Chaucers Official Life | Page 8

conjecturally dated
December 1368 [Footnote: Printed as number 53 of the Chaucer
Records (page 162).] 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; [Footnote:
Exchequer, K. R. Accts. 392, 12, f. 36 dorso. idem. No. 15.] William
Blacomore was one of the king's buyers, subordinate to the purveyor of
fresh and salt fish [Footnote: C. R. 1359 p. 545.] John de Conyngsby
was likewise a buyer of victuals for the household [Footnote: Pet. Roll
276, mem. 4.], John Goderik and John Gosedene were cooks in the
household [Footnote: Pat. Roll 1378, p. 212, Devon's Issues, 1370, p.
311.]; Richard Leche was king's surgeon [Footnote: idem. P. 230 mem.
not numbered.], Thomas de Stanes was sub-purveyor of the poultry
[Footnote: C. R. 1359, p. 545.]; William Strete was the king's butler
[Footnote: Issues, P. 228, mem. 38.]; Edmond de Tettesworth was the
king's baker [Footnote: Pat. Roll, 1378, p. 224.], 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) [Footnote: Abb. Rot. Orig., vol. 2,
p.65.] Wauter Whithors. 1343 [Footnote: C. R., p. 203.] Johan de
Beverle. 36 Edward III (1362) [Footnote: Pat. Roll 265, mem. 17.]
Johan Romeseye. 35 Edward III (1361) [Footnote: Pat. Roll 264, mem.
24.] Wauter Walsh. 36 Edward III. (1362) [Footnote: idem 266, men.
47.] Roger Clebury. 1349 [Footnote: idem, p. 227.] Helmyng Leget. 33
Edward III. (1359) [Footnote: Issues, P. 223, mem. 32.] Rauf de
Knyveton. 35 Edward III. (1361) [Footnote: Pat. Roll 264,