Chaucers Official Life | Page 9

mem. 18.]
Richard Torperle. 38 Edward III. (1364) [Footnote: idem 272, mem.
22.] Johan Northrugg. 37 Edward III. (1363) [Footnote: Issues, P. 232,
mem. 5.] Hanyn Narrett. 38 Edward III. (1364) [Footnote: Issues, P.
237, mem. 17.] Symond de Bokenham. 37 Edward III. (1363)
[Footnote: Pat. Roll 267, mem. 7.] Johan Legg. 36 Edward III. (1362)
[Footnote: idem 266, mem. 3.]
The "esquiers de meindre degree" follow:
Hugh Wake. 1353 [Footnote: idem, p. 380.] Piers de Cornewaill. 37
Edward III. (1363) [Footnote: idem 268, mem. 18.] Robert Ferrers.
1370 [Footnote: Rymer III, 902.] Robert Corby. 43 Edward III. (1369)
[Footnote: 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] Collard Daubrichecourt. 44 Edward III.
(1370) [Footnote: Pat. Roll 281, mem. 18.] Thomas Hauteyn. 41
Edward III. (1367) [Footnote: idem 1399, p. 65. Issues, p. 250, mem. 2.]
Hugh Cheyne. 32 Edward III. (1358) [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p.
248.] Thomas Foxle. [Footnote: 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).] Geffrey Chaucer. Geffrey Styuecle. 31 Edward III. (1356)

[Footnote: Issues, p. 217, mem. 114. In 29 Edw. III in service of
Countess of Ulster.] Symon de Burgh. 44 Edward III. (1370) [Footnote:
Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 189.] Johan de Tychemerssh. No mention
outside of household books, where he appears for first time in 1368.
Robert la Zouche. 29 Edward III. (1355) [Footnote: Issues, p. 213,
mem. 24.] Esmon Rose. 17 Edward III. (1343) [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll
1348, p. 39.] Laurence Hauberk. 1370 [Footnote: Issues 1370, Devon,
pp. 136, 444.] Griffith del Chambre. 28 Edward III. (1354) [Footnote:
Issues, p. 294, mem. 18.] Johan de Thorpe. 30 Edward III. (1356)
[Footnote: idem, p. 214, mem. 8.] Thomas Hertfordyngbury. 41
Edward III. (1367) [Footnote: Pat. Roll 275, mem. 13.] Hugh Straule.
No certain mention as valet or esquire. Hugh Lyngeyn. 37 Edward III.
(1363) [Footnote: Idem 267, mem. 37] Nicholas Prage. 33 Edward III.
(1359) [Footnote: Exchequer K. R. Accts., Bundle 392, No. 15]
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-smith [Footnote: Pat. Roll 1378, p. 158] 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" [Footnote: For indication of their
function see p.14 etc.], 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." [Footnote: Pat. Roll 265, mem.