Chapter 2

John Legge, who is on the lists as an esquire, but in the Patent Rolls is referred to chiefly as a sergeant at arms, was, according to H. T. Riley, son of Thomas Legge, mayor of London in 1347 and 1354. [Footnote 11: Memorials, P. 450.] Robert Louth was evidently derived from a Hertfordshire family. A Robert de Louth was custodian of the castle of Hertford and supervisor of the city of Hertford in 32 Edward III [Footnote: Cal. Rot. Pat. Turr. Lon., p. 169 b.] and between 1381 and 1385 was Justice of the Peace for Hertford. [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll index.] Probably Robert de Louth was a younger son, for John, son and heir of Sir Roger de Louthe (in 44 Edward III) deeded land in Hertfordshire to Robert de Louthe, esquire, his uncle. [Footnote: Ancient Deeds, D 4213.]

John de Romesey comes of an eminent Southampton family of the town of Romsey [Footnote: Woodward, Wilks, Lockhart, History of Nottinghamshire. vol. 1. p. 352.] which can be traced back as far as 1228, when Walter of Romsey was sheriff of Hampshire. His pedigree is given as follows by Hoare: [Footnote: History of Wilts, vol. 3, Hundred of Oawdon, p. 23.]

Walter de Romesey 34 Edward I. | Walter de Romesey 23 Edward III = Joan | John de Romesey = Margaret d. and (Co. Somerset) heir of...?

Hugh Strelley was a member of the family of Strelley (Straule) of Nottingham and Derby. From the fact that his name does not occur in the pedigree given in Thoroton's History of Nottinghamshire [Footenote: Vol. 2, p. 220.] and that he held lands of Nicholas de Strelley by the fourth part of a knight's fee, [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll, 1892, p. 56.] it is clear that he belonged to a subordinate branch of the family. Further, he was even a younger son of this secondary stock, for, as brother and heir of Philip de Strelley, son and heir of William de Strelley, he inherited lands in 47 Edward III. [Footnote: C. R. 211, Mem. 38.]

Gilbert Talbot was second, son of Sir John Talbot of Richard's Castle in Herefordshire. [Footnote: Cf. Nicolas: Scrope-Grosvenor Roll, vol. 2, p. 397.]

Hugh Wake may be the Hugh Wake who married Joan de Wolverton and whom Lipscombe connects with the lordly family of Wake of Buckinghamshire. [Footnote: Lipscombe's Buckinghamshire, vol. 4, p. 126. He is quite wrong as to the date of this Hugo's death. Cf. Close Rolls, 1861, pp. 228-9 which show that Hugh was living at this date.]

These eighteen or nineteen esquires, then, are the only ones in the long lists whose family connections I have been able to trace. Certain others--as for example the various Cheynes, Hugh, Roger, Thomas, John and William, Robert la Souche, Simon de Burgh and Geoffrey Stucle--may have been derived from noble families of their name. In that case, however, they were certainly not in the direct line of descent, for their names do not appear in the pedigree of those families. On the other hand many of the names would seem to indicate that their possessors came from obscure families. In several cases, for example, esquires practically gave up their own names and were called by occupational names. So the Richard des Armes of the records was probably "Richard de Careswell vadlet del armes" [Footnote: Exchequer K. R. Accts. 392, 15.] who had charge of the king's personal armour. Reynold Barbour is once called Reynold le Barber. [Footnote: Issues P. 220 (32 Edw. III).] Roger Ferrour was one of the king's shoe-smiths, [Footnote: 1378 Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 158.] and his personal name was Roger Bonyngton. [Footnote: Rich. II, Cal. Pat. Roll, p. 597.] Robert Larderer is never mentioned in the records, but Robert Maghfeld, called king's larderer, is mentioned. [Footnote: Issues P. 222, mem. 21. Devon's Issues 1370, p. 22, p. 34.] Richard Waffrer occurs on the records (although the name occurs three times in the household lists), but Richard Markham, wafferer, occurs frequently. [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 179.] Richard Leche, called king's surgeon, [Footnote: Edw. III. Issues P. 230, mem. unnumbered.] was probably identical with Richard Irlonde, king's surgeon. [Footnote: Devon's Issues 1370, pp. 103, 333.] John Leche also was king's surgeon, but I have found mention of him under no other name. [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 178; 1383, p. 283.] Robert Vynour was vine-keeper or gardener to Edward III. [Footnote: Devon's Issues 1370, p. 115.] Certain of the other names, though apparently family names, seem to be of occupational or place origin, e. g. Thomas Spigurnel, Simon de Bukenham, John de Beverle, Henricus Almannia, Cornelius de Ybernia, William de York, etc. Finally some names by their very character could scarcely be the names of noble families, e. g. Walter Whithors, Walter Chippenham, John Cat, etc.

From what I have been able to find out about the families of some of these men, from the character of the names, and from the fact that the families of the great bulk of the esquires cannot be traced, it is clear that the esquires of the king's household were chiefly recruited either from the younger sons of knightly families, or from quite undistinguished stock. In three cases--those of John Legge, Thomas Hauteyn and Thomas Frowyk--it seems probable that they came--as Chaucer did--from merchants' families in London.

APPOINTMENT

We can scarcely expect any outright statement of the reasons in general or in particular for the appointment of esquires. Nevertheless I find two circumstances which may indicate the conditions of appointment; first, some previous connection of their fathers with the king's court, and second, some previous connection on their own part with the household of one of the king's children. Of those whose fathers or relatives had been in the court, may be mentioned John Beauchamp, [Footnote: Cf. p. 6, supra.] Patrick Byker, [Footnote: p. 6.] Nicholas Careu, [Footnote: p. 6.] Robert Corby, [Footnote: p. 7.] Collard Dabriohecourt, [Footnote: p. 7.] Robert de Ferrers, [Footnote: p. 8.] and William Burele [Footnote: Gal. Pat. Roll, 1378, p. 283.] (who was son of the Sir John de Burley with whom Chaucer was associated on one mission). Of course John Legge's father--as mayor of London--must have been known at court, and one of Thomas Hauteyn's progenitors had been receiver of king's customs at London. [Footnote: of. p. 9, supra.]

Even more interesting is the case of those esquires who before entering the king's service had been in the household of one of his children, i. e. Edward the Black Prince, Lionel, duke of Clarence (or his wife), John of Gaunt, Isabella, wife of Ingelram de Coucy, and Edmund, Count of Cambridge. Roger Archer, Griffith de la Chambre, Henry de Almaigne and Richard Torperle seem to have been in the service of Isabella, the king's daughter, for, in the grants of annuities which they received, special mention is made of their service to her. [Footnote: Issues P. 241, mem. ll. p. 239, mem. 15. p. 301, mem,] Possibly they were always in her service. Stephen Romylowe is expressly called esquire of Edward prince of Wales (the Black Prince), and he held an annuity from that prince. [Footnote: Pat. Roll 272, mem. 22, 285 mem. 25. 10 Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 197, 1385, p. 26.] Richard Wirle signed an indenture to serve John of Gaunt as an esquire in 46 Edward III, after the date at which he is mentioned in the household books. [Footnote: Duchy of Lancaster Registers No. 13. f. 125 dorso.] Since he seems never to have received an annuity from the king, or a grant--except in one instance for his wages in the wars--it seems likely that he was never actually in the king's service, but rather in that, of John of Gaunt. Robert Ursewyk was connected in some way with John of Gaunt and also with Edmund, Count of Cambridge, son of Edward III. [Footnote: idem f. 94. Pat. Roll, 274, mem. 29.] Roger Mareschall, John Joce and Robert Bardolf held annuities of twenty pounds each per annum from Lionel Duke of Clarence [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Boll 1383, p. 326.] and so were probably at one time in his service. Finally the most interesting case of all is that of Geoffrey Stucle, whose career and employments curiously parallel Chaucer's and who in 29 Edward III was valet to Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster. [Footnote: Issues, P. 212, mem, 22, 27.]

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 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, 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. 21, 279, mem. 5, 273 mem. 15, 355, mem. 8, Issues, p. 207, mem. 4, p. 217, mem. 29, etc.] I have noted thirty-five other references to men in the same classification with the title "vallettus." [Footnote: Pat. Roll 276, mem. 4 Issues P. 237, Pat. Roll 265, mem. 14, 266, mem. 9, idem, mem. 47, etc.] 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." [Footnote: 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.] 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.

SERVICES

With regard to the services which the Household Books prescribe for the esquires, I shall say nothing. In the public records, however, I have found special services to which the individual esquires were assigned. In the first place certain of these men--even those who appear in the list of 1368 as "esquiers," and in that of 1369 as "esquiers de greindre estat," or "esquiers de meindre degree"--performed special functions of a character which makes it seem unlikely that they ever did the service which the Household Books required of an esquire of the king's household. In the list of 1368, for example, Esmon Rose was custodian of the great horses of the king [Footnote: Issues, P. 216, mem. 18.], Hugh Lyngeyn was a buyer of the household [Footnote: Pat. Roll 1384, p. 435.], Nicholas Prage was first king's minstrel, and later serjeant at arms, [Footnote: Issues, P. 228, mem. 24, 36 Edw. III, P. 273, mem. 11, 50 Edw. III.] Simond de Bokenham was chief serjeant of the larder [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 165.], and John Legge was serjeant at arms [Footnote: Rymer III, 2,891.].

Secondly, certain of the esquires held special offices in the king's chamber. John Herlyng and Walter Walsh were ushers of the king's chamber [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1378, p. 133, idem p. 150.]. John de Beauchamp was keeper of the king's jewels or receiver of the king's chamber for some years up to 11 Richard II [Footnote: Cal. Pat. Roll 1384, p. 488.]; then for a short time he was Seneschall (steward) of the king's household [Footnote: Issues, P. 316, mem. 2.].