerable evidence, not observed hitherto, makes Peter the more probable candidate, a review of the arguments of Tatlock and Hulbert becomes necessary.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1923
References
1 Develop. and Chron., pp. 210f.
2 Chaucer's Official Life, 1912, pp. 54f. Cf. Mod. Phil. X, 437.
3 Papal Registers; Papal Letters, V, 57, 63; Tatlock, op. cit. As to whether the poem antedates the expedition see discussion of Lowes, infra. Lowes (Mod. Lang. Notes, XXVII. 45 ff.) is not convinced by Tatlock's argument; MacCracken (College Chaucer, 1913, p. 597), on the other hand, favors Robert.
4 Tatlock seems to assume that the request for a portable altar was made immediately after marriage (cf. his last two sentences to note 3). That does not necessarily follow. For example, in a list of those granted portable altars in July, 1397, occurs the names of “John Serjant, donsel, nobleman, and Elizabeth his wife, noble woman” (Papal Regs., op. cit., p. 59). But “S., donsel, nobleman” and Elizabeth, “his wife, noble woman” were granted plenary remission the previous November (ibid., p. 30).
5 Op. cit.
6 Various spellings of the name occur.
7 Buktons were prominent in Northampton in the thirteenth century (Ancient Deeds, vols., I-IV, VI). For Buktons in general see Feudal Aids, vol. I; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1349-54. There was a Walter de Bukton of Yorkshire (ibid., 1354-60, pp. 452f.). A John de Bukton, coroner of York, was prominent in Chaucer's day (ibid., 1369-74, p. 236). In fact the names of John (de), Thomas (de), William (de) as well as Robert (de) and Peter (de) occur repeatedly in the Cal. Pat. Rolls from 1348 to 1477.
8 Op. cit., p. 211 note. Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1391-6, pp. 324, 495; cf. Hulbert, p. 55. Both these scholars note that Robert was still constable in 1401 (cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 540. I have found that Anne was patron of the priory of Eye (Victoria Co. Hist., Suffolk, II, 74).
9 Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1388-92, p. 435.
10 Cf. ibid., 1399-1401, pp. 16, 540. Cf. Hulbert, op. cit.
11 Tatlock, op. cit. Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1401-5, pp. 114, 149, 288, 291.
12 On the improbability of Robert's having been an adventurous crusader see infra.
13 Chaucer's Official Life, pp. 54.
14 Ibid., p. 55. In my search I have been unable to verify his references.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Cf. Rymer (Syllabus), p. 506.
18 Cf. Parl. Returns, I. pp. 248, 254, 256, 261.
19 Collectanea Topog. et Geneal., III. 101.
20 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1405-8, p. 84. The appointment was made by Thomas. Other references to Bukton are: ibid., 1388-92, p. 308; 1396-9, pp. 158, 252, 531; 1399-1401, pp. 16, 428, 540; 1401-5, pp. 114, 149, 288, 291; 1405-8, p. 231.
21 Edited by W. Rye, The Suffolk Inst. of Archaeol. and Nat. Hist., 1900, p. 277.
22 Weever, 1631, p. 781. Weever calls him “Lord and Patron of the towne of Ockley.” He was buried in the church of Ockley.
23 The king's escheator of Yorkshire (op. cit.). See infra.
24 Ed. by Nicolas, I. 195f.;II. 466f. Cf. The Earl of Derby's Expeditions, ed. Lucy T. Smith (Camden Soc., 1894), p. 300.
25 Nicolas, I. 195f.; II. 466.
26 This was Thomas of Woodstock, later Duke of Gloucester. He was the youngest son of Edward III., and therefore brother of Gaunt.
27 Nicolas, II. 466, who gives 1379. Cf. Walsingham, I. 434. Many famous warriors were with the earl.
28 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1381-5, p. 74.
29 Cal. Close Rolls, 1381-5, pp. 403f., Percy was Earl of Northumberland.
30 Nicolas (II. 466) gives 1383.
31 Op. cit.
32 Blomefield. I. 475.
33 Foedera, 2nd ed., VII. 851; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1396-9, pp. 9, 67, 219; Derby Accts., p. 300.
34 Pari. Returns, I. 251, 254, 267.
35 Derby Accts., pp. xliii, li, xcii, 35, 126, 128, 133, 138, 201, 265. Cf. Cook Conn. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, XX. 190f. Bukton had letters of protection granted him on 4 May, a few days before Derby left for Prussia (Nicolas, II. 466; cf. Derby Accts., p. 300). Bukton was in London in January, 1394, at which time he presented the king with a gift—a “piece of chamelot” (Wylie, IV. 165). It is interesting to note that Thomas Swynford was one of the knights on the Prussian journey.
36 But three of the seven had been on the first trip. Cf. references in n. 35.
37 Wylie, IV. 142, 184. He received (presumably for his services) a sum of money and the manor of Kilbom (York). Cf. Foedera, 2nd ed., VIII. 50.
38 Wylie, IV. 142. The landing was near Ravenspur—Holderness. Cf. Dict. Natl. Biog., XXVI. 35.
39 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 16. Rot. Pari. III. 496 a.
40 Wylie, loc. cit. “The men of the highest rank in the Duke's (Gaunl's) service were those who kept his castles and his forests” (S. Armitage-Smith, p. 216).
41 Wylie, IV. 142 note, 248, 249, 251. The king apparently passed through Holderness (p. 249).
42 Cal. of Charter Rolls, 1341-1417, p. 408. One of Bukton's manors was situated in Lincolnshire. He seems to have possessed considerable property. Cf. also the Cal. of Roll of Bishop Skirlawe (see infra), The Thirty-third Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (1872), p. 77.
43 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 379. This was 12 Nov., 1400.
44 Ibid., 1401-5, p.1; cf. Foedera, VIII. 227. One of the sons whom Scogan was later to tutor (see infra).
45 Proceedings of the Privy Council, I. 157, 244.
46 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1401-5, p. 248. “Word of mouth” is a touch that adds a fascination to the perusal of these documents.
47 Wylie, II. p. 447; ibid., IV. 142, 239, 241. Wylie states, incorrectly it seems (see infra), that Bukton took with him his son John.
48 Foedera, VIII. 640; Cat. Pat. Rolls, 1408-13, p. 223.
49 Foedera, p. 707.
50 Nicolas, Scrope-Grosvenour, op. cit., II. 467, who cites Carte, Gascon Rolls
51 His will (Test. Ebor., Surtees Soc., IV. 360) was proved on that day, having been made four days before. He was still alive 3 Feb. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1413-6, p. 153).
52 See his will (op. cit.) ; cf. Wylie, III. 99 note. A visit to the church at Swine made by the present writer in the summer of 1922 yielded some new evidence toward the identification of Bukton's burial place. The full length slab in the chancel pavement of this church has long been believed to mark the grave of Bukton (cf. T. Thompson, A History of the Church and Priory of Swine, Hull, 1822, p. 101). Partial confirmation of this tradition is to be found in the four words still legible of the almost obliterated inscription, which read: “qui obit …. die Martis.” Bukton died, as already mentioned, between the last day of Feb. and the 4th of March. The obvious age of the stone together with the fact that Bukton requested to be buried in the choir of this church add plausibility to this identification. The stone with its distinctly visible indents for the one-time brasses indicates that it was the grave of a person of distinction.
I may add that the vicar of Swine, the Rev. Wm. Cobby, accepted my reading of the inscription, and likewise believes that the stone is Bukton's. To the vicar I am under obligation, not only for his hospitality but for his generous and helpful assistance in many ways. Through him it became possible for me to get in touch with the present owner of the Bukton manor, and to make investigations at the Diocesan Registry at York (see further infra).
53 The Bukton manor, as was pointed out to me by the Rev. Wm. Cobby, is just outside Holdemess. Though the manor had apparently been the home of the Bukton family for a century (cf. Thompson, p. 101), there is no proof that Sir Peter ever lived there. It may be significant that his first connection with the manor, as far as I can discover, was in 1401, when he and his heirs were given free warren there (see supra). At that same time, however, they were also given this privilege at three other manors, one of which, Benningholme, was in the parish of Swine. Benningholme, in fact, was but two or three miles n. w. of the village of Swine, and may well have been Sir Peter's home. This would account for his burial at Swine,—a fact that otherwise is surprising, particularly when one recalls that Bridlington priory (to which B. also made bequests) was but a short distance from the Bukton manor. The chief point, for our present purpose, is the fact that Bukton's name is closely identified with “merrshy Holdernesse” (as well as with Swine). Again and again, as noted, he was on important commissions in that district, often in the low lying regions (and towns) on the east coast that have long since disappeared beneath the sea.
It may be added that Bridlington priory, to which B. gave liberally in spite of a one-time dispute with the prior (cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1408-13, p. 316), was Augustinian. But Swine, as we have already seen, was also remembered. This house was apparently not Cistercian (as stated by Thompson and Poulson) nor was it Gilbertine, though “its constitution …. is something very like a G. house” (Victoria, Co. Hist. III, p. 179).
54 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1391-6, p. 91; ibid., 1399-1401, p. 566; ibid., 1401-5, p. 521; ibid., 1405-8, p. 499; ibid., 1408-13, p. 486. Queen Anne and Thomas, Duke of Gloucester had in turn held Holderness.
55 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1391-6, p. 727. He, of course, held such positions elsewhere.
56 Ibid., 1381-5, p. 200; ibid., 1385-9, p. 391; ibid., 1401-5, p. 65; ibid., 1405-8, p. 235. Bukton was on various other commissions in East Riding, including Holderness and elsewhere (ibid., 1370-4, p. 103; ibid., 1388-92, p. 141; ibid., 1391-6, pp. 84, 91; ibid., 1396-9, pp. 50, 90, 94, 372; ibid., 1399-1401, pp. 85, 87, 213, 268, 461; ibid., 1401-5, pp. 1, 129, 280, 284, 289, 291, 391, 441, 505; ibid., 1408-13, pp. 223, 318. In passing cf. ibid., 1401-5, p. 248; ibid., 1405-8, pp. 52, 363, 439; cf. Ancient Deeds, I, A 707.
57 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1399-1401, p. 73. As already stated he became constable of Knaresborough castle the following May.
58 Cf. also the Friar's.
59 See my (unpublished) dissertation on Illustrations of Chaucer in the Life of the Fourteenth Century in the Harvard library, particularly the chapter on Richard Ronhale, master of Soler Hall. The setting of the Miller's Tale does not appear to be a chance one either (see forthcoming article).
60 ‘Chaucer and Wyclif,‘ Modern Philology, XIV. 261ff. Tatlock discusses the matter of excommunication in connection with the Sumner of the GP.
61 See in Illustrations of Chaucer (op. cit.) chapter on Skirlawe.
62 Cf. Life Records, p. 204 note.
63 Curiously enough Bukton's name occurs on Skirlawe's Calendar of Roll. The Thirty-Third Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (1872), p. 77. Cf. supra.
64 Skirlawe came from the village bearing his name—“ubi originem duximus”—about two or three miles n. e. of the village of Swine, and until a few years ago in the same parish (Poulson, Holderness, 1840-41, II. 262).
65 Test. Ebor., I, 309, 314; Victoria Co. Hist., III. 179.
66 Skirlawe also founded a chantry at South S.; the chapel, according to Poulson, “for goodness of materials, and neatness of workmanship, far exceeds all in these parts.” On feast days the inhabitants of South S. were required to attend church at Swine (ibid.).
67 On Clanvowe see infra.
68 On the possibility of the poet's having been Sir Geoffrey see Cook, Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts and Sciences, XXIII, 38 f.
69 The Compleynt of Venus.
70 John of Gaunt's Register. Camden Soc. (Third series, 1911), XX-XXI. Vol. II. No. 866; cf. No. 1662.
71 Derby Accounts, p. 309; cf. Cook, infra.
72 Derby Accounts, pp. 264, 309. He received the highest salary, and with some others enjoyed a special cabin (ibid., pp. 259, 309f.; cf. Cook, “The Historical Background of Chaucer's Knight.” Trans. Conn. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, 1914, XX. 190).
73 Froissart (ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove), VIII. 280, 284; cf. Mod. Phil., I. 9, Waugh, Scottish Hist. Review, XI. 58.
74 Waugh, op. cit., pp. 58f.
75 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1377-81, p. 262.
76 Froissart, XIV. p. 156; cf. Kittredge, Mod. Phil., I. 11, 17.
77 Waugh, p. 60.
78 Derby Accounts, p. 275; cf. Kittredge, Mod. Phil., XIV. 514.
79 For the fullest investigation of the biography of Vache, his record as a soldier, and his relations with Chaucer, see Edith Rickert, Mod. Phil. XI. 209ff.
80 Gaunt's Register, No. 1342, p. 192.
81 See supra.
82 Contin. Polychron., IX. 261; cf. Waugh, op. cit., p. 77. He died Oct. 17, 1391, in a village outside of Constantinople. Derby had also planned to go (Accounts, pp. xxxviii ff.), but soon afterwards began the Prussian expedition instead. It will be observed that Clanvowe was not a retainer of the earl, doubtless because of the former's early death; there had been no opportunity for a military attachment. Clanvowe, it may be noted, was the age of Peter Bukton. It would be interesting to know which of the tales the poet was engaged upon during the time his friends were abroad. With Clifford and Clanvowe off for Barbary, and Derby, Granson, and Bukton to Prussia the poet may well have had a lonesome time of it.
83 Cf. however Hulbert's attempt (op. cit.). In a paper on Chaucer and Aldgate, I hope to point out further weaknesses in Hulbert's argument; also to show the strong probability that the poet in the spring of 1374 was indebted to his patron for his various pieces of good fortune.
84 Cf. also Rickert, Mod. Phil., XVIII. Iff., who sees in the Parl. F. a connection between the poet and the Lancasters.
85 Cf. also Kittredge on the advice to governesses in the Phys. Tale (Mod. Phil., I. 5, note). See also my forthcoming article on “Was Chaucer Happily Married?” in the July number of the Philological Quarterly.
86 Wylie, IV. 136 note 3, 170. Cf. Life Records of Chaucer, pp. 327f., 342. It was in 1395, we recall, that Henry was a member of the council which ruled England while Richard was in Ireland.
87 The fact, as I pointed out above, that Robert became deputy to Thomas Chaucer, in 1405 might at first thought seem of great significance. However, the nature and the date of this association (as well as the uncertain connection between Thomas and Geoffrey) do not hint at any importance.
88 Mod. Lang. Notes, XXVII. 45-8. He dates the poem between the middle or end of 1393 and August, 1396.
89 Translated by Johnes, II. 609f. Because of the great danger (cf. Lowes) Gaunt refused to give his consent, though his son was willing to go-Derby, it seems, had already made some arrangements to go (cf. Johnes, p. 610).
90 For details see Lowes further.
91 Italics mine. Is it possible that the Envoy was not composed until after Derby's interest in the expedition? This appears not to have been before late winter or early spring of 1396 (cf. Johnes, pp. 609ff., 613). The tone of the poem, as discussed in the closing of this paper, suggests that the verses were intended for a friendly group. Naturally at such a gathering Derby would be expected to be present. To place the composition of the poem sometime between Derby's interest in the expedition and August would not be inconsistent with Lowes's conclusions.
92 Cf. Kittredge, Chaucer and his Poetry, p. 34. In this connection one must also recall Scogan's well-known relations with Henry and his sons, as well as the Earl's interest in literary persons including the French.
93 References to the families of the two men favor, to a certain degree, Peter. He had several children, though it seems impossible to find definite evidence as to their exact ages. In his will made 1413 (op. cit.) besides his wife he mentions three sons,—Ralph, William (the heir) and Peter. He may have had another, at least Wylie (II. 447) states that Peter, when he went to Denmark in 1406, took with him his son John (for discussion of this point see infra). A little light is thrown on the ages of two of the sons mentioned in the will: both appear to have been young at the time of their father's death. At any rate there does not seem to be any reference to them before 1430. In this year Peter Bukton, esquire, and Margaret his wife of the diocese of York were granted permission to have a portable altar (Papal Letters, VIII. 188). This presumably was shortly after marriage. After 1436 the name of Peter Bukton of East Riding appears constantly in the records, and may be traced for thirty years or so. Since his name disappears about 1470 he may well have been born about 1400. The case of William, the heir, also fits, for a William Bukton, knight of Yorkshire, died in 1461 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461-7, p. 3). I find no mention of Ralph. John's connection is rather disconcerting, for Wylie states that he was a knight. Unless this is a slip—and of course there are many errors in that historian—he must have been a son by a former marriage (provided, of course, Peter is the man wanted). Wylie may have misread the name; but on the other hand I find two references to a John Bukton (Cal. Pal. Rolls, 1401-5, p. 125; ibid., 1416-22, p. 191), though it is impossible to identify him with Yorkshire. The earliest mention of him that I find is in 1402 when he, a knight, is commanded to go “toward Ireland.” Since he was in the king's employ there is of course the possibility that he accompanied Peter, and that Wylie inferred he was a son. The evidence on the other hand is against Wylie since, as has been said, John is not mentioned in the will; though naturally he could have died in the interim. Finally, it may be repeated that the other two sons of whom mention is made in the records not only do not offer contradictory evidence, but actually favor—though to be sure not greatly—the Yorkshireman as the poet's friend.
This conclusion is favored by the facts that I have been able to glean concerning Robert's family. His wife, Phillipa, was the daughter of Sir John Braham; the latter who died in 1375 (Cal. Close Rolls, 1374-7, p. 354; Copinger, Manors of Suffolk, 7 vols., 1905-11. VI. 23), had married Margery, daughter of Sir Robert Tye (d. 1383) (Copinger, IV. 239). They were married by 1364 (ibid., VI. 23), though I am not able to find the exact year. Margery had been married before—to Sir John Mountenay (Cal. Close Rolls, 1374-7, p. 106). Braham's only other child besides Phillipa Bukton was a son and heir, John, who died in 1420 (Copinger, VI. 23). Margery was still living with her husband in 1374 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1374-7, p. 106), though, as stated, her husband died the next year. These dates just given would seem to suggest an earlier union between Robert Bukton and Phillipa than the date of the Envoy. Data about their descendants, moreover, supports such a view. They had two children, Ann (about whom I have been able to learn practically nothing) and Phillipa, the heir. The latter married Sir John Comwallis, whose father died in 1384 (The Visitations of Suffolk, made by Hervey, et al., ed. by W. C. MetcaJf, Exeter, 1882, p. 21). Six John himself is mentioned in records as early as 1406 (Letter-Book I. 49; cf. Ancient Deeds, VI, C. 4236), and would therefore seem to have been more than a youth. The son and heir of this union, Thomas, d. 1447 (Muskett, Suffolk Manorial Families, II, 268). One more bit of evidence is interesting because of its annoying ambiguity. Sir. Rich. Gipps is often quoted as stating (cf. Copinger, III. 239; Suffolk Inst. of Archaeol., VIII. 138): Sir John Braham dying c. 49 Edw. III “left his sole daughter and heir married to Robert Bukton.” In conclusion it may be said that the data on Robert's family connections suggest an earlier marriage date than 1393-6; this information coupled with the facts on Peter's family, together with the considerable body of proof presented in the body of this paper, carries with it more weight than otherwise. Finally, the vicar of Ockley, Surrey (where R. B. lies buried) in answer to my query whether Robert's name appears on the Register, replied: “John Buckton was Rector here from 1386 to 1398 but the name Bukton does not appear in the Registers.” Of course, he could have been, probably was, married elsewhere.
It is doubtful if any data on Sir Peter's marriage will be forthcoming. Mr. A. V. Hudson, of the Diocesan Registry in the city of York, informed me that marriage records were not kept in Yorkshire until at a much later date. The present lord of the manor at Bukton, the Hon. Joseph Jackson (who was kind enough to lend me some brief notes on the history of the manor and its occupants) could give no further information. It may be of sufficient importance to add that the present building at Bukton, partially destroyed by fire recently, was, the owner thinks, “built about five centuries ago.” Apparently, however, no documents of that time which might throw light either on the manor or its owners have been preserved.