Talk:Geoffrey Chaucer

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[1], 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 I would add that the source cited here, the 19th-century English professor and editor Henry Morley, is very much out of date.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. 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 pace on "raptus" has a comprehensive list. 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 £10 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".