Classification
The two lists in the household books classify the members of the household in different ways—one list according to function and the other, apparently, according to length of service. The first is the system according to which the schedule of names conjecturally dated December 13681 was made, and the latter is the system governing the list of September 1, 1369 (number 58 Chaucer Records, page 172.) A glance at the second of these and comparison with the first will show how it was made up. It classifies the esquires in two groups—“esquiers de greindre estat” and “esquiers de meindre degree.” Looking at the names of the “esquiers de greindre estat” we notice that the first thirteen are names which appear in the group of “esquiers” of 1368, that the next ten are identical—even in the order of occurrence—with the list of “sergeantz des armes” of 1368, that the following seven are the first seven in the list of “sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon” of 1368 (in the same order), that then Andrew Tyndale who in 1368 was an “esquier ma dame” appears, and is followed by the rest of, the “sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures,” etc., (in the same order as in 1368) that the next six were in 1368 “esquiers ma dame,” and that finally occur ten names not found in the lists of 1368. From this comparison it is clear that the list of 1369 was made up from a series of lists of different departments in the king’s household.
The list of “esquiers de meindre degree” of 1369 was doubtless made in the same way, although the evidence is not so conclusive. The first twenty-two names correspond to names in the list of esquiers of 1368; the next eleven occur in the list of “esquiers survenantz” of 1368; the following five appear among the “esquiers ma dame” of 1368; the next thirteen do not occur in the lists of 1368; but the following eight correspond even in order to the list of “esquiers fauconers” of 1368. It is therefore clear that we have here a cross division. That the list of 1368 gives a division according to function is clear from the titles of all groups except one. The esquires classified as “fauconers” “survenantz,” “ma dame,” etc., performed the functions suggested by those titles—a fact which can be demonstrated by many references to the function of these men in other documents. In the case of the one exception, the “sergeantz des offices parvantz furrures a chaperon,” it is clear that they performed duties similar to those of the “esquiers survenantz.” For example, Richard des Armes was valet of the king’s arms;2 William Blacomore was one of the king’s buyers, subordinate to the purveyor of fresh and salt fish3 John de Conyngsby was likewise a buyer of victuals for the household4, John Goderik and John Gosedene were cooks in the household5; Richard Leche was king’s surgeon6, Thomas de Stanes was sub-purveyor of the poultry7; William Strete was the king’s butler8; Edmond de Tettesworth was the king’s baker9, etc. Hence it is clear that all these performed duties which in the main were of a menial character.
On the other hand, the division into two groups in the list of 1369 seems to indicate not the function of the esquires, but their rank in the household. Their rank, in turn, appears to be determined by various considerations—function (all the falconers of 1368 are enrolled among the esquires of less degree in 1369), length of service, and to some extent considerations which are not manifest. That length of service played some part in the division seems clear from a study and comparison of the careers of the various men. Since we are interested in knowing particularly the significance of the classification of Chaucer who appeared in 1368 as an esquier, I shall confine myself to a consideration of the “esquiers” of that year. The names of the esquires of greater degree with the date at which they are first mentioned in connection with the household (in documents outside the household books) follow:
Johan Herlyng. 18 Edward III (1344)
10
Wauter Whithors. 1343
11
Johan de Beverle. 36 Edward III (1362)
12
Johan Romeseye. 35 Edward III (1361)
13
Wauter Walsh. 36 Edward III. (1362)
14
Roger Clebury. 1349
15
Helmyng Leget. 33 Edward III. (1359)
16
Rauf de Knyveton. 35 Edward III. (1361)
17
Richard Torperle. 38 Edward III. (1364)
18
Johan Northrugg. 37 Edward III. (1363)
19
Hanyn Narrett. 38 Edward III. (1364)
20
Symond de Bokenham. 37 Edward III. (1363)
21
Johan Legg. 36 Edward III. (1362)
22
The “esquiers de meindre degree” follow:
Hugh Wake. 1353 23 Piers de Cornewaill. 37 Edward III. (1363) 24 Robert Ferrers. 1370 25 Robert Corby. 43 Edward III. (1369) 26 Collard Daubrichecourt. 44 Edward III. (1370) 27 Thomas Hauteyn. 41 Edward III. (1367) 28 Hugh Cheyne. 32 Edward III. (1358) 29 Thomas Foxle. 30 Geffrey Chaucer.
Geffrey Styuecle. 31 Edward III. (1356) 31 Symon de Burgh. 44 Edward III. (1370) 32 Johan de Tychemerssh. No mention outside of household books, where he appears for first time in 1368.
Robert la Zouche. 29 Edward III. (1355) 33 Esmon Rose. 17 Edward III. (1343) 34 Laurence Hauberk. 1370 35 Griffith del Chambre. 28 Edward III. (1354) 36 Johan de Thorpe. 30 Edward III. (1356) 37 Thomas Hertfordyngbury. 41 Edward III. (1367) 38 Hugh Straule. No certain mention as valet or esquire.
Hugh Lyngeyn. 37 Edward III. (1363) 39 Nicholas Prage. 33 Edward III. (1359) 40 Richard Wirle. No record as valet or esquire of the king.
A comparison of the two sections shows that the first contains the names of two men whose service goes back as far as 1343, 1344, and that it contains the name of no one who was not by 1364 associated with the court. The second section, on the other hand, contains but one name of a date earlier than 1353 and several which do not occur in the records before the time of this document, or in fact until a year or two later. The fact however that in a number of cases the second section contains names of men who entered the household years before others whose names occur in the first section makes it seem probable that special circumstances might influence the classification of a given esquire.
Linked with this problem of classification is one of nomenclature—the use of the terms “vallettus” and “esquier” (or, the Latin equivalents of the latter, “armiger” and “scutifer”). Chaucer scholars have generally assumed that the term “esquier” represents a rank higher than “vallettus.” But they give no evidence in support, of this distinction, and we are interested in knowing whether it is correct or not. A first glance at the list of 1369, to be sure, and the observation that cooks and falconers, a shoe-smith41 and a larderer [Footnote: Issues (Devon) 1370, p. 45) are called “esquiers” there, might lead one to think that the word can have but a vague force and no real difference in meaning from “vallettus.” But an examination of other documents shows that the use of the term “esquier” in the household lists does not represent the customary usage of the time. It is to be noted for example that many of the “esquiers” of 1369, practically all of the “esquiers des offices”42, and the “esquiers survenantz” of 1368 are not called esquires in the list of 1368, the Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, Issue Rolls or Fine Rolls. William de Risceby and Thomas Spigurnell are the only clear exceptions to this rule. Of the “esquiers survenantz” I have noted eighteen references with mention of title, in seventeen of which the man named is called “vallettus” or “serviens.” Of the “sergeantz des offices,” Richard des Armes is called “vallettus” or “serviens” in twelve different entries, never “esquier.”43 I have noted thirty-five other references to men in the same classification with the title “vallettus.”44 It is clear then that although the usage is not strict these men were really of the rank of “vallettus,” and that this rank was lower than that of “esquier.” Possibly the household books used the term “esquier” in this loose way out of courtesy, but the other documents—which were strictly official—for the most part used it more exactly in accordance with a man’s actual rank.
From a study of the records of the “esquiers” of 1368 (the group to which in that year Chaucer belonged) we learn further conditions under which the terms “vallettus” and “armiger” or “scutifer” are used. In nearly all cases these esquires in the early years of their career, are called “vallettus,” after some years of service they are occasionally called “armiger,” and finally after the passage of more years are always called “armiger” or “scutifer.” Demonstration of this fact would take pages of mere references; but it can be indicated in a typical case, that of Geoffrey Stucle, chosen because of the fact that his classification is throughout the same as Chaucer’s. In 31, 33, and 35 Edward III he is called “vallettus,” in 36 Edward III, he appears once as “scutifer,” and twice as “vallettus”; in 37 Edward III he is once named “vallettus”; in 38 Edward III he is called once “scutifer” and another time “vallettus”; in 41 Edward III he is mentioned twice as “vallettus”; in 42 and 43 Edward III he is “armiger”; in 47 Edward III he is once “vallettus” and once “armiger”; in 49 Edward III he is called “armiger” twice; in 50 Edward III, and 1 and 2 Richard II he is called “armiger.”45 From this and the other cases in the list of esquires, it is clear that the term “esquier” (the equivalent of scutifer and armiger) indicates a rank above that of “vallettus.” The members of Chaucer’s group, in nearly every case, were at first entitled “valletti” and then in course of time became “esquiers.” Whatever may be the conclusion with regard to the meaning of those titles, however, it is clear, from the facts cited above, that the list of “esquiers” of 1368 and not that of the “esquiers de meindre degree” of 1369, gives the names of the men who were actually in the same class as Chaucer. Consequently in the consideration of the esquires which follows greater attention will be paid to the “esquiers” of 1368 than to the other classes.
Notes
1 Printed as number 53 of the Chaucer Records (page 162).
2 Exchequer, K. R. Accts. 392, 12, f. 36 dorso. idem. No. 15.
3 C. R. 1359 p. 545.
4 Pet. Roll 276, mem. 4.
5 Pat. Roll 1378, p. 212, Devon’s Issues, 1370, p. 311.
6 idem. P. 230 mem. not numbered.
7 C. R. 1359, p. 545.
8 Issues, P. 228, mem. 38.
9 Pat. Roll, 1378, p. 224.
10 Abb. Rot. Orig., vol. 2, p.65.
11 C. R., p. 203.
12 Pat. Roll 265, mem. 17.
13 Pat. Roll 264, mem. 24.
14 idem 266, men. 47.
15 idem, p. 227.
16 Issues, P. 223, mem. 32.
17 Pat. Roll 264, mem. 18.
18 idem 272, mem. 22.
19 Issues, P. 232, mem. 5.
20 Issues, P. 237, mem. 17.
21 Pat. Roll 267, mem. 7.
22 idem 266, mem. 3.
23 idem, p. 380.
24 idem 268, mem. 18.
25 Rymer III, 902.
26 C. R. mem. 23, dorso. The last
two are difficult to distinguish from their fathers of the same
name who had been in the King’s court before their time
27 Pat. Roll 281, mem. 18.
28 idem 1399, p. 65. Issues, p. 250, mem. 2.
29 Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 248.
30 I cannot identify him surely; a Thomas de Foxle was in
the King’s court in 4 Edw. III ff (Abb. Rot. Orig. II, p. 39); he was
growing old in 1352 (Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 270) and-died 30 Edw. III (Cal.
Inq. P. M. II 220, leaving his property to a son and heir John).
31 Issues, p. 217, mem. 114. In
29 Edw. III in service of Countess of Ulster.
32 Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 189.
33 Issues, p. 213, mem. 24.
34 Cal. Pat. Roll 1348, p. 39.
35 Issues 1370, Devon, pp. 136, 444.
36 Issues, p. 294, mem. 18.
37 idem, p. 214, mem. 8.
38 Pat. Roll 275, mem. 13.
39 Idem 267, mem. 37
40 Exchequer K. R. Accts., Bundle 392, No. 15
41 Pat. Roll 1378, p. 158
42 For indication of their function see p.14 etc.
43 Pat. Roll 265, mem. 21, 279, mem. 5, 273 mem. 15, 355, mem. 8, Issues, p. 207, mem. 4, p. 217, mem. 29, etc.
44 Pat. Roll 276, mem. 4 Issues P. 237, Pat. Roll 265, mem. 14, 266, mem. 9, idem, mem. 47, etc.
45 Pat. Roll 269, mem. 43, 273 mem. 35, 265 mem. 1, 275 mem. 24, 293 mem. 19, 267 mem. 21, Issues p. 223, mem. 17, 222 mem. 20, A 169 mem. 130, p. 229, mem. 22, mem. 25 (twice) p. 217, mem. 14, 18, p. 235, mem. 1, 248 mem. not numbered, 249 mem. 4, 264 mem. not numbered, 262 mem. 9, 271 mem. 17, 273 mem. 20. 295 mem. 11.