Talk:Geoffrey Chaucer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Translation

Since the topic of translation has been dormant for four months I've inserted a passage. It's only three lines longer than a similar quote at Beowulf. Wikipedia encourages users to translate from other language versions of the encyclopedia, so I see nothing wrong with doing an original translation here. Durova 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

An article of this length ought to have a three paragraph introduction. I've expanded the one short paragraph a little. This needs help from ther editors who know his life better. Durova 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Marriage

"Around 1366 Chaucer married Philippa (de) Roet at St Mary de Castro (Leicester)"

Do we have a source on this? I've seen the mauscripts on Chaucer's life and there isn't anything about this. The most we have is evidence that he was married before 1366, but no record of his actual marriage, which could have occured anywhere during the six-year fault in records. it is furthurmore possible that Chaucer met his future wife before 1360, and would likely have been married soon afterwards. If this is from a source outside of Chaucer: Life-Records (Martin M. Crow and Clair C. Olsen. 1966) I'd really like to see it. Diabolic 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

In Santa Barbara, California, there is a bookstore named Chaucer's. The owner's cat is or was named Geoffrey.

A character from the movie "A Knight's Tale" is named Geoffrey Chaucer and in the commentary, the movie is said to take place in 1377 the time when he took his mysterious trip, mentioned in the article --Aaronpark 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Chaucer's ethnicity

I am curious to know whether Chaucer was of Anglo-Norman or Anglo-Saxon derivation, or perhaps something else?

The article says the name 'Chaucer' is of French origin, if that wasn't already obvious. It doesn't prove he was at least part Norman, but it's pretty strong evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.245.91.25 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

"Obliged"

"Edward III granted Chaucer a gallon of wine daily for the rest of his life because he had...shall we say...'obliged' his highness." What is this supposed to mean? 71.232.96.127 05:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It means he performed some service for his majesty, for which the king was obliged (obligated, owed it to him) to reward Chaucer. Why do you want to make it into something perverted? Have you believed the lie that such things are normal or even as frequent as "they" say? Just try to come up with a synonym (work, service, duty) that can't be construed to imply some perversion or other. To the pure, all things are pure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of original manuscripts?

We would not have so many manuscripts of Chaucer's works today if this group of readers had not created a great demand for them.

This, plus the following section on literary reputation, makes it sound as if works had survived in Chaucer's original hand, or at least that he had edited them personally. I was under the strong impression that one of the greatest problems with interpreting Chaucer, linguistically or literarily, is that none of his original manuscripts survive. Everything we have now is the result of postmortem copyists, who frequently took considerable liberties with the language of whatever they were engaged with. They were more what we would consider "editors" than mere copyists. Not to mention there was no consistency among copies. My academic familiarity with Chaucer is more than three decades behind me; could someone comment whose knowledge is more up-to-date? --Michael K. Smith 13:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference To Cambridge

Hello, i was just wondering if anybody knew anything about his reference to cambridge as his mother, and where this originates from? 195.172.60.108 - 21/03/2007 12:50

I've don't know the reference you mean, are you sure you are not thinking of Edmund Spenser "Thence doth by Huntingdon and Cambridge flit; / My mother Cambridge, whom as with a Crowne" [1]. meltBanana 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

References

This page is pretty comprehensive and well written, but it has fewer citations and references than any article of its kind I've seen. There are almost no in-line citations and only three or four biographical external links at the bottom that, if read, don't cover everything mentioned in the article. Does anyone know where this information is coming from? If so, let's cite it. Wrad 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hijacked?

"In 1324 John Chaucer, Geoffrey's father, was kidnapped by an aunt in the hope of marrying the twelve year old boy to her daughter in an attempt to keep property in Ipswich. The aunt was imprisoned and the £250 fine levied suggests that the family was financially secure, upper middle-class, if not in the elite. John married Agnes Copton, who in 1349 inherited property including 24 shops in London from her uncle, Hamo de Copton, who is described as the "moneyer" at the Tower of London. He was also convicted of sexually harassing a boy of 13. He was put on trial but was released.

He was a freak!!!"

What is that doing in Chaucer's article? Is it actually true (although I doubt that)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.211.78 (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be true - I know little about Chaucer but I found this web page which would seem to support the idea. It cites some sources there that look reasonable - if you can check them, then add them as refs to the article it would be great. Walkerma 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, rootsweb is not a reliable source (there are some interesting pages there, but very few give sources, and it is fairly easy to find inconsistencies) Tedickey 10:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaucer accusations

The earlier mention of harassment with a 13-year old boy is probably vandalism after all (absent any source), so I was mistaken to revert it -- thanks, Tedickey for spotting it. I had confused it with the documented allegations of "raptus" with Cecelia Champagne, who is presumably female. There still needs to be a good reference for the accusation with her, though -- the article gives none. You can find it various places by googling -- one source is here but I do not know if it is enough. Mlouns (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation, "auctoritee" and other issues

Hello, as a relative newcomer here I would like to help if I can. I earned my Ph.D. in English with a dissertation on Chaucer at Brown University, so although I don't have the chance to teach Chaucer as often as I'd like, I do "know a thing or two" and am also committed to the wiki ethic of collaborative editing.

That said: I don't think we should have a "translation" here of Chaucer unless that translation is clearly identified as such, and is done by people with a genuine familiarity with Middle English. Chaucer wrote in English, not some other language, and I generally find I can have students reading the original with some degree of accuracy in 2-3 weeks.

I also do not think we need speculative comments; there is plenty of good scholarship out there, and things said here should be supported. I note that Skeat's excellent edition of Chaucer is now in the public domain, as are all of the Chaucer Society texts edited by Furnivall and others. Most good college & university libraries have these -- let's at least get the scholarship in this entry up to the level of 1899! Clevelander96 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started making some changes and refinements, and adding references where needed. I would appreciate any comments, or help! I also tweaked the translation a bit, though I am not certain that such a long passage is really needed to illustrated the point. Clevelander96 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Portraits of Chaucer

I've restored the small 1902 illustration of Chaucer. Although made five hundred years after Chaucer's death, this small illustration is in fact based upon the so-called "Harvard" portrait of Chaucer (see here), which some scholars feel may be an accurate depiction, so it's not "entirely fictitious" Even the Hoccleve portrait was not made during Chaucer's lifetime, although Hoccleve likely had met Chaucer and so would have had some notion of his appearance; even then, within the conventions of medieval art, many illustrations were more figurative than personal (note the totall different Chaucer shown in the article from a ms. of "Troilus and Criseyde" -- this is the Royal copy belonging to the future Henry IV, who also knew Chaucer, and it looks nothing like the other! The honest truth is that we don't know exactly what Chaucer looked like, but given that the portrait chosen for this entry is based on one with at least some historical background, and is clearly not an image with copyright issues, I believe we should keep it. Clevelander96 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

er, so is there a sound reason why don't you use the "Harvard" portrait instead? --Janneman (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed --any images of the Harvard portrait would have to be licensed from the University, whereas the engraving based on the portrait is clearly in the public domain. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Harvard portrait is in the public domain, any copyright that Harvard might claim would clearly be copyfraud. --Janneman (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One might think so. However, as someone who has, on many occasions, had to license artworks from the world's great museums and galleries, digital images of art -- even very old art -- are not in the public domain. Museums claim that, within copyright law, any photo, scan, or slide of an artwork in their collections is by definition a "derivative work." Since they are the owners of the original physical work, even if such work is centuries outside the pale of copyright, any image of that work, as a photo of their property, is a new derivative work with copyright protection. There is a legal argument, as yet with no definitive resolution, about whether "slavish" works -- works which replicate a pre-copyright work with no change or additional material -- can indeed be considered "derivative" works. Until that issue is resolved, the general understanding in the copyleft community is that such works are not of the same level of usability as printed or published works that have unambiguously in the public domain. See this recent item on a case involving Getty Images and Corbis, or this for an example of a key -- and for now, in the USA, the only -- instance in case law. Clevelander96 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

how did chaucer die —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.22.66 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Geoffery Chaucer Info.

Wikipedia states that he was born in 1343 and died on 25th October 1400.

So what day did he begin life or was born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.241.86 (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chaucer was born circa 1343. Few births in the fourteenth century were recorded precisely, and no record of Chaucer's date of birth is known. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actual Year of Birth

There've been several hit-and-miss assumptions about whether or not 1343 is the actual year of his birth. It is true that Church records do show that he was Baptized in 1343, it has also been discussed as to whether or not he was Baptized in an older age. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this one... but isn't that generally correct? 12.153.193.171 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no baptismal record of any kind for Chaucer. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

chaucers death

how did he die —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.22.66 (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The cause of Chaucer's death is unknown. Terry Jones, in Who Murdered Chaucer: A Medieval Mystery (ISBN 0312335873) has playfully suggested that he was murdered, but there really is no conclusive evidence; the most likely is a natural death. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography for more inquisitive readers?

The Bibliography is dreadfully thin and antiquated. I would suggest S.H. Rigby, Chaucer in Context (1996), which does what it says on the can, with a very wide bibliographical base.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalduck (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with subsection 'Pseudepigraphia and works plagiarizing Chaucer'

Firstly, 'pseudepigraphia' is a too jargon-y. I doubt the average reader knows what it means - I've studied Chaucer and I'd not heard of it - and it seems whoever wrote it didn't really understand it either since the word is actually spelled pseudepigrapha. Secondly, the use of the word 'plagiarize' is perhaps a bit too strong given the tradition of compilation during and following Chaucer's time. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the term is used by Chaucerians; it's originally a term of Biblical scholarship, for those works no longer believed to have any possible canonical status, mainly since there is evidence they were written long after their purported date (e.g., "gospels" written hundreds of years after the death of the original Apostles). But I agree it's rather technical, and need not be used. "Plagiarizing" raises its own problems -- very few of the poems listed here actually take without credit actual lines from what are now believed to be actual works of Chaucer's; usually it's only in the introduction (such is the case with the first printed edition of the "Plowman's Tale") or at the ending, stitch-work to sew these new wineskins onto the old. At any rate, why not use the better-known term "Apocrypha" -- it's just as applicable, and it doesn't require a detailed analysis of the nature of the borrowed material? Clevelander96 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I'd like to help with this the article's sourcing, spelling, fact-checking, whatever else is needed, etc. I'm not a registered user yet. Anything I can do? Queequeg79 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

---

wow this article needs some serious work, lots of spelling errors...

Bear in mind, Middle English spelling is quite different from Modern English. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I changed The Roman of the Rose to the Romance of the Rose, which is misleading but at least in a single Italic textlanguage. I think that's the title used on most translations (both my copies are at the office). --MichaelTinkler

---

A "tenant" is someone who lives on somebody else's property. Chaucer isn't living in Poet's Corner, and I think the part he's using is probably his now. Would somebody please choose a better word for this? -- isis 31 Aug 2002

---

We should not forget the earliest extant original narrative we have by Chaucer, the dream vision called the "Book of the Duchess" (written before the "House of Fame" or the "Parliament of Fowls"). It fuses the genres of elegy and dream vision as never before (closest parallel being the theological allegory "Pearl"), and draws from the beginnings of several love visions by the French poets Machaut and Froissart, always setting the borrowed material in unexpected contexts, and deleting Love as the theme, thus setting up his own vision as a narrative description of the beginnings of Poetry -- maybe. Beware of those calling it derivative! Chaucer changes the whole ending of the story he borrows from Ovid's "Metamorphoses," and then uses its comedic potential to draw us uncritically into his siting of the origins of poetry in the Cave of Morpheus, the god of sleep. The poem's combination of beauty and oddity creates the inventive readers the rest of his poetry demands. Among the best of this poem's many imaginative readers are Wolfgang Clemen, Ellen E. Martin, A. C. Spearing. Wordsworth is indebted to it for some aspects of "Resolution and Independence" ("The Leech-Gatherer"), and Walter Scott alludes to it at length in his account of "The Antiquary." -- Jazzbojackson 06:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Which year was he born in? 1340 or 1343? --216.240.152.74 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not known for certain. He says in 1386 that he is fourty years and more, while another comment suggests he was born after 1340 so 1343 is a traditional compromise date. I'll change the lead date to agree with the other two. meltBanana 13:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry for the major edit. The page is full of all sorts of small errors. Still left is the list of word coinages, which I assume is taken from the OED. The OED is a notoriously unreliable source for this kind of thing, because when it was written, the only consulted major works to find first usages, and so you tend to find the major writers like Chaucer, Shakespeare, and so on, being credited with the most introductions. Chaucer, in all likelihood, probably used the language that was around him, and is probably not responsible for many loan words or neologisms. Amans.

No need to apologise for your edits, someone as important as Chaucer needs all the editors he can muster, although I don't agree with all your edits. Chaucer did help to standadise the language just as all writers of the time did His influence in this area might be much smaller than is traditionally given to him but it is a well established and should be represented before being shot down. Also the word list is more to do with showing the importance of Chaucer in the corpus rather then as a crazed neologiser; I have tried to address this in the article.

One thing I have been thinking of adding that you may have some ideas on is a sample of his writing, probably the opening of the Tales. The only problem is finding a non-copyright source for a translation of the prologue for a side by side comparison. I though of offering my own translation but was worried I might do too much violence to it and breach the doctrine of no original research. If you have a good translation it might be worth adding. meltBanana 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I only have this:

And when that April with his showers sweet,

Has quenched the drought of March in every root

And bathed each leaf and vein in that rich dew,

From which the flowers are born each year anew,

And when that Zephyrus with his sweet breath

Has so inspired in every holt and heath

The tender crops, and when the quick’ning sun

Has halfway through his course in Aries run,

And small birds are to melody inspired

To sleep all the night with wide open eyes

(So nature plucks at their hearts and spirit)

Then people long to go on pilgrimage

And palmers yearn to see strange sands,

To visit distant shrines in sundry lands;

And from each and every English shire’s end

To Canterbury all at once they wend,

To seek that martyr holy of heaven’s bliss

Whom aided them when they were all amiss

But it still needs work. And in any case, the problems you note arise. Incidentally, talking of new sections, I think that something on the development of Chaucer's versification might be appropriate: there is a very definite trend in the development of his style, similar to that of Shakespeare, which is hugely useful to know because it helps date his work. (Amans)

Yes a versification section with more detail in the development of his craft would be good. Although I doubt I could be of much help as meter and rhyme are details I have no great understanding of; I would not recognise a trochee if I fell over one. My own attempt at translating the opening of the Tales shows this by dispensing with the poetry and instead trying to do a word for word translation of the the difficult vocabulary.

When April with his showers sweet

Has pierced the drought of March to the root,

And bathed every vein in such liquor

Of which virue is engendered in the flower;

When Zephyr also with his sweet breath

Breathed in to every wood and heath

The tender crops, and the young sun

Has in Aries half his course run,

And small fowls make melody,

That sleep all the night with open eye

(So Nature encourages them in their hearts),

Then folk long to go on pilgrimages,

And pilgrims go to seek strange sands

To far shrines, known in sundry lands

And specially from every shire's end

Of England to Canterbury they wend,

The holy blessed martyr for to seek,

That has helped them when they were sick.

I'm not sure what is the best approach for a side by side translation but I don't know that original research should be too much of a concern, it is not like propounding a new theory. Also any non-copyright sources may well be a little too Victorian anyway. meltBanana 16:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Need more on influence to present day. Much more can be gotten/linked to at TEAMS, especially on medieval Chaucer-influenced works. Dan Knauss

Suggestions

At the moment, some sections are far too large and unwieldy and need to be trimmed down and/or split, while other stubby sections could be amalgamated. I suggest:

0. Lead to be expanded to perhaps twice the current size

1. Life to have content split into 2 or 3 subsections

2. Works fine as stands

3. Influence: Chaucer's English section to be absorbed into Literary and Linguistic; Monuments and Tributes to be absorbed into Historical reception

4. Historical reception and representation to be renamed something snappier - Critical Reception or Critical Reputation (the latter is what they use over at FA Shakespeare); also, Printed editions needs to be drastically pruned...there may even be enough to spawn a new article, Textual/Publication History of Chaucer's Works or similar (if that were done, Manuscripts would go with it). Modern scholarship could do with expanding - I feel the Riverside Chaucer should be mentioned as the best modern edition, and a nod towards D.S. Brewer's prodigious work on Chaucer.

5. List of works and 6. Chaucer in Popular Culture can probably stay as they are for now.

I'll start doing the above bit by bit over the next week, please do lend a hand if you can. Thanks to Clevelander96 for his ideas on the above. Hadrian89 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chaucer in Kent

He is thought to have started work on The Canterbury Tales in the early 1380s (the Pilgrims' Way used by his fictional characters on their way to Canterbury Cathedral passes through Kent).

This requires editing. The Pilgrims' Way (so called - it's a prehistoric trackway, not a pilgrim route) runs from Winchester to Canterbury. Chaucer's pilgrims travelled from Southwark to Canterbury, and thus along the Watling Street which runs from London to Canterbury. (And since Canterbury is in Kent, any route used by Chaucer's pilgrims must, inevitably, have passed through Kent!)JMB196 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'll attend to that. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Remark

I love thy illustrious anglicus poeta, yet... you put Chaucer was a poet, a philosopher (?), a courtier, a bureaucrat, etc. etc. And Dante, for example, in thy opinion, merely "a poet"? A little unaware of the actual importance for western culture of a great lot of extra-anglophone people? It is not the first time I observe this incapability amongst people of the english speaking world and, therefore, in the english wikipedia. For instance, as soon as ye define "philosopher" Chaucer, ye ought to be conscious that Dante was very much more a deep thinker in comparison (and, indeed, even a political man, a scholar of language and literature, a courtier, a visionary utopian,etc.): and many other (non anglophone) writers could be described as "philospohers". Mr. Y.M.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.133.41 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

O.E.-related comments: bone to pick

"Chaucer is credited by some scholars as the first author to demonstrate the artistic legitimacy of the vernacular English language, rather than French or Latin."

This comment does not provide the proper historical context in the language's near deprecation in England's occupation. Moreover, I would think that I'm not at all alone in thinking that the statement will be interpreted by most as inclusive of Old English, and thus is misleading.

"Although Chaucer's language is much closer to modern English than the text of Beowulf, it differs enough that most publications modernise his idiom."

This statement is trivial, given that Beowulf is written in Old English (ca. 5th-12th c.) and the subject at hand is the literary landmark of the boundary between Middle and Modern English. It's comparing two apples to an orange just because you can.

LokiClock (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree we should talk about the deprecation of English under Norman French rule -- and its resurrection during the era in which Chaucer wrote, and in no small degree on account of his work (along with that of Gower and the Pearl Poet). I will work on this.

But the comparison with Beowulf makes sense; it's being used as an example of very remote sort of English. Clevelander96 (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense as an example of something remote to compare it to, but the comparison itself doesn't make a point, besides, "Well the English language 6 centuries ago is closer to the living tongue than it was 16-8 ago." If one just wants to make a remark on perspective, you could say something along the lines of, "while Chaucer's language may be updated by modern editions to ease intelligibility, Old English must be translated to be understood by a modern reader." But the way the statement is used in by the rest of the sentence is what bothers me. I don't know how to articulate it, but I'll say that it would be relevant to include the comparison if it were comparing it to, say, The Peterborough Chronicle. If you took out the comparison as is, but otherwise already understood that the older the form of the language the less intelligible to modern speakers, then the sentence would stand just fine. LokiClock (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In a technical sense, I see your point -- but among general readers, no one has heard of the Peterborough Chronicle. When I teach my survey of British literature, it runs "from Beowulf to 1800," and between Beowulf and Chaucer the centuries pass in the blink of an eye; aside from a few snippets about the changes in English from William of Nasyngton and a sample of Layamon's Brut, it's pretty much a single leap. This isn't because there's not a great deal of interesting literature in the gap, but because most of it is either a) in French; or b) in a transitional form of English that's very hard for undergraduates to understand. No one teaches Beowulf in Old English in a survey class; most people teach Chaucer in the original language. That's really the contrast/gap here -- comparing one familiar canonical text with another which, for all these reasons, are more or less 'adjacent' to the average college English major, and by extension to the audience of non-specialists consulting the Wikipedia on the matter. Clevelander96 (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a chained comparison, then? While Chaucer is more or X-much intelligible without aid, the Peterborough Chronicle Y-much obscure, and Beowulf mutually unintelligible with contemporary English. That way you have a reference point for change across period as well as that well-known reference age of disconnection. But if you only mention distant beginning and end states it doesn't say much meaningful at all. LokiClock (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion: compare with contemporary Flemish - try the c.1430 Brabantse Yeesten for size. At that time both languages were not far separated, particularly because English nobility still owned large parts of Flanders (John of Gaunt being properly John of Ghent, for example). There you CAN trace pronunciation parallels not so much with modern Scottish, which has doric inflections, as with Borders/Lowland English, which stretches as far as Geordie. Look at the pronunciation of "ende"(and), for an opening into the general pronunciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.184.145 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar alert

Just a minor grammar alert: section 6.3 should be "Poems of dubious authorship" rather than "dubiously authorship." Fernweather (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

dead link

This link

• Chaucer's language: Glossary from the Canterbury Tales

is dead. As a new user I cannot remove it. Active Banana (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to this -- done! Clevelander96 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect birth date

Among also current reliable sources, there is a broad and general consensus that Chaucer was born circa 1343. Oxford reference gives this date, and most major current sources (the RIverside Chaucer) concur, even though it may be thought imprecise. As noted in the Complete Critical Guide to Geoffrey Chaucer[2], the 1328 date is no more than a conjecture by Thomas Speght, a very late (1598) editor of Chaucer, which was in turn repeated by others without any further evidence. There is, instead, clear documentary evidence that John Chaucer, Chaucer's father, was unmarried in 1328, and thus Geoffrey could not possibly be (at least his legitimate) son. So, while the 1343 date is only a "best estimate," it is far better than hearsay. This needs to be changed in the entry, though I am a bit uncertain as to how to alter the infobox without causing formatting issues, as has happened when I've tried in the past. I would add that the source cited here, the 19th-century English professor and editor Henry Morley, is very much out of date. Clevelander96 (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I changed that date to 1328 from A first sketch of English literature By Henry Morley (Morley, p. 113 When Chaucer was born, in 1328, Dante (ch. iii. § 36) had been dead seven years, but Petrarch and Boccaccio were then living—one a young man and the other a boy—each with his work before him. At that date Petrarch was twenty-four years old, Boccaccio fifteen) I found the same date as his birth date of 1328 from 688 other sources in Google Books. It was a good faith correction edit based on these 688 other sources. I reverted it back however, since there seems to be an issue with this and I'll let others debate it out that known of Chaucer better. I came across this when researching the wedding of Violante (daughter of Galeazzo II Visconti, Lord of Milan), which most seem to think was 1368. I have come across some sources that think it was 1367, however. Chaucer supposedly attended this wedding and Petrarch and Boccaccio were there also.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing this back. One of the troubles with Chaucer and other writers who have been around for a few centuries is that there are tons of historical sources from books printed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and made available via Google Books, which often contain information or claims since shown to be in error. The modern scholarship which updates these things, alas, is much harder to find online as it's still in copyright. I'd recommend consulting a present-day source, such as the Riverside Chaucer to double-check on facts and claims found in sources more than 100 years old. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 137.190.202.163, 21 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the following: "It is speculated" Replace with the following: Numerous scholars such as Skeat, Boitani, and Rowland speculate that 137.190.202.163 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Was Chaucer ever knighted?

The article points out his service with the English army, but was he ever knighted? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

No, Chaucer was never knighted, but that is not really unusual. His service was primarily in government and diplomacy, and back in the 1300's, knighthood was as much a matter of practical military service as it was of ascending the class ladder. Chaucer's son, in any case, was knighted, though, and his close connection with the Lancastrian kings certainly brought him the kind of proximity to royalty that few ordinary knights would have known ... Clevelander96 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (79.190.69.142 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

Education at Inns of Court

Most modern biographers of Chaucer reject the speculation that he was educated at one of the Inns of Court. The only evidence for claiming Chaucer received a legal education is a single anecdote from the late sixteenth century, without any further confirmation. See Gshuffel (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)gshuffel

pronunciation of his surname

Since he was English, I suggest that the pronunciation shouldn't be rhotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a mistake. Chaucer and his contemporaries did pronounce /r/ in nearly all instances, including at the end of words, and they pronounced it as a "tap" or "flap." This same sound is still made by modern British RP speakers when the "r" is between vowels, as in "America", which may sound to US ears almost like "ammedica". Clevelander96 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Raptus

I think the section on Chaucer's involvement in the "raptus" of Cecilia Champain/Chaumpaigne is lacking. The page incorrectly says that it is unknown what the word mean when in fact the possible meanings of the word, as well as the probably meaning (abduction and rape) are not unknown at all; the Wikipedia page on "raptus" has a comprehensive list itself. At the very least the possible meanings should be noted and the readers left to decide for themselves. This was likely a case of rape as we understand it; that is how Chaucer scholars now interpret it (Amtower and Vanhoutte 2009, 85-86). Also, this section doesn't mention that Chaucer was acquitted but that he paid Chaumpaigne £10bvbrgbnnghb rtbntrhnn and in return she signed a document releasing Chaucer from all actions in the case of "de raptu meo". This was a substantial amount of money and paying it suggests some admission of responsibility (Amtower and Vanhoutte 2009, 113-114).

Basically, this section barely discusses the details of the incident and seems to gloss over the fact that Chaucer was seemingly an accused rapist or kidnapper, was acquitted, but was required to compensate Cecilia. If readers are going to be left to make informed conclusions about this case they need to have all of the tools to do so. In terms of in-depth sources, should anyone choose to check this, the best are probably Donald Howard (1987) and Derek Pearsall (1992) and the 1993 Christopher Cannon article about the case "Raptus in the Chaumpaigne Release and a Newly Discovered Document Concerning the Life of Geoffrey Chaucer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.208.56 (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Life

I have made two amendments to the 'Life' section to improve clarity. Could someone who knows the subject check that the material about John Chaucer and Hamo de Copton (which I have left untouched) is clear and accurate.Chrisemms (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

what is a pilgrim

what is a pilgrim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.215.62 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Have a read of Pilgrim to find out. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pornography?

Everything I have read, been taught, and studied about Chaucer says his work would be considered pornography back when they were released. The poems (if read as pure symbolism) are full of erotic imagery. However, there seems to be nothing in his page reflecting this... have I learned wrong? ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though you are confusing the modern notion of pornography -- a word which wasn't even invented until 400 years after Chaucer's death -- with a broader sense of "erotica" -- or with what Chaucer himself called "ribaudrie" or ribald, risqué writing. Some of the Canterbury Tales -- the Miller, or the Wife of Bath's tale, are ribald or risqué it is true, but they're not erotic. When Chaucer takes tales from sources, such as French Fabliaux, which were often very explicit, he usually waters them down quite a bit. Perhaps the one of Chaucer's projects which could conceivably be thought of in (at least metaphorical) pornographic ways would be his translation of The Romance of the Rose -- an early work for which he himself very explicitly apologized in The Legend of Good Women. Beyond that, of course there are, on a symbolic level, many varieties of sexual imagery in Chaucer, but this would be true of almost any imaginative writing in English, looked at in similar terms. So I don't think this is something missing from the account of Chaucer here, at any rate -- it is certainly discussed in the entries on the relevant individual tales and poems. Clevelander96 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Is it Equatorie of the Planetis or Equatorie of the Planets? Both spellings are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.24.175 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

book titles need help

The article "The" is part of both book titles and should be so noted in the first paragraph: the House of Fame, the Legend of Good Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.86.25 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014

Replace:

• Both an asteroid and a lunar crater have been named for Chaucer.

with:

• Both an asteroid and a lunar crater have been named after Chaucer.

195.171.106.170 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - It is over 600 years too late to do something for him - thanks for pointing that out. - Arjayay (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Content Problems on Geoffrey Chaucer Page

I would be happy to suggest corrections to errors and misrepresentations on this page. I have a PhD in Medieval Literature and have taught Chaucer at the college level. Let me know if you would like me to help!M.A. Edsall (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As a fellow Ph.D. with a dissertation on Chaucer, I'd be glad to pitch in -- I'd say, just go ahead and edit if you see any obvious errors! Or if there's a particular section or aspect of the article you're concerned about, let everyone know here, and we'll join in the fray! Clevelander96 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just correct them if you can, or list them here. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions his writing for a son named Lewis, but the table lists only a son named Thomas.Tham153 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really about the subject but what ever happened to rating the page? I would totally give this page five stars! This was one of the most well written subject I have ever read through in Wikipedia. I was very pleased with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.151.221.46 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a serious content problems on this page. Chaucer did not ever have a job collecting and inventorying scrap metal (no source is cited on the page), and this needs to be removed. But there are many other serious information problems. Ruth Evans 108.75.24.97 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC) 4/6/2015

Scrap Metal Collector

I changed the phrase in the biography about Chaucer working for the king as a scrap metal collector (which is either incorrect or a misrepresentation of fact) to the fact that he worked as Clerk of the King's Works.MAE (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How Do You Add New Sections Into the Article?

Hi guys, I'm fairly new and do not know how to add sections of information into the article. I know how to edit, but can you add new sections as well? If anybody could help me, that would be great! Thanks, Scubadooba1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadooba1 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Death

Chaucer died on October 25th, 1400 of causes that were unknown. He was the first poet to be buried in the "Poet's Corner" in England. (Someone needs to add this in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadooba1 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See the last paragraph in the article's subsection "Life". Both pieces of information were added in years ago, and they're still there, unreferenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice them. Scubadooba1 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

Hi, I'm new and was wondering if I can do some editing for this page. I was thinking of taking out the section about his death (from his "Life" section) and adding a new section just for his Death. This would make it far more easy to understand and read. Thanks! --Scubadooba1 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Scubadooba1 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Thank you for your desire to help improve Wikipedia. This page is semi-protected due to persistent vandalism this means that once your account is 4 days old and has made 10 edits you will be able to edit this page. Jamietw (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. I'll try to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadooba1 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Pinkhurst link

I suggest in the source code "File:Hengwrt Chaucer (f.2.r) title page.jpg|thumb|Title page of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in the hand of his personal scribe Adam Pinkhurst, c.1400" add link to Adam_Pinkhurst. It is already at base of article but may also be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.154.213 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Influence

The name of Edmund Spenser is conspicuous by its absence. Orthotox (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

John Gower relation

Article mentioned that Gower removed favourable mention of Chaucer from Confessio Amantis. While researching Gower articles I could find only one critic (Tyrwhitt) who claimed that deletion was because Gower was offend by remarks in Introduction to Man of Law's Tale. Therefore I have changed this article to state that Tyrwhitt was alone.Rdmoore6 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Has Some Significant Issues

This article has a lot of issues. The summary introduction needs to be rewritten. The article has no reference at all to Chaucer's being an advocate of and his use of astrology in his poetic works, despite the vast reservoir of research that has been done by academics on this particular issue. Some editors have removed research that was referenced in the past, and is now gone (although this is a common problem throughout Wikipedia). There may be other problems as well since some people with virtually no education on the topic (or English history) appear to have made substantial changes and contributions to this article. A rewrite is something some other editors should consider undertaking. Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Some messages from our buddies The Bots

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geoffrey Chaucer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525064107/http://www.cts.dmu.ac.uk/Caxtons/ to http://www.cts.dmu.ac.uk/Caxtons/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geoffrey Chaucer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031075730/http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg076.htm to http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg076.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111220719/http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg077.htm to http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg077.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111220744/http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg079.htm to http://www.uwm.edu/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg079.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems with Printed Editions

This section in particular cites very few sources and seems unnecessarily opinionated. It's also somewhat bloated and repetitive, for example repeating Foxe's claim that Chaucer was "a right Wicklevian" twice. It appears to be making the case that the Protestant and "neo-Marxist" interpretation of Chaucer is entirely erroneous, at one point even calling this "the myth of the Protestant Chaucer" and dismissing the idea that "Chaucer supported a religious movement that didn't exist until more than a century after his death," which isn't an argument I'm aware of anyone (even Foxe) having made. It's entirely arguable that the false attribution of works like Piers Plowman and the Testament of Love to Chaucer contributed to the belief that Chaucer was a Lollard, but it does nothing to refute the idea that Chaucer was "hostile to Catholicism", which most modern scholars would infer from The Canterbury Tales. I think it could use some cleaning up. That's all, Sarathiel (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This is bloated and jumbled. There is far too much here about Protestantism and Foxe - while the article has very little about more recent scholarship. Also why is "Printed editions" placed under "Critical reception"? And why is the discussion of Protestantism placed under "Printed editions"? This needs to be reorganised. And, yes, uncited opinions should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Later Life

Under this heading the article reads: "In September 1390, records say that Chaucer was robbed and possibly injured while conducting the business, and he stopped working in this capacity on 17 June 1391."

There is no clear referent for "this business" or "this capacity." Does this refer to the earlier mentioned role as clerk of the king's works mentioned in the previous section or something else? I don't know enough about Chaucer's life to guess and at any rate it's unclear. Can an editor more knowledgeable than I please clarify the text? Many thanks in advance. History Lunatic (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)History Lunatic

The meaning of "Chaucer"

Regarding the meaning of the surname, it's good to have the reference to the Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland. However, the correct meaning of chaucier was already established by Gustav Fransson, Middle English surnames of occupation 1100-1350 (Lund: 1935) p.115. Maybe this could be cited as well? (It's pretty poor scholarship that the modern biographies of Chaucer keep repeating the faulty 'shoe-maker' etymology.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.169.126 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Chaucer belong to which century

Chaucer belong to which century 2401:4900:3A65:679B:6BD8:7C29:6007:8FDE (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Chaucer and rape

He was mentioned in law papers of 4 May 1380, involved in the raptus (rape or seizure) of Cecilia Chaumpaigne. What was meant is unclear, but the incident seems to have been resolved quickly with an exchange of money in June 1380 and did not leave a stain on Chaucer's reputation. His won attitude may be seen in two of his stories:

• 1) In the Reeves tale a student takes revenge on a theiving miller by raping the Miller daugther=an experience he has a good laugh about.
• 2) In the Wife of baths tale a squire rapes a milkmaid and escapes execution only because he acknowledges to a fairy woman tht men should b esubject to their wives.

References

This section will need revision in the light of the emergence of new documentary evidence, showing that "raptus" referred to a labour dispute: the allegation that Chaumpaigne was enticed away by Chaucer from her prior employment by Thomas Staundon. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/books/geoffrey-chaucer-rape-charge.html Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Cecily Chaumpaigne

Big new paper on this based on new documentary research. Apparently the lawsuit was actually not about rape, but whether or not Chaucer persuaded Chaumpaigne to leave her previous employer to work for him-Chaumpaigne and Chaucer argued she'd left that job before starting work for him. Blythwood (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we ought to incorporate this new paper into the article. I would favor using the Chaucer Review paper (which is currently open access) as a source, rather than the press coverage of the story, such as the New York Times or Telegraph articles. I would just need to find a version with page numbers to make sure we're providing as-accurate-as-possible citations.

A couple of stray thoughts: @CH Ahens: reverted @BrEdWhite:'s attempt to change the article to reflect the new paper, and I think there are couple of problems with both versions that we should discuss. The version CH Ahens reverted to uses Waymack's "De raptu meo" blog as a source, which is very explicitly a compilation of WP:PRIMARY sources without any secondary-source-level interpretation, and the "(rape or seizure)" is problematic because it doesn't properly gloss the full meaning of "raptus" which can include kidnapping or, according to the new paper, poaching someone else's employee at a higher wage. At the same time, BrEdWhite's seems to lean a bit into WP:RECENTISM. I don't know if we need the "In 2022, further documents were discovered..." bit. Maybe a historiographic footnote at the end of the sentences about Chaumpaigne would serve better; after all, Champagne's alleged rape has appeared in 150 years of biographical sketches of Chaucer and is one of the pillars of feminist Chaucer criticism of the 1990s through early 2020s. Sorry for the wall of text. Thoughts? CoatGuy2 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Even the reference to the matter being "resolved quickly with an exchange of money" is unfounded. Here is a link to the Chaucer Review special issue [3] Thomas Peardew (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"The firste fyndere"

Could someone add some context and a translation to the sentence "The firste fyndere of our fair langage"? The term doesn't even exist in Wiktionary. Is there even a reason to include the original Middle English instead of just translating it to modern English? 130.208.182.103 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's from Thomas Hoccleve, and "fyndere" is a Middle English equivalent of "founder". https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/brief_history_english_language Thomas Peardew (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I see there is some scholarly discussion about this. Apparently the description is fairly technical and has confused many [4][5]. I tried to summarize these sources but perhaps someone else can find a better way to word this. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)