believed Oxford or Berkſhire to have given birth to this great man, but has not informed us what thoſe reaſons were that induced him to believe ſo, and at preſent there appears no other, but that the feats of his family were in thoſe countries. Pitts poſitively aſſerts, without producing any authority to ſupport it, that Woodſtock was the place; which opinion Mr. Camden ſeems to hint at, where he mentions that town; but it may be ſuſpected that Pitts had no other ground for the aſſertion, than Chaucer's mentioning Woodſtock park in his works, and having a houſe there. But after all theſe different pretenſions, he himſelf, in the Teſtament of Love, ſeems to point out the place of his nativity to be the city of London, and tho' Mr. Camden mentions the claim of Woodſtock, he does not give much credit to it; for ſpeaking of Spencer (who was uncontrovertedly born in London) he calls him fellow citizen to Chaucer.
The deſcent of Chaucer is as uncertain, and unfixed by the critics, as the place of his birth. Mr. Speight is of opinion, that one Richard Chaucer was his father, and that one Elizabeth Chaucer, a nun of St. Helen's, in the ſecond year of Richard II. might have been his ſiſter, or of his kindred. But this conjecture, ſays Urry,[1] ſeems very improbable; for this Richard was a vintner, living at the corner of Kirton-lane, and at his death left his houſe, tavern; and ſtock to the church of St. Mary Aldermary, which in all probability he would not have done if he had had any ſons to poſſeſs his fortune; nor is it very likely he could enjoy the family eſtates mentioned by Leland in Oxfordſhire, and at the ſame time follow ſuch an occupation. Pitts aſſerts, that his father was a knight; but tho' there is no authority to ſupport this aſſertion, yet it is rea-
- ↑ Life of Chaucer prefixed to Ogle's edition of that author modernized.
ſonable
